Humanities desk
< October 9	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

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

October 10

It's drafty in here.

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

At the bottom of the Crook article, there’s a link to his autobiography [1] – see page 25 where he describes being drafted and says ”I had served in the army already”. Is that enough? Taknaran (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I was a bit leery of the Arlington site because it also listed him as a "Colonel, United States Army". An unreliable source (which I can't find now) called it an honorary rank, which makes sense, since he hardly served long enough (or had money and influence enough) to earn it. That being said, I've found The New York Times obituary for him,[2] and it does say he fought in the Civil War. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

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

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

King James Version and the Apocrypha

King James Version notes how the Apocrypha was included between the Old and New Testaments in the original 1611 version, and it discusses how the Apocrypha began, on occasion, to be removed from certain printings of the KJV Bible. I'm unclear as to whether current printings of the KJV Bible contain the Apocrypha. Also, do those that are part of the King James Only movement, who consider the original 1611 printing to be the only acceptable translation, consider the Apocrypha to be cannon? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The KJV is currently available in both versions and the KJV Only people would use the one without it. Rmhermen (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The exact status of the Apocrypha in the Anglican Church is described in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion; "And the other Books (ie the Apocrypha), as Hierome saith, the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine..." [3] Our article, Biblical apocrypha says; "All King James Bibles published before 1666 included the Apocrypha. In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. Since then most modern editions of the Bible and re-printings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section.". Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefromrandb:, please note that the KJV-onlyists generally use the 1769 revision of the King James, which apparently is the last major update of the translation that carries the name "King James Version", i.e. as opposed to later revisions, which carry different names, e.g. the Revised Standard Version. Since the 1769 revision apparently doesn't get mentioned in most printings nowadays, most people don't appear to be aware that its text is different from the 1611 original, so when groups such as this church claim that they're using 1611, you need to take it with a grain of salt unless you have good evidence, e.g. they openly reject 1769, or their church sign says "Our helpe is in the name of the Lord: who made heauen and earth" instead of the later spelling of "Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth". Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Jewish people look white?

Living in the United States, a person who says that he is Jewish looks like a typical white person, not South Asian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, sub-Saharan African, or Native American. Why do Jews look white even though the Semitic peoples come from the Middle East, which is part of West Asia, and have darker complexion with black/brown hair+eyes and tan skin color? Also, during World War II, if a Jewish family refuses to put on the yellow star badge thingy and practices Judaism in secret under the mask of Christianity, then can that evade persecution by the NAZIs? 164.107.102.180 (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that, in research experiments, researchers may ask, "What is your race/ethnicity?" and offer choices like "Asian-American/Pacific Islander, White-American, African-American, Jewish, and Other," and then adds, "Are you Hispanic?" and the choice is "Yes/No". So, is being Jewish treated as an ethnicity or a race, even though Jewish people may look like white people? 164.107.102.180 (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer only about the allegation that Jews look white. well, Not all Jews look "White". Some Jews, mainly those of Ashkenazi ancestry may look europeanish (and i can promise that it probably won't be a typical north-european look though there are exceptions off course). This is because primarily, jews from europe tend to resemble some kind of a mixture between Israelite, European-native, and a bit Khazar ancestry. Ben-Natan (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to the second, Nazism#Racial theories shows that the Nazi persecution was racial, not religious. Unlike the Spanish Inquisition, where many Jews survived by converting, the Nazis were only interested in who your parents were. There were cases of people who did not even know that they had Jewish ancestry being "outed" and persecuted by the regime. --ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, practicing Jews and non-Jewish people with Jewish ancestry can be persecuted, huh? I imagine that a Jewish family may survive through the Spanish Inquisition, but fails to survive through the Holocaust, because the NAZIs base the Jewish identity on race and looks. 164.107.102.180 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You also have families of several different races who have converted to Judaism such as Semei Kakungulu & the list goes on.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth pointing out that Semitic peoples in general are sometimes classified as 'white' - the 'races' are all social constructs, with no clear scientific method existing to establish 'boundaries' - or for that matter, to establish how many 'races' there supposedly are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ethnicity is dependant on who/what people think they are. Nothing more, nothing less. And what do you measure culture with? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is more of an understatement. Classification of ethnicity based on skin colour or on perceived historical or ancestral links with certain geographical locations is problematic and unscientific; however, that doesn't mean that classification of ethnicity is less important. As a matter of fact, the following source shows that ethnic identification is important in its relationship with health and other indicators and asks for a clearer understanding of the processes involved in ethnic identification in England: Karlsen, S. (2004). 'Black like Beckham'? Moving beyond definitions of ethnicity based on skin colour and ancestry. Ethnicity & Health, 9(2), 107-137. doi:10.1080/1355785042000222842. Sure, ethnicity may be dependent on "who/what people think they are", but your "nothing more" part is arguable due to the perceived correlations between ethnicity and health. And furthermore, I didn't mean quantitative measurement; I meant to say qualitative "measurement" or putting people into [subjective] categories. 164.107.102.180 (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwash ATG, thats a silly eucentirc version without any regard for the rest of the world. All jews are NOT European (and hae not been persecuted either)/. Ashkenazis (who are the lasrgest immigrants to teh US) are white./ There race is white, then you have Mizrahi and Sephardic who look totally different. Indian Jews (and Ethiopians and East Asians) look like thaeir counterparts from that part of the world.

Any study will tell you that are varied definition so "nothing more, nothing less" is absoltuely silly rooted in nothing but personal opinion.Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has suggested that "Jews are all European". As for my definition of ethnicity, it is the one given in our (well sourced) article on the subject. Read it. You might learn something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the degree of genetic integration with non-Jewish populations must be higher than is sometimes assumed, despite the evidence of traceable Y-chromosomes. (For one thing, it is immensely more drastic for a man to consider conversion than a woman...) Certainly to my eye Dutch Jews look Dutch, Russian Jews look Russian, etc. See also Ethiopian Jews... Wnt (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Take a look at our article Khazaria which argues that most Ashkenazim have any real connection to Ancient Israel and that the majority of them originate in an area near Russia. Im sure some of the theorizing is backed up by genetic tests--82.46.142.98 (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's considered a crackpot theory nowadays, although I have no personal opinion. Given 20% of the Roman Empire was Jewish I don't think one needs to make special (some might say conspiracy) theories. The answer to the OP's question is the same as to why do Greeks or Italians look white. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See [4], though still a minority theory. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What proportion of Americans were raised in Christian households?

It seems to be quite common to find a Christian or someone who is raised Christian in the United States (i.e. sometimes people may say that they celebrate Easter and Christmas with their families). My question is, what proportion of the population were raised Christian or came from Christian households? 164.107.102.180 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

(ec) Aside from the inherit problems that no one is obligated to report this data (unlike Census) & that this data is dependent on respondents who are not swearing to its accuracy, this resource may help answer your questions.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know Jewish people who celebrate Christmas with their families. They certainly do not consider themselves Christian families. And when I say "celebrate Christmas", I mean exactly what most people who call themselves Christians do, i.e. share presents and gorge themselves stupid, but go nowhere near any church. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Arthur's Perfect Christmas, Francine Frensky and Muffy Crosswire were mad at each other. Francine wanted to celebrate Hanukkah with her Jewish family, not going to Muffy's party. Muffy assumed that Hanukkah was not important as Christmas, and Francine said, "Well, it is to me!" and slammed the phone down. Jack of Oz, do you mean eating a very large Christmas banquet for "gorge themselves stupid"? I think many people do that during the Big Holidays in many cultural traditions. :) 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Remember the words of Tom Lehrer: "On Christmas Day, you can't get sore / Your fellow man you must adore / There's time to rob him all the more / The other three-hundred and sixty-four." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deregulation in 2000s in the US

Does anyone know about major industry deregulations (laws) after the year 2000? This page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation) lists many of them from late 1970s to late 1990s. However, I am curious if much has happened since year 2000 in any major industry in the US. Need this information for a research project.--130.160.161.93 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Domestic policy of George W. Bush#Regulation, since Republicans are generally the party of deregulation in the US. It says that Bush was big on regulation, but it's entirely sourced to an article in Reason, a libertarian publication, so that should be taken with a grain of salt. I can't think of any major deregulation after 2000; the focus in the main Deregulation article is probably about right. Checking Google under deregulation under bush (it all seems to focus on 43) yields mostly a partisan mix of the left saying Bush deregulated and caused the financial crisis and the right pushing back against that. And while less intuitive, deregulation under obama offers some similar, mostly partisan, sources. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't believe that monarchs are fond of long rains. StuRat (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here you go: [5]. The kindest possible reading seems to be that the US Department of Interior is completely incompetent. StuRat (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, this may be a novel form of deregulation: Put people in charge of regulation who are so utterly incompetent that it never actually happens. I am reminded of the efficiency of Dickens' office of circumlocution. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lovely new entry for my Bullshit File. Thanks, StuRat. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 16:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Of course, if one accepts that both the Office of Circumlocution and US Department of Interior have the real goal of looking like they are doing something without actually doing anything, then they are both quite efficient at that. StuRat (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

UCAS

Do UCAS do CRB checks on all applicants or is that done by university admissions tutors for courses which require checks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.142.98 (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Well I dont have what they consider to be a valid criminal record although I have convictions for very minor things, like smoking pot --82.46.142.98 (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that update. It's time you sign off here and talk to a lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]