Humanities desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

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.

January 3

Is Joe Shmoe name of a type of burger or it just means"something"?

I have seen multiple times on internet of people calling burgers "Joe Shmoe"example, but I did not see anything related to this in the article Joe shmoe.--chaoxiandelunzi (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Joe" is a ~~common~~ slang for a hamburger. "Joe Shmoe" is slang for a sort of hypothetical common person, a person having no particular refinements. For that link the name is obviously being used semi-ironically: The burger uses only basic ingredients and is simple in arrangement (in that way it is like a "Joe Shmoe"), but it is obviously also supposed to be refined in the quality of the ingredients and preparation (in that way the name is ironic). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--chaoxiandelunzi (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE. I looked first at the pseudonymous placeholder John Doe, and thought I detected a hint of Yiddish humour with the shm- beginning, so I looked up schmuck. I am reminded of "sloppy joes", burgers that no longer cohere. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, "Joe" is also used as slang for coffee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting anyone here, but where is this common? I've never heard of this before except for sloppy joes. Mingmingla (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That first link from the OP is trying to "do something", so I exited from it. Likewise I've never heard of a sandwich being called a "Joe Schmo". Sloppy Joe, sure. Maybe Joe for short, though I've never heard that either. To me, just plain "Joe" implies coffee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Down here, a sloppy joe is a rather dated '60s expression for a type of pullover/jumper thing. I appreciate a hamburger that's falling to bits may end up being worn if the eater isn't careful, but our version of sloppy joes were designed to be worn. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An American sloppy joe is not so much a hamburger falling to pieces, as it is a hamburger bun with a thick ragout ladled between the bun halves. --Trovatore (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convergence from two different origins of "slop".[1][2] The term for a loose-fitting pullover nowadays would probably be "floppy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my mistake not common, except in "sloppy joe" (and then, as is apparent, not everyone understands this to be a type of hamburger). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should have confused Joe Shmoe with sloppy joe.--chaoxiandelunzi (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Myung Seok

It's not a question, but I really want to say "Tank you!!" for saving my life and preventing me from becoming a member of a sect of Jung Myung Seok. I found and article about him in English in Wikipedia by a lucky chance. Thanks to those, who translated it from Korean into English! Now I can understand how important Wikipedia is indeed. It really saves lives!

Best regards,

Arven

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.216.57 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of Wikipedia, you're welcome. StuRat (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

National censuses that exclude certain groups of citizens

In 1967, the Australian people overwhelmingly approved a change to our Constitution enabling our indigenous people to be "enumerated" in our national Census for the first time. It's widely believed that, until then, they weren't counted at all. That's wrong: they were counted for the most part, because the Commonwealth always had the power to collect statistics in the national interest. But the numbers of Aboriginals were excluded from the published statistics, and when it came to considering the populations of the states for the purpose of allocating seats in the Australian House of Representatives and for working out federal funding of state projects, that's where the numbers of Aboriginal people were excluded. That changed in 1967.

Are there other examples of national censuses that, either for specific purposes or for all purposes, explicitly excluded a defined group or groups of their citizens? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this fits your criteria, but until slavery was abolished in America, slaves were counted but were only computed as three-fifths of a person when determining the allocation of representatives in Congress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be helpful about that, here's our article about such a topic: Three-Fifths Compromise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the Romani people have been largely ignored in national censuses across Europe. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans living on tribal lands in the United States were not counted in the census at all until 1900 [3]. "Indians not taxed" (and to some politicians, all Native Americans ever) were not considered citizens until 1898 with United States v. Wong Kim Ark. So it's slightly different from what you're asking, in that it was a change in who was considered a citizen, rather than a change in which citizens were censused. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are mostly correct here, but not completely correct. Most or all Native Americans in the United States were counted/enumerated in the 1890 U.S. Census as well. The reason that it talks about the 1900 U.S. Census and U.S. Censuses after that point in your link is because the 1890 U.S. Census was almost completely destroyed by a 1921 fire and by government order in the early 1930s. Also, I thought that many/most Native Americans only became U.S. citizens in the 1920s, under U.S. President Calvin Coolidge? Futurist110 (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt doesn't allow immigrant Christians to become citizens so Egypt didn't count Armenian, Assyrian and Syrian Christians. Perhaps they didn't count Egyptian Jews as well.
Sleigh (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies so far. The Native American and Egyptian cases are interesting, but are not equivalent to the Australian case because they revolve around the question of citizenship. All Australian Aborigines have always been citizens, subject to the same laws as everyone else (Voting rights of Australian Aborigines was a major exception until 1984), paying the same taxes, subject to national service (when it was in force), and so on. But despite this, up until 1967 the Constitution explicitly excluded them for the purposes I mentioned above. The closest case so far seems to be the Three-Fifths Compromise, where slaves were 'partially excluded' from the count. The Romani are probably a special case; have they ever been singled out and discriminated against by a national law in this way, or was it just a question of their nomadic habits making it hard to keep tabs on them?-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The three-fifths thing isn't quite the same since the total number of slaves was published in census reports. They were 'partially excluded' for purposes of congressional representation, yes, but not from 'the count' done by the census. Pfly (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Thanks, Pfly. So, at this stage, the Australian experience is looking uniqueish. I wonder how I could verify that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would challenge the wording of the question. The censuses that I am aware of attempt to capture data on everyone in the country (in each town, in each household) on a given night. Citizenship may or may not be one of the data points; it's the actual physical presence that matters more. Thus, foreign tourists and visiting relatives are counted, because people ordinarily resident are also likely to be abroad (or in another town or household) on census night. Planning for roads and sewage depends on bodies, not the citizenship of those bodies; likewise, in many countries, planning for schools and health clinics. So, as a rule of thumb, a census will attempt to count every human being on census night, but over the months and years that follow, the statisticians may slice and dice the data in different ways to make different points. They have algorithms to try to approximate the numbers of e.g. illegal immigrants and homeless people and refuseniks.

That's nowadays. If you're looking historically, you could consider extreme examples such as the 1666 census of New France, which involved a door-to-door count of the French, skipping over all the indigenous people. The Canadian Encyclopedia has an article on aboriginal people and demography which explains some of the difficulties and overlapping categories that bedevil demographers. Our article on Aboriginal peoples in Canada states:

Approximately 40,115 individuals of Aboriginal heritage could not be counted during the 2006 census.^[1]^[2] This is due to the fact that certain Aboriginal reserves and communities in Canada did not participate in the 2006 census, since enumeration of those communities were not permitted.^[1]^[3] In 2006, 22 Native communities were not completely enumerated unlike in the year 2001, when 30 First Nation communities were not enumerated and during 1996 when 77 Native communities could not be completely enumerated.^[1]^[3] Hence, there were probably 1,212,905 individuals of Aboriginal ancestry (North American Indian, Metis, and Inuit) residing in Canada during the time when the 2006 census was conducted in Canada.

First Nations men and women could not, as a rule, vote until 1960, so you could say they weren't considered full citizens. (I'm unaware of the correct legal terminology for this.) See Timeline of changes in citizenship and rights. As for who got the status of "American", you might want to read "Racial Reorganization and the United States Census 1850-1930: Mulattoes, Half-Breeds, Mixed Parentage, Hindoos, and the Mexican Race" here. I hope this goes some way towards helping. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and yes, Roma/Gypsies have been massively under-counted in some countries. The Open Society Foundations has a "Roma Census Success" story here. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brainy Babe. It's looking like my initial take on the matter is not as clear cut as I may have imagined. I need to read up some more on this. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference statcan_aboriginal_demographics was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Incompletely enumerated Indian reserves and Indian settlements". Statistics Canada. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
^ ^a ^b "Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and First Nations, 2006 Census". Statistics Canada. Retrieved April 10, 2012.

[statcan_aboriginal_demographics-1] Cite error: The named reference statcan_aboriginal_demographics was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Incompletely_enumerated_Indian_reserves_and_Indian_settlements-2] "Incompletely enumerated Indian reserves and Indian settlements". Statistics Canada. Retrieved April 10, 2012.

[Aboriginal_Peoples_in_Canada_in_2006:_Inuit,_Métis_and_First_Nations,_2006_Census-3] "Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and First Nations, 2006 Census". Statistics Canada. Retrieved April 10, 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]