Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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.
It seems hard to find an elaborately referenced and discussed topic about the "favor bank". Most students never heard about it and thinks of it as a financial institution instead of a philosophical idea. It will be helpful for them to learn about it existence, how it affects daily life and its potential for one to be successful if harnessed to one's advantage.
Hi, first please don't indent with spaces(it creates a visual error that I corrected for you) and it helps to always sign your posts with ~~~~ so that we are better able to be clear on who is posting what and how to message you if need be. Your question is better suited for the helpdesk & if you chose to move it you may have a greater diversity of response. To answer your concerns which seem to be asking about why we have no article under that term, you may find Misplaced Pages:Your first article, Reliable Sources and Notability useful. ⧐ Diamond Way01:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there a website that shows the census 2011 for Scotland, especially its cities Glasgow and Edinburgh and their ridings in the House of Commons? I am trying to find out how many Muslims and Bangladeshis live in those cities and their ridings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.104.161 (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, the term is unknown in Britain, except for the historic divisions of the county of Yorkshire. I immediately assumed that the questionner was from Canada. --ColinFine (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The homepage for the census is here, and this page gives you details of what figures have so far been released. I think what you are saying is that you want ethnicity in UK parliamentary constituencies, and that would be in Table KS201SC, in Release 2A. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, I don't think that's the OP's problem. Release 2A actually only contains the details for the Scotland, council area and health board areas (according to the older prospectus and page 6 of latest prospectus ). According to the both the older prospectus, and the later one, you will need to wait on November 14 (per page 6) for release 2B for all geographies and it will contain details for both religion and ethnicity. If I understand annex B (page 17) correctly, UK parliamentary constituencies is one of the geographies that will be provided although it will possibly only be available on the website initially with tables not being made available until disclosure control testing is complete. I would have thought that the online result stuff carries the same risks but perhaps the data is more limited. Either way I'm presuming it will be here once released . I guess Itsmejudith must not have noticed the limited geographies but I would have thought that after so many questions, the OP could have learnt this themselves from the data provided once they found the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Quote on master/slave relations in pre-civil-war US
I do distinctly remember reading about a New England woman visiting the Southern states (certainly before the civil war, but possibly as far back as the founding father era), commenting on the number of mixed-race children, and observing that "every lady seems to know who the father of all the mulatto children on the surrounding plantations is, but is totally impervious to the going-on in her own household" (or words to that effect). I tried to locate the quote, but my Google-fu has failed me. Does the description ring anybody's bell? I'd be thankful for a reference or source! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It's from the diary of Mary Boykin Chesnut, subsequently published as A Diary from Dixie and Mary Chesnut's Civil War, in an entry from March 1861 (so only just barely before the Civil War): "Like the patriarchs of old, our men live all in one house with their wives and their concubines; and the mulattoes one sees in every family partly resemble the white children. Any lady is ready to tell you who is the father of all the mulatto children in everybody's household but her own. Those, she seems to think, drop from the clouds." Chesnut was a Southerner, not a New England woman. John M Baker (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You might also be interested in Charles Dickens' 'American Notes', which devotes a relatively lengthy section to the cruelty and hypocrisy of slavery. The work itself is quite short and available online at Project Guttenburg.
Advent and Christmastide
When is the best time during Advent and Christmastide to listen to (and possibly sing to) Christmas carols in the churches? Does Christmas caroling occur before or after the Christmas season? I am just wondering, because "period immediately surrounding the holiday" on Christmas carol does not seem to be very helpful. I am not sure if that is supposed to mean the time period around the holiday season or within the holiday season. What special things do churches do during this time of year? And which holiday is more significant to practicing Christians - Advent+Christmastide or Lent+Eastertide? 164.107.146.249 (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It depends on what denomination you are speaking of, so really there are many "right" answers to this especially the date it begins. In my experience there is no major denomination that sings or listens to carols in any type of group after the week of Christmas, though many cities/churches/malls do leave decorations up until after New Years. Also retailers have traditionally started with Christmas celebrations including caroling right after Thanksgiving in the U.S. (last Thursday in November).
In the US now they are starting the X-mas sales before Thanksgiving, and the result is that everyone is quite sick of X-mas by the time it arrives, so carols would be annoying even the day after. StuRat (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
More and more it's even before Halloween. But the real blitz starts on the Friday after Thanksgiving. FDR was ridiculed for trying to move Thanksgiving up, but he was on the right track. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 15:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm an unrepentant heathen but have quite a bit of experience of Advent and Christmas church music in the Church of England at least, via choirs. Christmas music tends to start with a special service of lessons and carols (and/or Advent hymns) on the first Sunday of Advent. Successive Sundays see more Advent hymns and certain carols - the two sets are distinct, but the boundary is quite blurred - with carols mainly sung on or immediately around the Christmas holiday dates themselves. Certain carols are identified with certain days: Good King Wenceslas, for example, is a Boxing Day carol. One of the best opportunities to listen to carols, and to sing them in church, is at a service of Nine Lessons and Carols. Many churches hold such a service on on close before Christmas Eve, mirroring the famous one broadcast live from King's College, Cambridge chapel on the afternoon of every Christmas Eve, and it's a more spectacular affair musically than ordinary services. Some hymns or carols, or verses of them, in these services may be performed by the choir, but there is always plenty of congregational singing too. - Karenjc(talk)16:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Now, I have some follow-up questions. Since you describe yourself as an "unrepentant heathen", would that be a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral and meaningless thing? Did you used to sing in the choir as an "unrepentant heathen"? How come you didn't describe foot-washing? Does foot-washing only occur during Eastertide and not Christmastide? Do all the congregants have their feet washed, or do only the chosen congregants get their feet washed? What is the difference between Advent hymns and certain carols? Is the choir singing separated from the lay singing, or are they joined together into one? 164.107.103.176 (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
1It's fine by me. 2 Still do - not a church choir, just a choir that regularly performs in churches around Christmas. 3/4/5 No idea, sorry. 6 Christmas carol notes the (often blurry) distinction between carols and other songs associated with Christmas, including secular ones. Roughly speaking, Advent hymns address the idea "Jesus is on his way" rather than " This is about part of the Christmas story" or "Jesus is born", which characterise many carols. We Three Kings is unequivocally a carol, as is O Come, All Ye Faithful. O come, O come, Emmanuel and s:Lo, He Comes with Clouds Descending are good examples of Advent hymns. 7 The choir sits in the choir stalls. Hymns that are sung only by the choir are marked in the printed order of service, so the congregation knows when to participate. - Karenjc(talk)19:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
For Christmas carols in church service itself, you will generally be talking about Protestant churches and mainly in the 4 Sundays before Christmas, Christmas eve, and Christmas day. For Catholic churches there is liturgical music for the Christmas season which extends somewhat until Epiphany (January 6) and even Candlemas on February 2. Eastern Orthodox Christmas isn't until January 7. Rmhermen (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about the Armenian, Greek, Coptic, Ukrainian etc Orthodox Churches. The Russian Orthodox Church, in which I was married and my sons are baptised, uses the Gregorian for general dating purposes such as telling their flock on what date Russian Easter is on each year, and dating marriages and baptisms etc - but they calculate the date of Easter using something that is definitely not the Gregorian calendar but also not quite the Julian calendar. As I understand it, it's the Julian but with an ecclesiastic tweak. Also, their formula for working out the date of Easter is a little different from the western one. The net result is that Russian and western Easters sometimes coincide, but more often than not don't. As for Christmas, it has always been 25 December in their calendar just like ours, and under the Gregorian with the current 13-day gap, that works out to be 7 January. But they also call it 7 January, not 25 December, because, as I say, they use the Gregorian calendar for communication with the rest of the world including their flock, which can be really confusing. So, when Russians tell you they celebrate Christmas on a different day than 25 December, that is both true and not true. -- Jack of Oz21:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the ones trying to reach a secular audience. "Rudolph" is an old standard. Now, if a church were to sing Weird Al's "Christmas at Ground Zero" or Eddie C. Campbell's "Santa's Messin' With the Kid", that would be impressive. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 02:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Catholic churches usually sing three hymns per mass. I don't know what the rules are, we did sing Cat Steven's Morning Has Broken back in the 70's for a while. (I kind of wish we had Amazing Grace, but we never did.) We sang Silent Night, O Holy Night, and Adeste Fideles at Christmas time--they have obvious religious themes. Rudolph is entirely pagan (See Sleipnir, the eight-legged steed that carries Odin through the sky) and I assumed it was clear I was joshing the Protestants here. Instead I know they worship bibles, get drunk on Welches, and deny that crackers on Sunday are nutritious. In any case, here's a link to an exquisite carol that shows why atheism is ultimately barren in comparison to religious expression: Johnny Mathis, O Holy Night. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
TammyMoet, I applaud your efforts to lessen the use of "sectarian" terms here but on this page alone you have bigger fish to fry with other responses in other posts. The downside of being anti-"sectarian" is that you prove how sectarian your own views are when you fail to speak on more obvious faux pas way above and below this topic. I applaud your effort just not its application. ⧐ Diamond Way15:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I obviously didn't notice them. I do try not to be sectarian myself, but having been brought up in an Anglican country and indoctrinated from an early age, it's difficult to overcome. Accordingly, if you could help me by pointing out what I've missed I can then revise my thinking. Thank you.--TammyMoet (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Since you have expressed interest, instances such as hoping"we all can dream" for "suicide" below and accusations above of "wilfully misunderstanding" because of citing the existence a Misplaced Pages page, accusations of being the "only one" (when just 2 are typing the views, so lonely I guess) and of "incompetence" or being a "joke" for referencing a wikipedia page that apparently crosses a dogma. Labeling certain views by repeatedly using a crude sexual act or as a "cancer" seems to be a regular favorite as well on here lately. Every editor can stand on their own so this is simply answering your follow up query, but as I said before the sectarianism is not lacking just the communities comments encouraging free expression of viewpoints may. ⧐ Diamond Way17:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I hope you do understand, Tammy, the silly portion of my comments (basically everything outside mentioning the three traditional carols and the origin of Santa in Odin) was meant in jest. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
this might shed light on the thinking of Tammy's contribution here: STFU means what? I have subsequently revised my mistaken WP:AGF, or should I say it was removed for me. ⧐ Diamond Way19:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't think that was necessary when a pixel size was specified. I certainly never would have figured that out. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
East african nations Ismaili nizari population
Which East African nations had the largest population of Ismaili nizaris, regardless they were of Indian and Pakistani origins before they left those nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.104.161 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Succession of the U.S. Speaker of the House
Given the current impasse on the United States debt ceiling, I have to wonder: is there any contingency plan for what happens if the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives becomes unable to fulfill his duties ? Would there be any way to pass a measure to avoid the crisis without the chamber first sitting down and spending days, even weeks in default while having a big power struggle between the leading Republicans? Is there a way to nominate a "Speaker pro tempore" for an interim period, or to do things without one? Wnt (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Suicide is a little extreme. Resignation is not beyond the realm of possibility. He's actually trying to manage at least two severely different factions in his own party right now. That's why he can't hold an up-or-down vote on anything - because the Dems and the reasonable GOPs would defeat the teabaggers. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 21:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
What is your fucking problem Bugs? Can you not refrain from your obscenity? It's really deranged, your obsession with homosexual fetishes. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it really plurality vote? The article describes several impasses from a century ago that were resolved by plurality vote, but only by some kind of agreement after they failed to get majority. Has that been changed? Wnt (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I was wrong, the House site says absolute majority here. In any case, that simply means a rump plus the other party will elect the speaker. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, voting with another party to organize the house is generally considered tantamount to changing parties. It's the one non-negotiable party-line issue in our legislative tradition. --Trovatore (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, the point is, they gotta pick somebody to have a vote, let alone get a majority. Is there any off-the-shelf plan that just in case, so-and-so is the next shoo-in, or will it take a lot of time to decide who the front running candidates are? Wnt (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
According to the House website: "Longest election for Speaker: After more than two months and 133 ballots, Nathaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts was elected Speaker on February 2, 1856." Note this was directly before the Civil War. Note also that having to raise the debt ceiling on an emergency basis is caused by months, if not years of irresponsible action by the legislature and failure to pass a balanced budget, or any budget at all. It's kind of like worrying what will happen to a self-induced diabetic who is too sick to get to the hospital for a kidney transplant. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
non-allowed "chatroom", "heated debate", "skew"ed responses etc. per:Ref Guidelines
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We were actually running a surplus at the end of the Clinton years. The Republican monolith during the 2000s put deficit spending through the roof, only they didn't get concerned about it until a black Democrat got elected president. As someone was saying on the radio just a little bit ago, even during some of the shutdowns during the Reagan years, Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill met on a daily basis, as they put the nation's interests ahead of petty politics. Those days are long gone. The tea party, a small minority, is running the House, and no progress can be made because the Speaker (who is incompetent and should resign) is afraid to have "the people", i.e. the full House, vote on anything unless he thinks the reasonable Republicans + the teabaggers will win. And the dirty little secret is that, despite what Romney and his kind kept saying last year, government spending does fuel the economy and does create jobs. The economy is slowly improving, despite tea party attempts to cause as much damage as they can. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 21:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Once again, what is your problem, Bugs? Why do you think it appropriate or helpful to use a term of derision associated with gay sex to describe your political opponents? Is using anti-gay slurs your idea of being a liberal? Don't give me any bee ess about what the tea party would "do" to me. You haven't got a single source ascribing an anti-gay platform to any tea party group. Neither do you have any source that shows any tea party group calls itself the term you insist on using. This is incredibly juvenile and offensive. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not about gay sex, it's orientation-neutral. Nor is it an anti-gay slur. And the term did originate with the tea party, and the media jumped on it, as they often do about anything unusual. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 01:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.
I am in general restating what editorialists have said. They are more likely to "wound" the House Speaker than is anybody who's writing here. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 14:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Community tolerating homophobic language now? Or we just tolerate: "is there any contingency plan for what happens if the becomes unable to fulfill his duties, whether by a medical accident, a terrorist attack, or (we all can dream) suicide?" OP and Bugs where do we get the application to use ad hominems with impunity? ⧐ Diamond Way00:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The term "teabagging" has no connection to homophobia. And it's nowhere near as offensive BLP-wise as is the term "santorum". I'll let you do the research on those things while I go get some Pepto-Bismol. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 01:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of ad hominem, the term "santorum" is a hundred times more offensive than "teabagger". Until you've expunged that gross BLP violation from Misplaced Pages, keep your complaints about my terminology to yourself. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 16:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
See "Speaker pro tem of the House of Representatives" on Google - this is the person who acts as the Speaker when that person is not present. Collect (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
These are useful links, but I'm still confused. According to Ballotpedia, "Speakers pro tem" are appointed by the House Speaker, and according to another page one person can "frequently" serve as Speaker pro tempore. I get the feeling then that this is a very temporary thing done by the Speaker while he is away - which leaves me wondering if there is anyone "on tap" to take up the role should he become abruptly incapacitated, or any way to appoint one in that circumstance. Wnt (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The "frequently" serving part may simply be a rotation perk of when a Speaker wants to use a carrot or stick with certain powerful committee chairmen or members, all those serving would probably be in the top 5 or 10 of the controlling party. When Speaker Rayburn passed in 1961 it basically all boiled down to a cliquish, power-leveraging popularity contest that even President Kennedy had some influence over (his party controlled the House at the time), see more here.
Given that the Speakers position is not "termed" per se but he/she can be voted out of power at any time by a coalition, clear concise & understandable succession may be intentionally left ambiguous. It would give pause to any would be usurper in the Speaker's party knowing that if you step out of line and revolt you may not in fact be elected the new Speaker. A clear line of succession within House leadership could be seen as inviting no-confidence votes if everyone knew exactly where they would stand after the dust fell. ⧐ Diamond Way19:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
October 5
French-Speaking Black/Sub-Saharan African Countries Being More Pro-Homosexuality Than Their (African) Neighbors
If you look at this map on the left and compare it with this map on the right, you will see a pretty interesting correlation between the fact that in contrast to most other African countries, most French-speaking (Black/Sub-Saharan) African countries (regardless of whether they are majority-Christian or majority-Muslim) don't have any anti-gay laws at all (of course, they also don't have any pro-gay laws, but they appear to be more pro-gay than most other African countries). This is even more true for Black/Sub-Saharan countries which were (already) under French rule/control in 1913 (right before World War I began). Even the French Black/Sub-Saharan African countries which were under German control/rule right before World War I but came under French rule/control right after World War I ended are more anti-gay than the Black/Sub-Saharan African countries which were under French control/rule (even) before World War I began. Is this fact/observation simply a coincidence or is there something more behind this extremely interesting correlation? For instance, did (previous) French and Belgian imperialism in these areas teach these African countries to treat gay people better than their African neighbors? Or, for instance, was there less anti-gay preaching and evangelism in these countries in decent decades? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice finds on the maps! I see that sub-Saharan former English and German colonies seem to be equal or greater in rights as the former French colonies. Looking at the map I suspect this has more to do with colonial religion when contrasted with the present reach of Islam rather than which ethnic group colonized each nation. ⧐ Diamond Way00:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by greater in rights? The former English and German Black/Sub-Saharan African colonies are more anti-gay than the former French Black/Sub-Saharan African colonies. Also, in regards to Islam, this would be inaccurate, since the former French Sub-Saharan African colonies of Niger, Mali, Chad, Djibouti, Burkina Faso, et cetera are Muslim-majority and yet do not have anti-gay laws. In contrast, the former non-French Sub-Saharan African colonies of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, southern Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia, et cetera are all Christian-majority and yet all of them have anti-gay laws. Thus, my point about how former French Sub-Saharan African colonies (regardless of their religion) are more pro-gay than former non-French Sub-Saharan African colonies still stands. Futurist110 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
A map of Africa in 1913.
It's quite incredible and amazing. If a Sub-Saharan African country was under French rule/control in 1913 (right before World War I began; see map), it would be very unlikely to have anti-gay laws today. In contrast, if a Sub-Saharan African country was under non-French (British, German, Italian, and even Portuguese) rule in 1913, then it would be likely or even very likely to have anti-gay laws today. Futurist110 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Mauritania is an exception to this rule (and I'm not even sure if it is considered Black). Look at all of the other Sub-Saharan African countries which were French colonies in 1913. Futurist110 (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Sub-Saharan Africa.
Here is some more detailed data:
Sub-Saharan, French colony in 1913, currently has anti-gay laws: Mauritania, Senegal, and Guinea (3 countries).
Sub-Saharan, French colony in 1913, currently does not have anti-gay laws: All other Sub-Saharan African countries which were French colonies in 1913 (11 countries).
Sub-Saharan, not a French colony in 1913, currently does not have anti-gay laws: Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, and South Africa (5 countries).
Sub-Saharan, not a French colony in 1913, currently has anti-gay laws: All other Sub-Saharan African countries which were not French colonies in 1913 (25 countries).
I excluded small island countries in my data here. Someone can double-check my calculations, but even if I made an error or two somewhere in my calculations, my overall point here still strongly stands. Futurist110 (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
If my data here is correct, 3/11, or 27%, of France's 1913 Sub-Saharan African colonies currently have anti-gay laws, while a whopping 25/30, or 83%, of Sub-Saharan African countries which were not French colonies in 1913 currently have anti-gay laws. 83% is more than three times larger/greater than 27% is, and there are many African countries who were and African countries who were not French colonies in 1913 (so it's hard to argue that the sample sizes here are too small). Oh, and here is a map of Sub-Saharan Africa. Futurist110 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I would be hesitant to interpret this as indicative of any social/cultural difference between Francophone and Anglophone Africa. Rather the difference would lie in the role of the judiciary, and the process of decolonization. Overall, gay rights is a non-issue in African politics. It plays out in places like Uganda and Zimbabwe, but only as a result of activities from Western pressure groups. In many places were anti-gay legislation exists, it's rarely enforced through the official legal system. The fact that many French-speaking countries don't have any explicit legislation against homosexuality is probably more related that they haven't seen the need for it (existence of homosexuality in African societies is often denied) than a sign of acceptance. --Soman (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
See LGBT rights in France. In 1791 no law was passed against it, so it remained legal. Not called the Age of Reason for nothing. As I recall, quite a few famous American expatriates sought freedom on this issue in France, but alas, I forget the details. Wnt (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I am going to agree with Soman, there may be some relation to encoding such laws but the effect with things like LGBT rights in Mali and LGBT rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have about an equal effect as those encoded in all the nations listed in yellow on your map.
Just as Alansplodge gave you an exception earlier to your Francophone thesis, the most glaring exception to your thesis is South Africa (the 4th most populous sub-Saharan), which by your map up above actually provides more rights than the majority of the United States and the majority of the world and yet was English and Dutch a century ago.
That doesn't mean that the French influence did not play a part in the current status but given the wikipedia articles on how those former colonies of France and Belgium are in effect the same as nations such as Namibia with the only difference being unenforced legal codes, the real effect of French/Belgium influence doesn't amount to much especially when confronted by South Africa's status as the only nation on the continent to embrace such rights. ⧐ Diamond Way14:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks like this whole topic needs some work, because Misplaced Pages's summaries may be misleading. For example, Congo is listed as one of the "legal" countries, and I see no reports that a 2010-2011 drive to pass a bill against it was successful, but when I look I find sources with bizarre statements like "A Congolese journalist Blaireou Kajam explained that there was no law against homosexuality, but it was a taboo and anyone found practicing homosexuality was immediately arrested and jailed for not less than three years." Supposedly they are so anti-gay that the hotels have a policy against letting two men share a room, which is a level of weird the U.S. never knew. Wnt (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
You will never be as smart as they. Whatever language the laws are written in is for the benefit of those who understand that particular language. Of course this will not appear in any French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.149.160 (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I presume from your source you're referring to the DRC. Our article LGBT rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo explains the situation. While there are no laws explicitly banning sex between people of the same sex, various more general laws are used to persecute those found. (This of course isn't uncommon, in fact even in countries where laws exist others laws may be used for a variety of reasons including for cases where it's no clear conduct violating the specific laws has taken place.) And it's perhaps worth remembering that some countries have very general provisions allowing people to be arrested and jailed without actually having clearly violated any law, so the idea that it's not against the law but people who do it are arrested and jailed isn't actually that contradictory.
And in many ways it's about more than laws. Consider for example that South Africa was the first country in the world to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation in their constitution and the fifth to allow same sex marriage, yet it's perhaps better to be LGB in a number of countries with discriminatory laws than in a number of communities and areas in South Africa LGBT rights in South Africa.
This is of course one of the problems with trying to summarise complicated situations so simply.
You get similar problems in other areas. For example the law in Malaysia on abortion is not that different from the law in New Zealand (Abortion in New Zealand). In fact in some ways the law in Malaysia is more tolerant as it only requires one doctor.
Yet the actual implementation is vastly different with the mental health provision very commonly used in NZ to the extent that some opposed to abortions say it's basically abortion on demand and those who want to liberalise the law aren't really that strong a voice probably because most people aren't that concerned, it's only really doctors who generally express significant concern. (And definitely I think many people who may want one don't really think it's difficult or likely to be against the law.) But as the links attest, the availability in Malaysia is far more limited, particularly from what I've heard in government hospitals, with as the source attesting private hospitals and clinics quietly offering abortions while taking advantage over the unavailability and confusion over the law. (The sources suggest it's improving a bit but the law has changed since 1989 and by comparison I don't think the situation in NZ is that different from 10 years ago. If anything it's perhaps gotten a little harder due to concerns from doctors.)
The time periods when homosexuality was decriminalized in various countries worldwide.
I think that you guys and ladies are correct in your analysis -- http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/258.pdf (this research (on page 35 of this link of mine) shows that certain French-speaking African countries (though I wish that more French-speaking African countries were surveyed here) have equally anti-gay views among their populations than certain non-French speaking African countries (as stated above, South Africa is a huge exception)). You are also correct that France and Belgium de-criminalized homosexuality in the 18th century, which was much sooner than even some other Western countries decriminalized homosexuality. If this map (which shows the de-criminalization of homosexuality worldwide) is correct, then it appears that most French and Belgian (which was led by Francophones until the 20th century) colonies appear to have simply "followed the lead" of their colonizing countries and never officially specifically criminalized homosexuality (while still enormously disapproving of it in many cases). Also, you guys and ladies might be correct that homosexual behaviour might be punished in at least some of these countries through the use of other, less specific laws (I suppose sort of how incest with minors was punished in France by less specific laws until 2010, when a more specific law in regards to this was written and passed). Thank you very much for all of your help in regards to answering this question of mine, everyone. I strongly appreciate it. Futurist110 (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Noise
Anecdotal evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to noise causes psychological damage. As in reports of victims of noisy neighbours committing criminals acts (brick through the window), becoming depressed and homicide and suicide. All these acts suggest being committed "when the balance of mind was upset". Out of all the knowledge of impaired pscyhological conditions, that psychologists/psychiatrists can identify (they can identify depression, PTSD, schizophrenia, etc) is there a known measure for identifying the psychological damage caused by long-term noise and that a given person is suffering from it. 31.25.4.14 (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
In the shorter term there is a lot of science about the Long Range Acoustic Device and other Sonic weapons. For more long term exposure you also have such phenomenon as the so-called "Suicide Song" of Gloomy Sunday that radio stations actually went to the extreme of banning it, there have been a lot of scientists that have studied these effects such as Vladimir Gavreau.
An additional curious way one can "go mad" with sound is the case of the Milgram experiment which had test subjects react to pre-recorded sounds and screams of pain followed by banging on walls of their "victim" for just $4/hour. There were a variety of emotions and psychological responses and effects on the test subjects from those experiments.
$4/hour? Cheap at half the price. I presume you mean 1/4 hour, unless maybe the test subjects were paid for being put through this gruelling experience? -- Jack of Oz20:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey JackofOz, on the article for Milgram Experiment there is an ad stating $4/hour (actually less than an hour), then again it was in the early 60s so we've progressed hopefully. ⧐ Diamond Way20:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I always progress hopefully. Some others merely hopefully progress. Others still hope to progress, and some of them actually achieve it. :) -- Jack of Oz20:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Noise is a type of psychological stress, and its effects have mostly been studied in that context -- the article summarizes them. The most important effects are an increase in emotional reactivity and difficulty sleeping. It's worth noting that many people with schizophrenia experience hallucinatory noise -- including hearing voices but also many other types of noise -- and the stress that induces is one of the most distressing aspects of the disease. Looie496 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Define "noise". At a ball game, the high-volume pop hits they play over the loudspeakers between innings are extraordinarily annoying, even though they are allegedly "music". ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 21:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Define noise? I was thinking of neighbour noise specifically. Continuous traffic noise; disco at high volume from 6pm in the evening to 6am in the morning, immediately below you; noise pest upstairs, continuously slamming doors, banging, clattering, dropping objects; loud music. Noise, 24/7, for, ah, 10 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Is that it? OK. I was a bit surprised at the interpretation of the Milgram experiment as testing response to noise. I thought that experiment was stimulated by the Nazi's at the Nuremburg Trials claiming - they were only following orders. The experiment was to see if ordinary people out of respect for authority would obey orders, even if they were outragous - like giving a life-threatening electric shock to someone with a heart complaint, for failing a laboratory word test. The majority of people followed orders. So, your conclusion is that out of all the knowledge of psychology/psychiatry, no-one has noticed a relationship between noise and pscyhological damage, either short or long term. OK. Thanks very much.
Who transforms gold scraps into gold bars, if at all?
What happens to the gold scraps being traded through pawn shops and the like? Does it get transformed into gold bar that can be traded as bullion in a regulated market? 15:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The simple answer to this is that anything the new buyer of "gold scraps" wishes to happen to it. Gold is like any other commodity on the marketplace, like sugar, brent crude oil or pork bellies so like those markets you do have "regulation" in the market but it has nothing to do with gold specifically--since at least the Democratic Party's Gold Reserve Act was truncated. I think part of what you are asking is if the price or state of gold is regulated . . . not officially but the market dictates what may be more useful for anyone buying or owning "gold scraps" in terms of both putting it on or taking it off "market" and whether to make it into gold bars. Gold bars simply being more efficient ways to trade or store larger quantities since they are all uniform weight and can be divided or combined into more easily marketable or accountable units. ⧐ Diamond Way16:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Some of it is made into jewelry, some into coins or gold bars. The big problem with gold bars is that they are extremely expensive -- a 10 lb bar, which is not very large at all, is worth a quarter of a million dollars. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
That is correct Looie496, but it wasn't always that way, again the only real regulation on gold both by cost and what form it is in is the market itself. ⧐ Diamond Way17:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
If gold is like any commodity, I still wonder where it gets transformed into a commodity. I know that for agriculture commodities you deliver your wheat or pork bellies to an regulated warehouse, where you get a warrant stating its specific characteristics and quantity. When people trade commodities, they trade these warrants and emit futures, or other financial product based on this. I wonder if there is a list of official banks (or whatever, I have no idea) that accept gold and emit warrants. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
It's all a commodity. See Wickard v. Filburn (a "regulation" that deems every piece subject to the largely self regulated market), even gold you may wear on your ring is a commodity that affects world prices (or at least interstate commerce), not to the same degree perhaps as stacks of bars but any gold (or anything else) in any form is legally (and in many schools-economically) a "financial product" as you put it. Also much of the "regulation" you speak of isn't about the market price (with "pork bellies" "warehouses" being inspected by the USDA etc.) The physical place gold changes form is usually a mint, private or public. ⧐ Diamond Way03:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep a commodity complete with cheats who try an make their money by selling tungsten bars coated with gold. Gold foundries are regulated but for a bar in the market it needs to be checked or bought from someone who'll guarantee it. Dmcq (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Re-reading some of the responses I see a point of potential confusion, technically speaking most everything is "regulated" by the U.S. Government and to my knowledge it is the same throughout the first-world and through the UN and NGOs in other parts of the world.
The point I tried to make above however with the Supreme Court Case is that there is no difference between a warehouse of say Pork Bellies and a pork belly in a can on your kitchen counter when it comes to effecting and being effected by the market pricing of demand and supply--same with gold and other commodities.
"Regulated" is omnipresent but largely irrelevant when asking about price or demand and supply, though government regulators may be the ones physically setting prices of some commodities, they rely on market forces (supply/demand) to set those prices. The government regulators may be the biggest single force in a market but they follow the tidal wave of a thousand or millions of individual whims effecting supply and demand.
In short the same gold traded by the billions in London or Hong Kong is effected and effects the price of gold in your cabinet at home, "regulations" on the commodity itself really isn't on the minds of commodity traders nor the people in your home using the gold except possibly just one of several "cost of doing business". ⧐ Diamond Way20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Dmcq is on the money, but User:Marketdiamond not. It's not about governments regulating prices. As said, everything that's bought and sold is a commodity. But some have an underlying standard and are traded in a commodities market. It doesn't matter if the pork belly in a kitchen is the same as the pork belly in an official warehouse. The former cannot be traded on a regulated market, contrary to the latter, which can. Fulfilling a standard makes it different. Compare trading shares of a limited company with trading shares of a corporation with shareholders on a stock market. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
OsmanRF34, lol you pull a quote from me just after you say I'm not "on the money" (As said, everything that's bought and sold is a commodity). Your conclusion later is correct, but is it relevant to what happens to a commodity at a pawn shop, and why it happens (my point about price & markets)?
I'd be cautious calling "on the money" a comment from another editor that starts with "a commodity complete with cheats", a bit hyperbolic, not limited to gold & potentially actionable. Interested in seeing a cite or 2 about "underlying standard" & how it may be different then what I mentioned that every commodity type has the same market price (and thus incentive for what a pawn shop or I may do with said commodity) in spite of its form. Is there an effective difference between the "underlying standard" & the spot price of gold aside from where the buy/sell takes place (one at say a regulated pawn shop the other at a regulated commodities market)? On that, your "cannot be traded on a regulated market, contrary to the latter, which can." & yet there are hundreds offering to buy my gold & pork bellies in my area all offering me market price + commission despite none of them or I being regulated/licensed nor having your "underlying standard" in the same way the actual market for these commodities are/do, both platforms dictating the same price & thus incentive/disincentive to "transform" it as OP asks.
Your "compare trading shares of a limited company with trading shares of a corporation with shareholders on a stock market." I see what your getting at, the contrast of 'privately held' & thus SEC & exchange "unregulated" (however a 'privately held' US limited company would still be "regulated" by the IRS, Attorney Generals office etc.) the larger point I was trying to clarify is public or private, SEC or just IRS/AG none of those "regulators" would effect the day to day price of the companies products (commodities) & thus a pawn shops incentive to "transform" its gold. The other important way this privately held/publicly traded comparison falls down is companies get listed on all types of exchanges (Amex, Nasdaq, Toronto etc.) all of which have different listing requirements, there is/was even the "pink sheets" where a "public corporation" can thumb its nose at all exchange listing requirements & trade without exchange & many SEC regulations (the equity equivalent of your "underlying standard"?), those "public corporations" then trade much like your private "limited compan" which actually do "trade" but unlike commodities all gold companies/corporations have their own & different price. Gold & pork bellies etc. don't lobby exchanges/work to meet listing requirements/play exchanges off each other to get listed, they trade on commodity boards that place them there by default.
Most importantly, commodities are complex & confusing enough & trade much differently than equities (your "limited company" & "trading shares of a corporation" examples) & sometimes on separate markets in separate cities. Gold the commodity trading ripples through every gold transaction in equal ways be it pawn shops or commodity exchanges, doing so 'globally' & in a 'pure play' way. In contrast a gold mining limited company goes down in its (privately held) say Australian market price due to CEO malfeasance while a lets say African gold miner or processor "corporation with shareholders on a stock market" remains unchanged because they are losing marketshare or ending its dividend--both of which aren't always global & almost never commodity price ripples. Gold the commodity (both in warehouses & on your kitchen table) is not effected by such "equity" concerns & thus doesn't effect a pawn shop's incentive to "transform" their gold. I understand the larger point you're trying to make but crossing the commodity/stock divide is always a confusing task. BTW, nice find on the pork bellies update, I was unaware of that. ⧐ Diamond Way03:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
How can you know if you "dr"? Perhaps there are too many questions being asked but my intent was to summarize some of the things I hit on in response to A) your own question B) your confusing equities with commodities in a comparison that raises many more questions than answers and C) your response to a "complete with cheats" comment by a 3rd editor. Yesterday I did consider adding a few Bloomberg or CNBC transcript links but they are about 2x longer then my summary, so I'll keep your tl;dr preference in mind. ⧐ Diamond Way09:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
So, how does one regulate a pork belly? If it is too large, do they lop some off and sell it for scrapple? Or are they sold in large lots that average out? μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Pork belly has the answer, although they were delisted for trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange: "The unit of trading was 20 short tons (40,000 lb or 18,000 kg) of frozen, trimmed bellies. Pork bellies can be kept in cold storage for an extended period of time, and generally it was the frozen bellies that were most actively traded." OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The most famous French writer was probably Voltaire, but he wrote mainly prose. The most famous French dramatist was Molière, I think. I'm not sure that French literature had a proper "Shakespeare". (For German literature, it would unquestionably be Goethe.) Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
French is referred to as "La langue de Molière". Apparently, "Langue de Voltaire" is also used but I've never actually seen that used. Cervantes, Goethe, Shakespeare and Moliere are probably the four writers that are most strongly associated with their respective languages - at least in French culture, where their names are used to refer poetically to their language. Effovex (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
And, of course, the French would never say that Molière was the French Shakespeare. But Moliere is to French what Shakespeare is to English. Effovex (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
It's perfectly alright to just explain that Pushkin is simply the Russian Dan Brown (or Shakespeare, or whoever you prefer). IBE (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
It's the same Romanization the English-language publisher Slavica of my Po-Moskowski 101 textbook., and it allows reserving y for ы. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I retract my German reference, but I still think that a system in which the sounds "ya", "yu" and "oy" are spelt that way - and not "ja", "ju" and "oj" - is a better one for anglophones. -- Jack of Oz01:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't going to argue the point, since I knew what Jack meant. The bottom line for those who are interested is that as with Arabic there is no single accepted standard transliteration, which Russian grammar textbooks make clear. See Romanization of Russian. Ruthenian is even worse, as it has three i letters instead of two (и, і, and ы), and two geh's (г and ґ). Not that I was schooled in it. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Щербачёв requires only 8 letters in Russian but 12 in English (Shcherbachov) and 17 in German (Schtscherbatschow). There are probably even better examples of the typographical economy of Russian. OTOH, some of their words are sesquipedelian, so there are probably more letters overall in most Russian texts than their German translations. -- Jack of Oz11:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The word щи is four times longer when written in German. There was an old joke about Catherine the Great making 8 spelling mistakes in a two-letter word, but that's technically neither true nor possible. --Theurgist (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
In Hawaiian, the ʻokina ‹ ʻ › is a full and independent letter of the alphabet. It represents the glottal stop /ʔ/, which is a phoneme, meaning that if you omit a glottal stop or if you insert one where it shouldn't be (like mixing up ‹ʻa› /ʔa/ and ‹a› /a/), that makes the word a new word. In older texts, like the Bible, the glottal stop is not represented at all in spelling, making /ʔa/ and /a/ orthographically indistinguishable: both are spelt ‹a›. So, the letter ʻokina in old texts is infinitely many times longer when written in modern texts (1 ÷ 0 = ∞). --Theurgist (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's a transliteration a la Jack, although it still has issues:
Ya Vas Lyubil
Ya vas lyubil: lyubov' eshe, byt' mozhet,
V dushe moei ugasla ne sovsem;
No pust' ona vas bol'she ne trevozhit;
Ya ne hochu pechalit' vas nichem.
Ya vas lyubil bezmolvno, beznadezhno,
To robost'yu, to revnost'yu tomim;
Ya vas lyubil tak iskrenno, tak nezhno,
Kak dai vam bog lyubimoi byt' drugim.
with its eshe which is pronounced YISH-SHAW and a hochu which would be jachú in Spanish or chotschuh with a final accent in German. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd render ещё as yeshcho, but otherwise that would work for me. And here's Hvorostovsky singing it. Which makes the sun come out again and causes peace to reign in the world. -- Jack of Oz03:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparently the French wiki actually has an article on the subject, and Pushkin or Tolstoi are used to refer to Russian. However, the ones that I've actually come across in my lifetime are those I named, plus Homer for ancient Greek and Virgil for Latin. Dante for Italian seems also fairly obvious but I don't recall having ever seen it. Effovex (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Dante was perhaps just a little too early, almost 300 years before Shakespeare. His writing is surprisingly readable given that early date, but there was no unified Italian language at the time — you can argue that he wrote in "Florentine". --Trovatore (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Moliere wasn't good enough to be the French Shakespeare on his own. Moliere plus Racine plus Corneille equals Shakespeare. --Viennese Waltz18:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Since the US independence, has the unification (or even invasion) of Canada been ever a topic of political discussion? When the US was already independent, Canada was still British colony, couldn't that be a reason to try to conquer it? Was there any reason why the Thirteen Colonies expanded west and south, but not north? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
This is only useful when there actually is a draft, though. Also, technically speaking, only a part of Canada needs to remain independent in order for this "release valve" for the U.S. to remain in place. Futurist110 (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I can only think of a couple of reasons to conquer Canada. One would be to get the better view of Niagara Falls. The other would be to corner the world's maple syrup market. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 06:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
My international law lecturer used to say that the only successful acquisition of territory by conquest in modern times was the British acquisition of Canada from the French, and that a good deal of the reason that it was successful was that the British government offered to ship any French settlers who wished to go back to France gratis (I haven't found confirmation of this, though I suspect that Treaty of Paris (1763)#Canada in the Treaty of Paris is the relevant clause). According to my lecturer, many of them took up the offer, and when the Southern colonies rebelled a few years later, those who had chosen to remain in Canada stayed loyal. --ColinFine (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting Adam Bishop never knew of those, thou War Plan Red also included the rest of the British Empire . . . you just left out Canadian Bacon, or as President Alan Alda put it: "Surrender pronto or we'll level Toronto". Hacker Hailstorm, activate! lol. ⧐ Diamond Way03:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
But Adam did know about them. He just told you about them. ........ Oh, I think I get it ("Interesting, Adam Bishop. I never knew of those ..."). Tricky stuff, this language thingamy. -- Jack of Oz06:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes yes touche, perhaps the reason Americans can't win a modern day invasion is we have be twitterized, so many punctuations so little characters allowed. ⧐ Diamond Way16:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps they only "level Toronto" when the Leafs are playing an away game, so yes Canadians are stuck with the Leafs . . . forever! mwrahahahahaha. ;-) ⧐ Diamond Way04:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
If I remember correctly there was quite a serious movement for the annexation of Canada before the US Civil War. However because of the Missouri Compromise; any new states admitted to the Union from the north would be a 'Free State': a state without slavery. This was opposed by the Southern states, in particular US Senators from the south who were afraid of being outvoted in Washington over the slavery issue. Furthermore the Southern states have strong economic links to the British Empire— Southern cotton and British mills. So generally the Southerners were unwilling to go to war over Canada and any attempts at annexation were thwarted. Sodacan (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
It's also convenient cause Canadians can play the same game most of Europe does, where they act disgusted at the U.S., but essentially live under it's protection and benefit from its success. Not saying we're the best boyfriend in the world, but there are a lot of worse partners to have. Shadowjams (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Well much of western & central Europe also "live under it's protection and benefit from its success" with the US since World War II (see NATO, Berlin airlift, Marshall Plan, Irish tax laws re: Apple, US bases in Europe etc.), thou proximity also matters especially in matters like taxes, regulations for companies say in Maine or Minnesota that move across the border but still stay in the same general area. To be fair to Europe however it may be a case of the US needing them more then them needing the US, lots of NATO generals begging Congress not to end their so called "Kings in a fairy castle" duty stations. ⧐ Diamond Way03:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You must not be very familiar with Canadian politics if you think Canada acts disgusted at the US. In terms of foreign policy, the Harper government has been the most rabidly pro-US and pro-unilateralist (the two are often synonymous) to date. Canadians don't like certain aspects of US economic and foreign policy, but being a protector, not that Canada has many credible military threats to fear, does not make one perfect in every way. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The greatest tragedy of the English-speaking peoples was the secession and cessation of the American colonies. Had they remained part of the British Empire, slavery would have been abolished two generations earlier, the Civil War avoided, the Plains Indians left in peace, protected as equal subjects of the King, as they were in Canada, and much of the malignant politics of race which scar this nation avoided. Questions like this raise the tantalising possibility that there are some Americans who realise the terrible mistake that was made two centuries ago and wish to rectify it. That would be possible, I suppose: both the USA and UK suffer from pretty second-rate politicians, but there is no reason why a figure such as Her Majesty should not be a unifying figure. A good start might be for the Americans to apply to join the Commonwealth, and later to repudiate the Declaration of Independence. On the other side of the coin, the American constitution, based as it is heavily on the Bill of Rights, could be transposed to English law, which would have the beneficial (and salutary) effect of rearming the citizenry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.25.36 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Joining the Commonwealth would not be beyond the bounds of possibility. But repudiating the Declaration of Independence would be whole 'nother ballgame, involving becoming a colony of the UK once more. There's no evidence the UK would be remotely interested in gaining such a colony, and plenty to suggest the opposite. -- Jack of Oz20:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Americans have any interest in joining the Commonwealth. Nationalism aside, I don't think we could get over that "queen" thing, even at the level of just having her titular head of a club we're in. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You both raise profound and disturbing points. However, I should like to suggest that we might offer either the Duchess of York, apparently well known in the United States for her appearance on the 'Oprah' television show and commercials for the 'Weight Watchers' Corporation, or Prince Harry, who is apparently very well known in Las Vegas, and is said to be very popular amongst pre-pubescent girls.
The great advantage of having a constitutional monarchy, and a monarch as head of state, over an elected head of state, is that immediately a President is elected, all those who did not vote for him consider him an idiot and unrepresentative of their own views. Over time, even those who did vote for him also come to this conclusion, so that by the end of his term in office almost every voter considers their own head of state an incompetent charlatan. Worse still, this unflattering opinion is broadcast in newspapers and on the television, and is reported abroad, which reflects poorly on the nation as a whole. Compare this with the respect and admiration in which Her Majesty is held, above the sway of domestic politics. In addition, by and large, our monarchs are people of taste and refinement and thereby exert a beneficial influence over the culture of the nation; would you not, after all, prefer to be known as members of a nation represented by someone who has a private art collection which includes 6 Rembrandt's, 26 Van Dyke's, and 13 Rubens' rather than such individuals as Kim Kardashian and Hulk Hogan?
Whoever you are, comparing the UK Royal Family with those other personages is fallacious and absurd (unless Kardashian and Hogan have been elected to public office lately and the news didn't make it down here?). Maybe that's why you didn't sign your post. How about comparing the taste and refinement of Ozzy Osbourne or Vicki Pollard with Eleanor Roosevelt or Jackie Kennedy? -- Jack of Oz18:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It isn't absurd at all; just as Her Majesty has not been elected to office, but is seen as exemplary of her nation so, unfortunately, are various ugly Americans seen as exemplary of theirs. Australia, of course, most people foreign to that country associate with such cultural titans as Dame Edna Everidge and Sir Les Patterson; Shane Warne, perhaps. It might be fair to add that Australia is not only largely a desert in a geographical sense. And finally, I can't really see what the difference is between not signing a post and hiding behind a pseudonym; but, in an effort to be pleasant - 86.183.79.59 (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
How the hell did Australia get into this discussion? The only possible connection is the nationality of your interlocutor, and if that isn't playing the man rather than the ball, I don't know what would be. Pleasant? Hmmmmmmmmmm .............. -- Jack of Oz21:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It's possible that the loss of the Thirteen Colonies might have been at the root of the later doctrine of allowing Dominion status, self-government and eventual independence to Canada, Australia et al. Alansplodge (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd say it's more than possible, it's actually quite likely that the British Empire developed the doctrine of Responsible government in response to American Independence. The loss of the Thirteen Colonies was a bit of an debacle, and Britain found that managing its colonial empire a bit differently in other places had a better result... --Jayron3202:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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. Liz02:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
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. ⧐ Diamond Way10:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 patriotism as fascism" is a straw man, I think. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠21:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
We seem to be starting to talk about two different things. All of the above was directed precisely at "how that power should be allocated," which is inextricably bound with "how the workings of the State are decided." I acknowledge 1) that there's nothing that necessarily or intrinsically means that restricting voting rights to veterans restricts the other civil rights of non-voters; and 2) that there's nothing stopping anyone from going out and doing whatever they can get away with to aid others. What I was trying to say is that there is something inherently flawed in a society that forces its members to participate in its policies before it will allow them the right to try to change those policies. In fact I imagine there must have been at least one debate in which Starship Troopers was brought up during the 26th Amendment ratification campaign, albeit as a corollary rather than a direct argument: in order to vote against a war which you know to be a useless, foolish waste of lives with no significant difference between victory and defeat, you must first sign up to fight in that same war. These are not exact parallels, obviously; Heinlein is writing a thought experiment about citizenship in general while 26th Amendment advocates were talking about allowing the people who fight wars to have a say in when we go to war. But the point is that just societies try to minimize the inevitable Catch-22s of governing, not build on them as cornerstones. All I was trying to say previously was that while I do not remotely agree with critics who describe Heinlein as advocating fascism, I do see why they were tempted to drop that particular F-bomb. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠16:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
Sure. But when that man or those million men disregard what they may or may not morally do, and the system of government is set up so that they are not subject to the votes of a broader population, even if that population has a clear view of their acts - that is not a situation set up to breed justice, except in the roughest frontier / guillotine sense. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠19:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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 " (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)
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)
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)
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)
I always thought the film sequence that comes the closest to making the point Heinlein was most clearly trying to propound in Starship Troopers is the "His Name is Robert Paulsen" elegy in Fight Club (another book/movie that's been accused of smuggling "fascist" ideas into American culture). I'd insert a snide comment here about liberal commentators who still haven't noticed (much less gotten over) either the demise of the post-war consensus or the enormities wrought by its economic institutions and their successors, but this is WP:NOTAFORUM. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. ⧐ Diamond Way11:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
North/South split in Italy
The time periods when homosexuality was decriminalized in various countries worldwide.
The map from a previous question shows a division between the date homosexuality was legalised in the south of Italy (1800-1869) and the north (1870-1928). What was the legislative division at this point? Was there a simple north/south split or were/are there smaller administrative regions and those in the North just all happened to be slower in enacting this change? -- Q Chris (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
With the caveat that we can not give legal advice here but can speak on general legal issues the best answer is anyone can sue anyone else for anything, absolutely anything, there are hundreds of cases every year that get dismissed before they are even given a court date as frivolous or worse have sanctions such as fees/fines assessed.
I think thouthough you're asking if they can prevail. Several factors play a part, was the thief under contract, under a non-disclosure agreement? Did it involve government work with a security clearance? Usually just simple data theft absence the above examples is not a civil matter but then one may end up like Brad Birkenfeld who despite being hailed as a "whistle blower" was convicted to jail time for the information, The Insider (film) also gives a blow by blow of what life is like sharing sensitive information that the ones your accusing of law-breaking are accusing you of what amounts to bad-faith or broken contracts.
Under which legal jurisdiction? The question is unanswerable without specifying that. And you probably need to say who it is you think might do the suing. (It may still be unanswerable even with those specified: I don't know). --ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC
Jurisdiction matters a lot, even if informed of the geographic location in the USA & some other nations there is even a vast difference in statute & precedence in the state courts from the federal courts for that state division & appeals district. I don't feel it is "unanswerable" thoutho legal questions with a lot of details get into the 'should not answer per: legal advice', perhaps I'm in error but when I ask a legal type question on here I intentionally make it vague so no response could constitute something to the effect of how to do it in the 5th Federal District of Appeals etc. ⧐ Diamond Way19:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. ⧐ Diamond Way06:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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 Bugscarrots→ 17:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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. ⧐ Diamond Way10:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
Nice find Nyttend, those filings would make for some entertaining reading as I stroll through my PACER or Google Scholar accounts lol. ⧐ Diamond Way10:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Use of the Romansh language in Swiss, legal citations.
Greetings!
I've been researching legal-citation guidelines from various countries, and have gotten somewhat bewildered by Switzerland's Civil Law. The country has 4 national languages, viz., French, German, Italian, and Romansh; also, their unique hierarchy of government dictates that only the court-of-last-resort is Federal, and all lower courts are those of the cantons.
According the Bluebook guide to legal citation (published by Harvard University) one may cite Swiss statutes and codes one of two ways:
A.) With parallel, French and German citations—as well as with parallel, Italian citations, but only if they're "available and pertinent."
or B.) With a citation in the one language "of which they are the most relevant."
Also, one may city a Swiss case:
In whatever language the court issued the ruling.
The Bluebook then goes on to say that all cantonal law must be cited in the "language or languages of the canton." It also lists the proper names—and appropriate abbreviations—of the courts, reporters, et al, in French, German, and Italian.
My question involves the fourth (and oftenest excluded) Swiss language, Romansh. Since it is one of three official languages in the canton of Graubünden, then mustn't one also cite cantonal laws from there in said language? Also, has the federal court in Bern ever issued a ruling in Romansh? And finally, if one must (in certain situations) cite Swiss laws in Romansh, then does anybody here know where someone could find the proper names—and appropriate abbreviations—of the courts, reporters, et al, in the language?
As for the abbreviations since you have the Bluebook, is a specific canton's abbreviations the same for all the languages?
I understand some languages may invert (or revert) the word order and thus the abbreviation but part of the reason for abbreviations--especially in a multi-language state--is to assign a simplified, universal series of characters to something, but I can see how ethnic concerns could override that.
My concern with the nature of this question thou is that jurists usually strive to be very clear & unambiguous in both pleadings & rulings. That is most likely why each canton can choose a language best for them but the Swiss stop short of having all cases in all languages. The focus for the courts isn't to appeal to all languages but to be clearly understood. For that reason I'd be surprised if the canton you mention would use more than one language in their court, the federal court as you mention may have resources for that and is forced to do that since cases are coming from different cantons but as you said "of last resort" which tells me the Swiss really try and keep the cases in the cantons where "lost in translation" will not be a problem usually. ⧐ Diamond Way20:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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
Resolved
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|02:23, 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. ⧐ Diamond Way07:16, 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)
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)
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|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. ⧐ Diamond Way03:37, 9 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 Bugscarrots→ 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. ⧐ Diamond Way17:23, 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Oz18:11, 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)
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. ⧐ Diamond Way15:59, 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)
(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. ⧐ Diamond Way18:18, 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 Bugscarrots→ 21:21, 8 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 Bugscarrots→ 23:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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. ⧐ Diamond Way18:50, 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. ⧐ Diamond Way21:15, 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! ⧐ Diamond Way01:56, 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)
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)
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)
At a certain point it only matters if the "victim" or an officer chooses to report or enforce it. Misplaced Pages 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. ⧐ Diamond Way02:10, 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)
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)
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)
Misplaced Pages does not provide professional advice. If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was reading the following article, because I wanted to know why women would enter the field of prostitution, given the awful working conditions and social standing.
Cobbina, J. E., & Oselin, S. S. (2011). It's Not Only for the Money: An Analysis of Adolescent versus Adult Entry into Street Prostitution. Sociological Inquiry, 81(3), 310-332. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2011.00375.x
This line strikes me as intriguing: "Many girls who have experienced childhood abuse find that the best available means of escape from violence is to rely on survival strategies—such as running away from home, drug use, and illegal street work—that thereby. constitute crimes according to the ‘‘justice’’ system (Gilfis 1992; Owen and Bloom 1995). Other scholars contend criminal activity among battered women is a by-product of their emotional attachment to criminally involved boyfriends or spouses (Mullins and Wright 2003; Richie 1996)."
If that's the typical story for any woman in prostitution, then that really explains why some women feel compelled to perform such self-debasing work. The girls probably don't really have a choice in their homes, all filled with domestic violence, and want to seek an escape. So, they run away from home, so that they may be free. They experiment with drugs in the inner cities and probably like the experience, escaping the suffering. Now the drugs may require money, so along with the fact that they don't have parental support, the teens have to work in illegal street work, prostituting themselves. From this, I am beginning to understand why these girls can't get real jobs, like burger flipping or housekeeping. In many professions, employers require social security number. The girls may be too young to even know their social security number, and they may be afraid to seek the police. So, any job in the inner cities would do, and that includes prostituting work.
My question is, what have societies done in the past to help combat this issue -- to help these girls get better jobs and stay away from prostitution, which is not only self-debasing but also dangerous (STDs, unwanted pregnancies, starvation due to low wages, rape, abuse)?65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't get divorced, but if you do always value fatherhood. Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters might assist in answering this, also Dr. Drew had this as a running concern on the old Love Line shows something to the effect that women in 'the industry' always seem to have either bad or absent fathers. ⧐ Diamond Way03:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages does not entertain soapboxing or requests for debate or advice. It is not our place to assume that prostitution is good and provide legal advice or to assume the Victorian-Liberal viewpoint that women are victims and need our legal or counseling assistance. We do not advise readers not to seek divorce. Please seek another forum. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Resolved