Humanities desk
< September 25	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 26

Muslim dominated neighbourhoods in Europe

I read a book called Apart: Alienated and engaged Muslims in the West and the author conducted his research in two European neighbourhoods: U.K.'s London's East End (Most of them are Bangladeshis) and Spain's Madrid's Lavapies (most of them are Moroccans). Is there other neighbourhoods of Europe that are Muslim-dominated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.42.135 (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tatarstan --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in France indicates that the largest concentrations of Muslims in France may be in the département of Seine-Saint-Denis, a small département outside of Paris. That article reports that the entire département has a population of 1.4 million, and also has 500,000 muslims, so undoubtedly some of the neighborhoods there will have a Muslim majority population. France doesn't really have an official or unoffical designation equivalent to "neighborhood" in most contexts (though some large cities have unofficial neighborhoods), in France the lowest subdivision is the commune, which outside of the big cities, many of which are "neighborhood sized". So, looking through the arrondissements and communes of Seine-Saint-Denis, you should be able to turn up many muslim-majority areas. --Jayron32 02:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Surely the majority of neighborhoods in Albania and in Bosnia and Herzegovina are Muslim-majority, since those countries are. Otherwise, I'd suggest that you read Islam in Europe and country-specific articles linked at {{Islam in Europe}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably cheating, but the cities of Ceuta and Melilla in Spain are clearly Muslim majority; though they are part of Spain they are also on the African continent, so it's not really "Europe" I suppose. --Jayron32 02:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Europe at all. Spain is one of those countries spread over more than one continent. Most people aren't aware of that. See List of transcontinental countries for the others, which include Italy, France and the United States in addition to the well-known cases like Russia and Turkey. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Bosnia and Herzegovina says that only about 45% of the population are Muslims, and many areas of the country are dominated by Christians, such as, I imagine, most of the Republika Srpska. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, the information is collected in the Census and you should be able to find tables and maps. 2001 Census, for now, the results for the 2011 Census will appear later this year. Parts of Bradford, that is well known. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For England, you could start with the information at Islam in England#Demography and ethnic background. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of Groruddalen have 'immigrant populations' of close to 90%. Similarly, Grønland has a high percentage of immigrants (though not a majority, though that might change from neighbourhood to neighbourhood). There have been cases of Muslims exerting social control here, primarily on other Muslims, but also on non-Muslim Norwegians, such as the gay couple that was attacked and told that 'Grønland is a Muslim neighbourhood', where no expression of homosexuality is accepted.

In Sweden, Malmö's population is 40% immigrant, in the neighbourhood Rosengård, close to 90% of the population is immigrant, most of them coming from Muslim countries. V85 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lockouts in general

Regarding the concept of a lockout (industry), I'm somewhat confused by the following text:

A lockout is generally used to enforce terms of employment upon a group of employees during a dispute. A lockout can act to force unionized workers to accept changed conditions such as lower wages. If the union is asking for higher wages, or better benefits, an employer may use the threat of a lockout or an actual lockout to convince the union to back down.

If I'm the employer, and I'm trying to get my employees to accept lower wages, I can understand why I'd use a lockout; "you're not allowed to work until you accept lower wages" is an effective tool if the employees submit. But why would I use it when the workers want higher wages? Unless I submit to their demands, or unless they persuade a government to raise minimum wages, they're not going to get higher wages when working for me. Why would I refuse to let them work for me at a certain wage when I'm trying to convince them to work for me at that exact wage? Further explanation in this section (as well as sourcing; there are no citations) would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not. The employees may be asking for better wages during contract negotiations; management could use the threat of lockout to force them to lower their demands. --Jayron32?

Still confused. Wouldn't a lockout hurt both parties in the short term? And wouldn't "you're going to work on my terms if you want to work" get the point across without hurting me as much? The worst that the workers can do (as long as they obey the law) is to go on strike, and I'm left with a situation marginally better than a lockout. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a lockout or a strike is probably largely dependent on which party thinks the other party needs them more. If labor thinks that management can't hold out longer then them, they srrike. If management thinks they can manage without the union, they lock them out. Labor actions like this aren't concerned with the short term pain. It's all a game of "chicken": whichever side can take more "pain" without crying "uncle" wins. --Jayron32 03:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They balance the short term losses with potential long-term savings. A lock-out may be necessary if dissatisfied union workers might sabotage equipment or perform a slow-down (where employees are still paid, but don't get their work done). And, seeing the gates locked also has a psychological effect, making employees think about the possibility they could lose their jobs permanently (if the factory hires replacement works, moves, or just shuts down). StuRat (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Employers normally have a greater potential to accumulate capital, either by delaying realisation (stockpiling output), by scheduling preventative maintenance using an alternate workforce, by using "staff" employees to operate machinery while the day wage employees are locked out, or by hiring scabs—than workers have the capacity to save wages necessary for purchasing the useful things of life. My belly empties before my bosses' coffers do, which is why a lockout can break union solidarity. As Jayron32 notes, some industrial disputes are chosen by both workers and their boss and it is largely a technicality as to whether it is a strike or a lock-out. Employers usually face much laxer laws regarding illegal lock-outs than employees face for illegal strikes. Businesses live on sales, sales depend on stockpiles, and stockpiles depend on production. One can halt production and as long as one has a sufficient stockpile one can stuff the workers. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some employers may also find it infeasible to operate when the union has a strike mandate but has not yet called a walkout - for instance a steel foundry or airline needs a stable operating schedule to function, so it is better for management to initiate a controlled shutdown rather than hope the workers keep showing up for the lower pay rate. Franamax (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, unions can call for a partial strike that would still disable most of a factory (e.g. only the people who put wheels on cars in a car factory - very soon, the unfinished cars on the assembly line will block the whole line). The employer may want to avoid paying the non-striking workers, especially if they are part of the same union, as a way of depleting union funds and putting pressure on the union. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How effective such a strategy would be depends on how big the union is. In Belgium, there are three, the socialist, the christian and the small liberal union (maybe some others, but these three represent at least 95% of union members). As far as I know, the funds they have are not split by sector, so depleting them would be hard to do. Ssscienccce (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK wealth tax proposal

Regarding "Lib Dem conference: Clegg promises to push for wealth tax," 23 September 2012, BBC and "A 20% wealth tax on the mega rich would raise up to £800bn," 25 September 2012, New Statesman, would someone with insight into the workings of the UK coalition government please say whether this is ~~notable~~ noteworthy enough to include as a proposal in Wealth tax yet? —Cupco 02:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is NOT the venue in which to discuss issues of notability or other matters properly discussed on an article's talk page, on an admin board or workshop, or in an RfC. If you are looking for articles, sources, or references we can help you. Otherwise, please discuss this at the article and see Wikipedia:Notability. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the question at the article's talk page and don't expect to hear much back because it doesn't get much traffic. What I'm really interested in is the prospects for the proposal by someone who is familiar with the practicalities of the UK coalition government. I.e., will we ever hear of it again or will it be making the news. As a technical matter, I believe I am asking about noteworthiness rather than notability in the sense those words are used in Wikipedia, and if there is some rule which excludes questions regarding noteworthiness, please let me know about it. —Cupco 04:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question about editing, not a search for info, so outside the scope of this desk. Try the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, WP:NPOVN. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I just thought there would be more people familiar with the ins and outs of the UK coalition processes here. I'm sure that the answers to editing questions can depend on the answers to subject matter questions as in this case. —Cupco 07:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't receive adequate replies at "Talk:Wealth tax#Nick Clegg/UK" (and, personally, I would wait at least a week or so), you can always bring it up at "Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board". Gabbe (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you don't need anyone's approval beforehand to edit an article. As long as you are prepared to discuss the issue should anyone object. Gabbe (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer's no, as I've said on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Cupco 10:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relative frequency of male prostitution

What proportion of prostitutes (preferably globally, but otherwise at some national level) are male? --149.135.146.2 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find this online. I recommend asking for the full text of http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v53n01_02 at WP:RX. —Cupco 10:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean male-to-female transsexual prostitutes, or male prostitutes? Astronaut (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you assume or suspect the former? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. A more apt split would be males providing sexual services for women, vs males providing sexual services for other males. -- Jack of Oz (Talk) 20:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free speech vs fair elections

On the issue of free speech vs fair elections, democratic countries can be broadly classified into two camps:

Countries where you can run political ads anytime without restriction - Australia, Canada, US
Countries where political ads are tightly regulated during election season

Is there a WP article, website, or book that lists the countries in each category? So far I'm just googling "election law of X" for each country so I'm wondering if there's a source that compares the various election laws, especially with regards to campaign advertisements. This question is inspired by this recent election story[1] from Brazil.A8875 (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a restriction in Australia. "Under Schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which is administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), election advertising in the electronic media is subject to a 'blackout' from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the end of polling on the Saturday. This three-day blackout effectively provides a "cooling off" period in the lead up to polling day, during which political parties, candidates and others are no longer able to purchase time on television and radio to broadcast political advertising." - http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/election_advertising.htm --TrogWoolley (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read both Australian_constitutional_law and Australian_Capital_Television_Pty_Ltd_v_Commonwealth and I still ended up with the wrong impression. Hence why I'm looking for an authoritative source that summarizes each country's campaign advertising laws. A8875 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australia, and its states, possess common law and relative judicial independence—so you're effectively requesting legal advice. The response would be: contact an Australian Commonwealth or State based solicitor who specialises in constitutional law or elections. Australia has relatively heavily regulated election funding rules by the way, which also acts as a limit on the freedom of the bourgeoisie to shit down the airwaves. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And fwiw, your question title is somewhat misleading, or contains probably bogus assumptions. You appear to be suggesting that free speech (defined in the context of your question as the ability to run ads without restriction) is necessary for fair elections. I tend to think that there are at least a couple of objections to that: 1) so long as all players face the same restrictions, the playingfield is level and 2) if we look at the USian example of SuperPACs and corporations as people, I think any disinterested observer would come to the conclusion that despite "free speech" the playingfield has been tilted enormously to the advantage of the monied classses. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't show it's not necessary - it would show it is not sufficient. However, I think a person can reasonable argue that when one corporation is granted a broadcast license or a cable franchise, while many other people are not permitted to express their views on television even if they cobble together a transmitter, that this in fact was never properly free speech in the first place. Wnt (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how dual licensing works

This question has been removed as soliciting legal advice. We cannot advise users on legal specific legal matters including copyright law. If you wish to contest this, please discuss the matter on the talk page here. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First African Woman Novelist is from Imo state

My name is Henry Agbasoga, I would like to ask this question, Why is it somebody like Flora Nwapathe first African Woman novelist is not amoung the name mentioned as accademia or Hero? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.202.119.190 (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to others: the relevant article is Flora Nwapa -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added her to Imo State#Notable people under "Arts". With regard to why she wasn't there, it's perhaps because no one had though to add her before now, perhaps because the state didn't exist when she was born in Oguta. (She does seem to qualify among "notable people from Imo State", though, as some others in that list predate the establishment of the polity.) Deor (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ndlovukati

Is there a title (or a concept) traditionally employed in parts of West Africa that compares to the Ndlovukati of Swaziland? Agyen Kokobo, who lived on the Gold Coast some centuries ago, would benefit from the introduction of such a term, if it exist. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohemaa, literally 'female ruler'. Google: "ohemaa "queen mother"", or do you need some references?—eric 20:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good books link.—eric 20:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charitable contributions

Let's say that a person wants to contribute money online, via the web, to some charitable cause (e.g., cancer, AIDS, abused kids, abused animals, whatever). When one visits the various websites that would come up in a Google search, how would one know if the organization is "legit", before donating any money to them? I'm not referring to "big names" that are no brainers, like the American Cancer Society, the Red Cross, the Humane Society, etc. But, I am referring to "lesser known" diseases/causes and organizations that don't have such high visibility and name recognition. Any suggestions or advice? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In England and Wales, the Charity Commission is the registrar and regulator of charities. All registered charities are required to submit an Annual Report and Accounts every year. You would go to their website, type in the name of the charity and then you would be able to check the status of the charity. Smaller local groups are often not required to register however, and campaigning groups such as the Campaign for Real Ale and Amnesty International can not become charities because of the campaigning nature of their work. There may be a similar regulatory framework and organisation in your area (wherever that is). --TammyMoet (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry if my post was unclear. I am referring to the United States. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IRS website says "you may verify an organization's tax-exempt status and eligibility to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions by asking to see an organization's IRS letter recognizing it as tax-exempt. You may also confirm an organization's status by calling the IRS (toll-free) at 1-877-829-5500." Though that doesn't necessarily imply that the charity is "legitimate" (I imagine there have been cases of charities losing this status because of fraud). Obviously, a separate problem is checking that the website is actually associated with the charity in question, and that the payment method is safe. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a number of websites that rate, reviews and evaluates charities, see Category:Charity review websites. Gabbe (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's the International Committee on Fundraising Organizations (which I'm surprised we don't have an article about) which is an association of national agencies that monitor fundraising for charitable purposes. There are links to the national agencies (among others the US Better Business Bureau). Sjö (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance in Buddhism

I know that Buddhists are not indifferent, even if some accuse them to be, or pretend to be. They have preferences but know that things won't always work out as wished. You simply don't have to cling to your expectations. But what's the opinion regarding notability (not in the wiki sense)? Is the eruption of a thought extinct volcano equally notable than a rainbow over a tropical forest? All these are things that exist, that are part of reality. hey are equally expression of Earth being like it is. Ptg93 (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about official dogma, or about what people actually do? Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose people do all sort of things, so, I want to know something about scriptures. Ptg93 (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand your question, but does Equanimity (Buddhism) help?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's something like that, but more in the sense that everything are things flowing, the bad and the good, the big and the small. Ptg93 (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like Impermanence?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism touches this topic through several concepts. Shantavira gave you two, and Buddhist terms and concepts) gives you a systematic list. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ptg93—you say:

"Is the eruption of a thought extinct volcano equally notable than a rainbow over a tropical forest? All these are things that exist, that are part of reality. hey are equally expression of Earth being like it is."

Can you expand on that, or state it a different way? Bus stop (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heard something like everything is just a flow of nature, the volcano, the tide, a man stabbing other man, or the rain falling. It's just how things are. Ptg93 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some variations among sects, but the most fundamental Buddhist doctrine is that all existence is suffering, and that the only escape from the wheel of suffering is to become indifferent to earthly events, whether good or bad. That's a rather loose formulation -- our article on the Four Noble Truths will give more information. Essentially the first Noble Truth is that all existence is unhappiness; the second Noble Truth is that the root cause of unhappiness is craving; the third Noble Truth is that to cease being unhappy people must cease craving; the fourth Noble Truth is that to cessation of craving can be achieved by following the Noble Eightfold Path. All these again are loose formulations; see the articles for more precise statements. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say you have to be indifferent, you have to be independent of them, not cling to them, not attach to them, but that's make yo indifferent. Ptg93 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]