Humanities desk
< April 20	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 22 >

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.

April 21

Hispanic white people

Why are the many Hispanic white people not counted as white? E.g. statistics might say something like "In so and so city there are 200,000 Hispanic people and 500,000 white people". Of course, many of those Hispanic people will have what is normally considered white skin, and be culturally European (e.g. maybe an Argentine, or a white Cuban). What use is there in this mixing of racial and ethnic categories? Does it serve some overall statistical purpose? 138.16.101.142 (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean in the U.S. census, all are counted both ways. The U.S. census asks two separate questions: one about one's race (White, Black, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, etc.) and a different question that asks whether or not you are Hispanic. Thus, since the same person answers both questions, a person will be counted as both: Hispanic and White, or Hispanic and Black, or Hispanic and Native American, or indeed any such combination is possible. See Race and ethnicity in the United States Census for a fuller explanation. --Jayron32 01:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the newsmedia articles about the "coming minority majority" or "future non-white majority" in the United States seem to be based on conflating the numbers of anybody who picks a race other than "white" OR selects "Hispanic" on the census form, which could be considered dubious... AnonMoos (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not relevant to OP's question

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The GOP might disagree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some legitimate reason for that stupid, biased statement, Bugs? What's next, "Obummer" comments as if this were a comments section on a political website? μηδείς (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"How she doth froth and fume and stew and scold". Not bad for one who was recently advocating bestiality (!) on these hallowed pages. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 17:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Bestiality is not illegal everywhere, I did not "advocate" it, I mentioned it as an alternative to a person who seemed to be into paraphilias, and did not gratuitously smear a whole class of people with an unsupported allegation. Is some part of that unclear? μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's as clear as you being the self-appointed Ref Desk Policeperson when it comes to other editors' perceived indiscretions and breaches of "appropriate behaviour", but you're more than happy to inject helpful suggestions about bestiality and necrophilia. Yes, very clear. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

It is widely perceived, including by the GOP's own analysts, that they lost their chance at the presidency in part due to not taking the Hispanic vote into consideration. That's a bit more certain than just "dubious". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the distinction is made is cultural. Most european immigrants assimilate to the dominant Anglo culture with only rather small enclaves like Hassidic Jews, Amish, etc., standing out culturally and linguistically. The only major exception is Latino culture. Many hispanics do ultimately assimilate to a "pure" anglo culture, but enough retain their language and remain distinct culturally to warrant people's interest. This distinction between Hispanic and non-Hispanic should make sense in America if you consider the map to the right. μηδείς (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In every census they should be clearly differentiate among some categories. Race, culture and religion all are intermingled, even if all combinations are possible. You could look Latino/Arabic/European, be Latino/Arabic/European, speak a Latino/Arabic/European language, and so on. There shouldn't be such confusion, if people could think about the combinations (muslim Americans, black Europeans, white Europeans, Christian Chinese). OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I suppose. I just don’t get the "non-white" when referring to Latinos (a pretty heterogenous group). There are, of course, non-white Latinos. There are, also, white Latinos. If we are taking "white" to be a cultural label rather than based on skin color, then adds a ton of ambiguity. What about Arabs or Persians? Or even Southern Europeans, who are different culturally from Norther Europeans. If Latinos are not "culturally white", then neither are Italians (who retained their cultural identity in a similar way to Latinos) or Greeks. The whole thing seems like a mire, that I can’t understand why it is perpetuated. 138.16.103.170 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- It seems odd only because your living in the time you are now. There were times and places in American history when other dominant immigrant groups were seen as undesirable outsiders, who would never assimilate into American culture. The current cultural attitudes towards people of Hispanic background once applied to Italian or Irish or even French Canadian immigrants, who were all seen in much the same way that Hispanic immigrants are today: undesirables who are taking jobs away from good Americans, don't speak like us or eat like us or dress like us, etc. etc. In another 50 years, people will think it odd, or even forget, that we discriminate against Latino people in the same way that we don't really discriminate against Americans of Irish background the way the country used to. Also, just to reiterate because I wasn't clear enough above: Hispanics can be both white and non-white. Th official U.S. census data does not consider "Hispanicness" a race. Non-white does not refer to Latinos in any way. There are Latinos of a variety of racial backgrounds. --Jayron32 19:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-white Latinos refers to the descendants of either slaves (blacks) or indigenous peoples (Amerinds and Filipinos) and various mixtures thereof subjugated and ruled by Hidalgos. In other words, the descendants of people who were not themselves the conquerors of (primarily) Spanish lands. Again, this is cultural, not biological, given that white Spaniards can pass for Irish, etc. Obviously Greeks and Italians don't look like Amerinds nd they don't adopt piñatas, Spanish cooking, bull fighting, or the cult of Santa Muerte if they move to the US. See the Treaty of Tordesillas. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some white Hispanics are Irish. See Bernardo O'Higgins, Anthony Quinn (paternal grandfather), Che Guevara (paternal grandmother (Lynch)), also more broadly Irish immigration to Puerto Rico. Also, many Hispanics are also Italians, see Immigration to Argentina, which shows that Italy leads European immigration to Argentina, also Pope Francis has an Italian ancestry, as does Manu Ginóbili. Greek Hispanics could include Doménikos Theotokópoulos. --Jayron32 23:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess Helene of Mecklenburg-Schwerin

Why did Duchess Helene of Mecklenburg-Schwerin remain a Protestant after her marriage to Prince Ferdinand Philippe, Duke of Orléans? Why wasn't it requested by the French royal family during the marriage search that any Protestant potential bride would have to convert when they ran out of Catholic princesses?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the 19th century was a very different place than the 17th century? Perhaps such things became less of a problem in post-Revolution France than during, say, the Wars of Religion where it was a big deal? --Jayron32 02:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Religion may not have been an issue to go to war for in the 19th century but it was still of importance especially in royal marriages. The marriage proposal of Ferdinand Philippe's sister Princess Clémentine of Orléans to Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was rejected by the latter because of the requirement that Ernest, the heir to a traditionally Protestant throne, had to become Catholic. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to read this whole biography of Helene, but it might help you. Here. From what I've seen there (pp 128ff), plus in Philippe's article, all these things might be factors: (1) He personally didn't care (2) It had been difficult to find him a wife and perhaps requirements had been relaxed (3) She was very religious (4) It was agreed (and happened) that the children would be Catholic. 174.88.8.9 (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal of Service

One time a friend of mine went to a bank to resolve a dispute but was unsuccessful and the employees were rude and dismissive to him. The bank threatened to call the police. But my friend refused to leave until he was heard. This came to my attention when my friend told me the story and another friend stated to me that if you are an existing customer that you cannot be removed for trespassing during business hours. Fortunately my friend was able to get ahold of a district manager and the branch manager ended up being fired for being rude to my friend and all the excessive and unwarranted charges were recredited to his account. My question I suppose is, what law states that you may stay on the premises if you are already a paying customer with a customer service dispute? Which law or laws or case law/court decisions/cases cover this area? I am going to be writing a report on this subject for my political science class and have an interest in these civil liberties areas. Specifically I am asking about American laws as I live in California. Any insights would be welcome, thank you in advance if you find yourself inclined to chime in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.65.134 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 21 April 2013

For California the relevant law is state penal code 602, section o. That's the section that makes it a misdemeanor to remain on private property after being asked to leave by the property's owner or representative. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see anything in the caveats about exceptions for paying customers. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this doesn't sound like a law. In most jurisdictions I'm aware of, private businesses have broad discretion to refuse service as they feel necessary. Individual banks may have internal policies like that which benefited your friend, however. The fact that the branch manager was sanctioned by his or her employer rather than through the legal system suggests that this was company policy, not law. --BDD (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could interview a lawyer for your paper. I'd call the State Bar of California and ask for referral to a lawyer in the correct subfield in your home town. 174.88.8.9 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's technically legal or not may not much matter. That is, if they call the police and the police arrest you for "creating a public disturbance" or some such thing, then whether you had the legal right to be there becomes irrelevant, as trespassing isn't the charge. StuRat (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paying customers at busy restaurants, specifically ones which rely on high lunch time turn over, are frequently asked to move on as soon as they've finished eating, and sometimes not so politely. I don't think purchasing something gives you any special rights in a premises. This sounds like a classic "it takes two to tango" story. Refusing to leave until you are heard reeks of the kind of self righteous indignation you see on youtube videos frequently before someone is tazed or peppersprayed by the police. You will respect my rights!! lol... Anyway, there are official channels of dispute resolution that don't involve throwing a tantrums in a bank branch. Telephone complaints department being the primary one since they're actually trained in dispute resolution, unlike every random bank manager. If that fails take it to the industry ombudsman. Vespine (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, however, that the U.S. has a long history of protesting refusal of services by refusing to leave. See Greensboro sit-ins for one famous example. Of course, that was based on protesting abhorrent racial segregation policies. Such acts of civil disobedience can be justified in cases of protesting genuine injustice; one must take care because sometimes there isn't any genuine injustice, and you're just being an asshole. One needs the wisdom to know the difference. --Jayron32 05:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, if someone truly and genuinely believed they were being treated unjustly, and protested accordingly, but then it was explained to them why things are the way they are and there's no injustice involved, they'd have to come to the conclusion that they're an asshole even though they acted in good faith. That seems like a pretty unjust state of affairs. Where do I go to protest about this? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking generally on the basis of general principles of traditional common law trespass to land (from which most of the English-speaking world derives its rules on such things), I suspect the argument for a customer to be able to enter a premises would be based on an implied licence to enter a property to a reasonable extent. If you have a path from your front yard fence to your house door, the court would usually find an implied licence for someone to walk into your yard and up to your door in order to knock on it. However, the implication probably would not go so far as to permit the intruder to open the door (if it is not locked) and sit down in your living room. In the same way, there is probably an implied licence for a customer to enter a bank which is open for business in order to transact his business with the bank. Of course, the implied licence can be revoked: you can tell someone who has come to your door to get off your property. In the same way, the bank could tell its customer to go away. Whether this would violate (i) discrimination laws; (ii) consumer protection laws; (iii) the bank's own policies, is another matter which does not really have anything to do with the issue of trespass. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PalaceGuard008 gave a good answer, so this is the tl;dr version: Unless it's a municipal (ie. your city) law, there is no such legal entity. Basically, an owner of a private company may refuse service at will and, if the person fails to leave when asked, they can be arrested for trespassing.

Now, there are some caveats. Mainly, if you can prove the company discriminated against you based on race, ethnicity, etc. then you might have cause for a civil suit against the company. But there's really no recourse at the moment you're in the shop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ventnor Commies - PKD?

I remember reading a science fiction short story set in the future, which featured American forces laying waste to England after a communist insurrection on the Isle of Wight. For nostalgic reasons, they called their enemies VCs (standing in this case for Ventnor Commies). It was probably 20 years ago that I read this story, so it couldn't have been written in the years since then; I thought it might have been by Philip K Dick, but have been unable to find anything on the internet about it at all. Any ideas? 46.208.114.84 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is found here and here, the author is Brian Aldiss. --Soman (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Buddhist practice some kind of alternative psychology?

In the same way that oriental medicine is a kind of alternative medicine? Could both get trouble with the law, since the fields are regulated in some places? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any kind of answer completely depends on specifying a jurisdiction. Chinese medicine is unlikely to be illegal in China, for example. But in any case, we are not permitted to answer legal questions, nor speculate about the future. If you specify a jurisdiction, the best volunteers can do is point you to the legal codes of said jurisdiction, or news reports about similar cases. 174.88.8.9 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do are permitted to answer legal questions and it happens all the time here. That's different from giving legal advice. Anyway, has the Buddhist practice or the Chinese medicine got into any legal trouble in the US, Europe due to professional intrusion? (or in whatever Western country) OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental medicine is "a kind of alternative medicine" in the same sense that the flat Earth theory is "a kind of alternative geodesy". In reality, it is dangerous quackery with no evidence of efficacy and often no evidence of safety. As for whether Chinese medicine has gotten into legal trouble, see these two warning letters by the FDA, requesting that the sellers pull their products. In general, however, the FDA has been extremely lax in enforcing the law when it comes to oriental medicine: [1]. --140.180.244.177 (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have a pretty decent article on Buddhism and psychology, which discusses clinical applications. Looie496 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, being a religion might protect Buddhism from charges of practicing psychiatry without a license. That is, the separation of church and state means that the state can't regulate religion, at least to the degree that it regulates the general population. StuRat (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But do they claim to be a religion? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Buddhists?* ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, they don't seem to care if what they do is a philosophy or religion. But, if they want to enjoy some special status and the protection of this, then I suppose they might claim to be a religion. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meant that rhetorically. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP: You do understand that there are many denominations to Buddhism, do you? Please read the Wiki entry on Buddhism. This question is like asking whether or not Christian prayer is an alternative medicine/psychology. Sneazy (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-citizenship

Is there a term to describe me, if I am a non-citizen? (Legally speaking, I'm not a citizen of any nation, but I am a permanent resident.) Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stateless if it's for real in the legal sense, world citizen is if it's just a cultural thing.OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the article, I'm de jure stateless. What effects does this have, beyond my ability to travel past the border of my country, which is New Zealand? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering this would be slipping into legal advice. A lawyer could advise you better about issues like applying for refugee status, obtaining the nationality of your host country or getting travel documents issued. On the bright side, maybe Spielberg wants to films your story. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm not after legal advice. I'm just trying to find out anything interesting that may come in useful, or may be obstrutive. It's not worth pursuing beyond Wikipedia. That is a good movie though, luckily I'm not stuck at the airport. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the only effect I can think of, beyond the legal implications, is towards your social identity. Maybe you could also join some association of world citizens like the Commonwealth of World Citizens. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but they hold to the tennet of democracy, I do not. In my informed opinion, democracy has proven to be a failure in terms of effective governance. I won't explore the idea further, unless I'm poked (in a manner of speaking). Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you hate democracy, you might find North Korea an ideal place to live. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of alternatives to what exists in North Korea. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you identified a country that most closely fits with your ideal situation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not. It is interesting though, I do agree with some of the communist critisims of capatalism, but not not agree with their ideals. We can see it for ourselves, how by way of democracy, we have signed away our future into the hands of bureaucrats who are more interested in lining their own pockets, and telling people what they want to hear. Through democracy, politics have become a sport for the wealthy and beguiling. The most important consequence, is that the goverment is held at the behest of the banks, by our own doing. That is one of the reasons why the world economy is constantly on the verge of collapse. Democracy opens the door wider to the workings of moral corruption, to bring about these things. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an old saying, sometimes attributed to Churchill, "Under capitalism, man exploits man; under communism, it's the other way around." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've never heard that attributed to Churchill. I think it originated with Will Rogers. Churchill was the one who said democracy is the worst system of governance imaginable, except for all the other ones we've tried. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I think you're right. It's the same general idea, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People love to stick their noses into politics, only to complain about the consequences. I say, let them opinionate, but let them not determine law. Is it fitting for a child to command a parent? Furthermore, those with knowledge and wisdom should lead, not those who chase after riches and glory. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I would be content to sustain under such a government, if I am required to relinquish my vote. A monarchy type government led by a consortium of scientific advisors of various disciplines. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit like the ideal state in Plato's Republic? Proteus (Talk) 11:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Plato's Republic, however, at first glance, the major difference seem to be that my system has a monarch. Besides that, I think that is as a good starting point for a model government. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A permanent resident is typically called a Permanent resident. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not very informative, nor was it in question. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could swear a permanent resident was normally called permanent resident. Thanks for the confirmation. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in the OP describing a scenario in which someone would be born without citizenship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have countries (like Nepal until ~2006, think that is changed now) where citizenship is passed on by the father. Meaning that any child born out of wedlock and without an identified father would be considered as a non-citizen. --Soman (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not impossible. Refugees get stripped of their nationality after they leave Plasmicphysicistan. They have a baby in a host country that only grants jus sanguinis citizenships. There's your stateless baby, who is allowed to stay as permanent resident. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that's the OP's situation, or if he's more a believer in what some call individual sovereignty. (I might have cited the wrong article. I'm talking about the folks who claim they have no social responsibilities and that laws do not apply to them.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My case resulted from a legal loop-hole. All non-citizens must apply for citizenship, and when a family immigrated, and both parents surrender their former citizenship, all children who was part of the original immigrated group lose their former citizenships by default. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's your legal status in your current country? That is, is there any risk of being deported? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no risk of being deported, since I'm not a citizen of South Africa. So, where can I be deported to? (Rhetorical) "Legal status", beyond what I've mentioned? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they wanted to deport you, couldn't they just say, "We don't care where you go, just go." However, if you have permanent residence status, you should be pretty much safe as long as you don't do something horrible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, they could say that, but they can't force me to leave, especially if no country is willing to accept me. The best they could do, is leave me on a raft in international water. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a rather convoluted explanation. I fail to understand what went wrong. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like some kind of bureaucratic catch-22. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that even had South Africa withdrawn your citizenship, New Zealand would have been forced to take you as they are a signatory to the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Rmhermen (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that apply to a person who is of an age that no longer requires a legal guardian? Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmic: how y9our questions do not constitute a request for legal advice? If you have any doubt about your specific case ask a lawyer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for advice, I'm asking for information. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still would be best off to see a lawyer, if you want solid answers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness doesn't really work the way you describe. In particular, it doesn't generally force other countries to take someone as a citizen unless that person has some reason to claim citizenship either by birth/foundling or by their parent's citizenship status. The convention is supposed to prevent statelessness by making it difficult for people to become stateless in the first place. This includes preventing other countries from removing someone's citizenship unless they've got citizenship elsewhere and requiring countries to provide citizenship to people who would otherwise be stateless, either if they were born in that country or born in another country but one of their parents are a citizen of the first country. Of course this means even if you are resident in a country which is a signatory, you may still be stateless if you were born elsewhere and your parents are or were citizens of another country which is not a signatory and they and you never obtained citizenship in your current country of residence. (Well for your parents it had to be at the time of your birth.)

Now without getting into the area of legal advice, if the OP is a legal permanent resident here in NZ they are likely entitled to vote if they are of age barring a few odd exceptions [2]. (The concept of permanent resident can be a bit confusing in NZ since they term is often not used nowadays in official immigration speak (the actual terms used have changed over time [3] [4]) and for quite a while most people with resident permits or visas living in NZ have actually been entitled to permanently reside in NZ. The general variance is in travel conditions. Some people, while entitled to live and work here as long as they want to, may not be able to come back to NZ as residents if they leave or leave for too long. Generally speaking, after a period of time, usually two years, if a person has been living here for long enough during that time, they obtained an residence visa entitling them to leave and return at will. So most residents are actually considered permanent residents. There are of course other categories of people like those with work permits and student visas who are not considered residents.) If they've been living here for long enough, they will generally be entitled to the same benefits (social security, hospital treatment, education etc) as citizens. And after a period of time (5 years), they will likely be entitled to claim NZ citizenship [5] although as mentioned, I don't think them being stateless is going to make a difference here. There is a provision for a special grant of citizenship for stateless people New Zealand nationality law#Special grant of New Zealand citizenship to stateless persons but I don't know how often this is done (and likely the OP will need to prove their are stateless, I wonder whether if the OP can reclaim their SA citizenship if they return there this may be a sufficient barrier to the OP).

Note that even though South Africa is not a signatory to the treaty, there is a provision to reclaim South Africa citizenship if the OP does wish to return there [6]. In addition, I wonder how certain the OP is that they aren't a South African citizen. My impression from [7], [8] and [9] is that it's actually not that easy for a child to lose their citizenship solely by the actions of their parents nowadays. I'm presuming that the OP was likely born in South Africa, with both parents being South African citizens at the time so was likely entitled to South African citizenship by birth. I'm presuming the OP was not born here in NZ since unless they are some sort of kid-genius, they would almost definitely be a New Zealand citizen by birth. Now if there's a third country involved either for the OP or their parents, then things get more complicated as the laws of this third country need to be considered. If the OP lost their SA citizenship before 1995 then I'm not entirely sure how the new law deals with that either.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect answer. Since I've met the requirements, I can easiliy obtain citizenship for a small fee, if I so choose. Yet I do not, for the time being. I can prove that I'm stateless by contacting the SA Embassy in Australia, confirming that my SA passport has been revoked. Yes, I was born in SA (1989), and immigrated in 2001. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Late Medieval events - House of Luxembourg

While expanding the article on Elizabeth of Luxembourg, only child of Emperor Sigismund, I noticed a mild discrepancy. Our article, as well as articles in other languages, claims that Sigismund's eldest grandchild, Anne of Austria, was born in 1432. There is even a precise date: 12 April 1432. It is certain that Sigismund was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire on 31 May 1433; prior to the coronation, he reigned as king of the Romans. However, Bertrandon de la Broquière apparently wrote that "the Duchess, a tall, handsome woman, daughter to the Emperor, and heiress after him to the kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia and their dependencies", gave birth to a daughter, "which had occasioned festivals and tournaments that were the more numerously attended because hitherto she had not had any children." Why would Bertrandon refer to the newborn's mother as the emperor's daughter more than a year before he actually became emperor? Surtsicna (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between election to King of the Romans and coronation as Emperor is quite academic, both contemporaneously and in modern Historiography, uncrowned German Kings are often called Holy Roman Emperor (technically, they were called "Emperor-elect", and not "Emperor", but no one really includes the "-elect" part). Indeed, Charles V was the last Emperor to even bother with Papal coronation. After him, all of his successors simply forwent the coronation, and started to exercise the Imperial authority from their election. Indeed, even earlier Emperors did so, basically from the Golden Bull of 1356, when the election procedure was formalized, the implied source of Imperial power was shifted from the Pope to the German princes who elected him, and by the Diet of Augsburg in 1500 (see Imperial Circle), which basically cut out all non-German constituent states of the Empire from participating in its operation, the HRE was a putative "Kingdom of Germany" only, there was little need for formal recognition from the Pope. Many of these developments were official recognition of procedures and realities that had existed for some time; and not really all that novel, so by the 1430s, Sigismund, while officially only "Emperor-elect" prior to his coronation, would have been widely (if not officially) recognized as Emperor. --Jayron32 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A first cursory perusal of Bertrandon de la Broquière's travel report seems to indicate that he came to Vienna on his way home from Constantinople in the spring of 1433, meeting there the duchess ~~(who had passed away earlier in December 1432)~~ and she had just born a child (in April 1432). There is an obvious discrepancy in the dates. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the duchess (Elizabeth of Luxembourg) died in December 1442. So, the explanation here is that Sigismund was styled as emperor by his contemporaries before the coronation? Is it possible that his granddaughter was born a year later? Though even then she could not have been born in April. Surtsicna (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pp.paul.4 -- during the middle ages, different places started the year at different times (March 25th and January 1st were two common new-year days, but there were others), and there could be as much as a whole year's difference in the start of a new numbered year between different calendar usages... AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my misinformation. In that case, however, if de la Broquière came to Vienna in the spring of 1433 and returned home to Burgundy in mid-1433 and started writing his account then, and both Vienna and Burgundy would have started the year at the same time, Sigismund would have been Emperor. The granddaughter, however, does not fit. So we follow AnonMoos and assume that Vienna started the year on January 1st (31 Dec 1432 -> 1 Jan 1433) and was ahead in the counting of years with respect to Burgundy starting the year at Easter (11 April 1432 -> 12 April 1433). Not sure, however, whether the dates have already been normalized (we cannot normalize them twice). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source which provides the following quote from one Reginald Poole:

"If we suppose a traveller to set out from Venice on March 1, 1245, the first day of the Venetian year, he would find himself in 1244 when he reached Florence; and if after a short stay he went to Pisa, the year 1246 would already have begun there. Continuing his journey westward, he would find himself in 1245 again when he entered Provence, and on arriving in France before Easter (April 16), he would once more be in 1244. This seems a bewildering tangle of dates."

AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]