Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 October 14

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 14

Percent of the world's urban population living in slums

I am looking for an authoritative source to answer the question, what percentage of the world's urban population is living in slums? Thanks if you can point me to a credible reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.50.210 (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

First, define "slum". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that will be tricky, as people living in "slums" in the developed world are far better off than what are called "slums" in the third world. In the developed world, they are likely to have indoor plumbing, enough food, etc. StuRat (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

But, this source says "One billion people live in urban slums, which are typically overcrowded, polluted and dangerous, and lack basic services such as clean water and sanitation." I doubt if you would be able to find a much more precise source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

From their description, it sounds like they mean third-world slums only. StuRat (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This downloadable report - authoritative and as up-to-date as you are likely to find - has a mass of information, especially in the appendices at the back. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all for your input. From the last link, provided by Ghmyrtle, I can find this number: 32.7% people living in 'developing regions' are the 'proportion of urban population living in slum (per cent)'. That number helps me, though a global number would help me more. As for defining slum, it suggests 'population living in household that lack either improved water, improved sanitation, sufficient living area (more than three persons per room), or durable housing. Again, thanks for your input Wikians... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.50.210 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Lack of "durable housing" could mean all mobile homes, RV parks, and campsites would be considered to be slums, as would any tents used by nomadic people. StuRat (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Mobile homes are considered durable housing. Tents and rv's are only considered slum housing if their original purpose - moving frequently and easily from place to place - has been subverted and they now serve as permanent housing. Slums are built to last but of non-durable materials (although they will tend to transition to more durable materials if the occupants are allowed to stay in place for an extended period of time). And there are definitively slums in the first world: a lot of camps occupied by Romani people in or near major European cities are built exactly like their third world counterparts: cardboard, sheets of corrugated steel and other scavenged building materials such as old door and window frames, with no or only jerry-built connections to the power grid and other utilities. Those stay in place until forcibly demolished. So the percentage of persons who live in slums in the first world, while small, is not zero. --Xuxl (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

But the Romani people are historically nomads, so they choose non-durable housing because they plan to move on soon. StuRat (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The settlements I've seen do not look like they can be moved easily. See this for example [1]. --Xuxl (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are negative attitudes about adultery so widespread?

Why are negative attitudes about adultery so widespread? 164.107.102.151 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I can think of several reasons:

1) Disease. An adulterous spouse may bring a venereal disease into the marriage.

2) Passing on one's genes. If the husband doesn't have any children because the wife is constantly impregnated by others, he won't pass on his genes.

3) Inheritance. If a man wants to pass his resources and possessions on to his children, he needs to know which ones are his. If he is prevented from helping his own children, this makes him less likely to pass on his own genes successfully.

4) Religion. Of course, religious objections to adultery are likely based on the first 3 reasons. StuRat (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just done some reading of academic articles on this topic - sexual infidelity - and basically in commited relationships (dating or married), cheating partners do a lot of emotional damage, because the non-cheating partner may feel insecure, undesirable, jealous, or whatever. So, emotions are widespread, and cheating is widespread, and cheating causes a lot of emotional damage. So, that means impact on emotions inevitably causes a lot of damage. It makes me wonder if all our moral decisions are based on our emotions (and maybe logical reasoning), though. :P 164.107.102.151 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I rather doubt the last sentence, Stu. There is a little thing called keeping your promises, and when you marry someone and vow to be faithful to them, you're supposed to mean it, and to exercise restraint in the face of temptation. That would apply whether the first 3 reasons were valid or not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 16:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

But the reasons for the promise in the first place are 1-3. I would therefore predict that societies with no venereal diseases and no inheritance would be more likely to permit polygamy. Also, our own society may become more accepting of it if VD is eliminated (since DNA tests can already tell us who sired whom). StuRat (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Again I must disagree, with your "But the reasons ..." sentence. The reason it's important to keep one's promises goes far beyond mere utilitarianism. It's about self-respect and integrity, because if you can't keep your promises to others, particularly your nearest and dearest, then you won't be keeping those you make to yourself, and your opinion of yourself will be lower than it could be, because you'll be thinking of yourself as basically untrustworthy. Confucius and many later people encapsulated it into what is commonly called the Golden Rule. That's where you do what you say you will do, for no other - or better - reason than that you said you would. Whether it has those repercussions you talked about or not, is completely beside the point. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

But you start with the false premise that a promise must be made in the first place. It is possible to have a society with no concept of marriage. Look at bonobos for an example. Of course, for the reasons I noted, this is rare in humans. I believe this did happen in some communes though. StuRat (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

What "false premise"? The topic is adultery. That presupposes we're talking about marriage. You've just introduced a red herring, and an irrelevant one at that. (Thinks: I wonder if red herrings understand the concepts of marriage, commitment and fidelity.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The family is the basic unit of social organisation, adultery threatens it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the primary issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have no negative attitude toward adultery--just don't let me catch you cheating on me. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • So as long as you don't know about it, it's OK? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No one has yet cautioned that not all societies or cultures accept OP's premise. Not even all "western" or even "first world Western European" cultures. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

France is a different animal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

True, but my larger point was that there are several examples even in the "west" of cultures where this is actually condoned, even some ethno-culture segments within the US & Canada. Just because the majority have these views in some countries doesn't mean that other 'norms' don't exist in prevalence. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Marriage is a contract. Adultery is breach of contract. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not in the legal sense it isn't, see No-fault divorce etc. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

While it's not a "standard" contract, it's still a promise for a promise, which is the very definition of a contract. And the no-fault divorce is a recent concept that only exists in some places. The creation of a marriage is a legal process, as is divorce. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really. There is a legal marriage, and there is a social/religious marriage. The two don't necessarily overlap; it's quite possible to have a religious wedding without it being a legal marriage (see same-sex marriages in most states of the USA). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Hand That Feeds, also Bugs tho marriage is a "legal process" it is not legal between the persons marrying as much as it is a state recognition for various state legal processes. A legal contract between two parties isn't litigated the same way. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a related question that came to my mind while reading this thread: Which are the 10 most common causes for adultery? Any references for it? I mean, why a man who has been married for 20 years with a woman would want to cheat on her or viceversa? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There can be any number of reasons, but Chris Rock made an important comment on it: "A man is only as faithful as his options." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What does it mean Bugs? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Que los hombres cogen que puedan. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

But μηδείς, if people get married isn't because they love each other? I know I am being naive. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

StuRat's list is missing an important one: breach of trust. Adultery is most likely to lead to the breakdown of the marriage when it is conducted behind the back of the uninvolved party/ies. When this is discovered, it's quite reasonably taken as a clear demonstration of the adulterer's lack of openness and commitment to the joint business of the marriage. Couples who separate without divorcing, and begin new relationships, may technically be committing adultery, but they're not in the same boat as a couple where one has deceived the other by engaging in a clandestine affair.

Note, by the way, that although we speak of 'committing' adultery, it is in many places not a crime, and often not readily actionable as a tort either; in UK law, for example, it is primarily a grounds for divorce - but the legal action taken is for divorce, not against adultery. Given the rise of 'unreasonable behaviour' as a catch-all ground in contested divorces, and its legal non-applicability in same-sex cases, adultery as an entity in UK law may be obsolescent. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I should also add:

5) From a woman's POV, a husband who cheats on her is more likely to spend some of his resources on children other than hers, and so would historically make her children less likely to survive and carry on her genes. StuRat (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What topics are censored on the Chinese internet?

The current Wikipedia article on internet censorship in China, and the article on the Chinese Wikipedia only list a few examples of censored topics, and they don't include religion. Could someone in China access the English wikipedia article of Gautama Buddha, and would it be the same article? CensoredScribe (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

See Golden Shield Project, sometimes called the "Great Firewall of China". Start with the Wikipedia article, and do some research outside of Wikipedia. There's plenty of information out there; this is a well trodden topic. --Jayron32 19:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

utilities forced payments to itself from customers

Is it legal for a utility/water dept. etc. to force a person to pay or else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.136.26 (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, always please sign your posts with ~~~~, thank you! In some jurisdictions it is possible for them to put a lien on the property if the owners name is the same as the name on the utility account. The easiest way they "force a person to pay or else" is that the person will have no water or electricity, etc. after a certain time period. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Some northern US states have laws prohibiting the cessation of heat during the winter. But in general, if you stop paying, you stop getting - and the utility company certainly could take you to court for unpaid bills if they wanted to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In such jurisdictions, while utilities may not be able to turn off your utilities, they can still force you to pay through other means, such as putting a lien on your property, or by taking you to court under tort law. --Jayron32 00:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In NYC apartments the heat and water are provided by the landlord, while the electricity comes from ConEd, (in Manhattan, a least), and they will cut it off for non-payment. I knew one tenant who for years ran a cord out his window to his neighbor's to get electricity, and they split the bill. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A free trip to North Korea?!

Does any nation-state have an extradition treaty with North Korea? If so, which one(s) and can you direct me to the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Looked & looked into this, my initial thought that China would by either formal treaty or default was confirmed. It has long been pointed out that China supplies the vast majority of electricity and food to North Korea, so when Beijing says jump NK pretty much does as it is told, on extradition and all other matters.

Something I found on a site discussion board though was that since the Korean War is still technically at a 'cease fire' and has never formally ended by treaty, North Korea doesn't exist in a manner where it can make formal extradition treaties with other nations. Not certain how true that is but the underlying facts are correct, there is in treaty law still just one Korea. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The bit about NK jumping when China says jump is wrong, too. China doesn't want NK to have nukes, because that could lead to South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all getting nukes to protect themselves. But NK won't give them up. StuRat (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Curious that some here pretend to know what China wants on a specific issue such as 3rd party nukes, it isn't like they give press conferences over there. The Chinese do live by the axiom of actions speak loudest, unless Beijing is going to give me free food and power for decades without asking me to serve as their proxy in return. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't figure out what you're trying to say. Are you arguing that China wants NK to have nukes ? How could it possibly help them to have a unstable nation on their border with nuclear weapons ? StuRat (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, but wrong. Both Koreas existed as independent states before the Korean War, and both are individually members in the UN. The US does not maintain official diplomatic relations with North Korea, but it is a generally recognized state, and close US allies like the UK and Turkey do maintain diplomatic relations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Both Korea's weren't recognized as "independent states before the Korean war". And both only became individual members of the UN nearly 45 years after they claim to have become sovereign nations, both on the same exact day right after the fall of the Soviet empire, most probably to appease both east & west. As I stated above I doubt that they are isolated as before but there is still diplomatic chill & special handling that goes on with them even today. The 70 year old UN cease fire still has yet to produce a peace treaty & thus any overall diplomatic foundation. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about this in the context of being extradited from NK or being extradited to it? In the former case, in the US, you can be tried even if how you got to the US was not by way of extradition treaty (in other words, if you flee to NK and someone kidnaps you and brings you back, you're still able to be brought into court- lack of a treaty does not necessarily protect you if you are wanted bad enough (or if someone is overzealous)). Ker–Frisbie doctrine describes this. However, given NK's nature, I'd imagine if you could persuade them to let you stay there, you'd probably be safe from being extracted. As for being extradited from to NK, in the US, see Valentine v. United States, it appears that for extradition to take place, the authorization needs to come from somewhere (not simply not be prohibited against), so if you went to NK and committed crimes, you couldn't end up extradited from the US- unless we did sign a treaty, which is unlikely.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. To clarify, I am interested in the scenario where an individual is charged with crimes by the government of North Korea. That individual is not in North Korea. How should he or she modify his/her travels to avoid being detained by North Korea? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, they don't have a treaty with anyone- if they cared enough, they might try to kidnap you (or something). I doubt any major nation would hand you over- if their laws would even let them without a treaty.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This entire thing is really a legal issue, and it's probably not safe to rely on random responses from the internet. You should contact a government, such as maybe the South Korean embassy, and see what they know about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for legal advice, go for an official source. Just for curiosity, China does that: [[2]]. And other countries, like Laos, deport to China. Notice that these are one-way free trips. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)