Humanities desk
< February 5	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 7 >

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.

February 6

Higher education in Russia

I have some questions about higher education in Russia.

1. Does Russia have a post secondary, sub bachelor degree similar to the US associate degree?

2. What is the minimum education required to work in Russia as an entry level policeman?

3. What are the entry level requirements to work in Russia as a nurse?

4. Roughly what percentage of Russians hold at least the equivalent of a bachelor degree?

5. Does Russia have any kind of apprenticeship system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:C401:94D0:9ED:68E8:496:6544 (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reviewed Education in Russia and its sources? General Ization ^Talk 04:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Longest preamble

What is the longest preamble to a constitution or other law and how long is it?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The longest is the preamble to the Constitution of Iran, at 3074 words (not sure if that's in Persian or English). You can read it at wikisource:Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran - it's a mixture of a history lesson about the Iranian Revolution, a theology lesson about the political teachings of Islam, and a few general statements about what the role of women, the media and the branches of government should be. Smurrayinchester 13:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More questions about the visa ban!

1. We can't know what goes on in Trump's head, although he's usually, from what I see, quite willing to express his thoughts, often quite vocally. Can anyone explain (either by quoting Trump himself, or some political analysis expert) why Trump decided to include already granted visas in his ban? A ban on any granting of visas (even visa applications already under consideration) would have been far less chaotic than a ban on admitting those with already granted visas. I would think the chaos would be readily foreseeable. I seldom hear of occasions where a person is stripped of an already granted visa, or the visa is not honoured, unless they've broken the rules in some way, either in obtaining it, or in how they use it (e.g. committing crimes in the country, or working on a visa which does not allow it). Scott Parkin was an exception (deemed a "threat to national security", despite no criminal charges, and already lawfully in the country, and deported), and it was controversial. "Policy change"... short of a war breaking out, is there any precedent for a mass denial of entry to a country by people who have already been granted a visa, but are not accused of any wrongdoing? And once again, what would Trump have been thinking - that allowing in these already vetted and approved individuals would significantly undermine any supposed benefit to U.S. security? And are there any provisions in Federal law as to the executive having the right to order the denial of entry to those who already hold a valid and properly obtained visa? (refdesk policy probably requires sources, but I'm happy to hear any views. I find it baffling).

2. Can a Green Card, already granted, be effectively voided by an Executive order, in the absence of any breach of the cardholder's obligations? Is there anything in the Federal legislation that covers Green Cards allowing the executive (president, minister, or anyone) to take such an action? (Obviously, refusing to honour a green card is a MASSIVE step to take. I note that this bit was later reversed, but would it ever have been legal?).

3. The seven countries named in the ban were those named under the obama administration under some specific law which named them (some annexure to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965?) for "extreme vetting". What was the rationale expressed back then as to which countries were or weren't included? (As others have said, Saudi Arabia was not named, despite its citizens being responsible for more terrorist deaths of Americans than any other). How did Obama and his administration and Congress explain the choice of countries at the time - both the inclusions, AND the exclusions? (NOTE: This is a question about actions of the Obama administration, not the Trump one!)

Now, please note what I am explicitly NOT asking for - ANY debate on the ethics of Trump's order. Please stick to the specific questions I asked. Eliyohub (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions #1 and #2, especially regarding the "Can Trump..." type questions have effectively been answered by the courts. The answer has been No. Twice. --Jayron 32 16:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question as to the logic of including already-granted visas in the ban still stands. As does the third question about the bill passed under the Obama administration. But will check the links you provided as to the courts' views of the law. Eliyohub (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Swift has some interesting quotes on attempting to use reason to explain irrational people, and the futility thereof. I'll leave it at that. --Jayron 32 17:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your question 3, see the section "The seven countries on Trump’s list" here. No "extreme vetting" was involved; it was merely a requirement that people from countries whose citizens normally don't need a visa to enter the U.S. would need to obtain a visa if they had recently visited one of those seven countries. To "How did Obama and his administration and Congress explain the choice of countries at the time?" the answer seems to be "The countries were identified as having a terrorist organisation with a significant presence in the area, or the country was deemed a 'safe haven' for terrorists." Deor (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yezidi pilgrimage

In the article Yazidi#Pilgrimage, we have content saying that Yazidi are required to visit the burial place of Sheikh Adi ibn Musafir with the following current quotation: "If possible, Yazidis make at least one pilgrimage to Laliş during their lifetime." No citations seem to be given. As far as I can remember, well into the last century, the requirements were rather stricter, with Yezidi having to go on pilgrimage multiple times a year or run the risk of being functionally excommunicated. Yezidi were even given a special exemption from overseas service in the Ottoman military on that basis. Any idea when that changed, and, maybe, of any sources about the current situation? I would have to assume it has changed, because Yezidi refugees obviously can't go on pilgrimage annually, but I don't know of any sources dealing with it. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current state of the UFO phenomenon

it is my impression it's been quiet around %topic% lately. Was it all Cold War disinfo, after all? Asmrulz (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just that for sheer weirdness few things can top Donald Trump, and the recent lack of highly rated TV series like the X-Files has also probably caused the whole topic to more or less shift to the back burner. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

looks like it's more than one era that came to an end. Please, take the partisan stuff to tumblr Asmrulz (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a US Republican who voted for him, because I thought Hillary would be worse. Calling me a partisan under such circumstances seems more than a little suspect. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oh, ok. Carry on, then! Seriously though, you have to admit that was a bit random. And does "weirdness" have a good meaning? Asmrulz (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of "weird".[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in general is weirdness. I wouldn't call the UFO stories "disinformation" - more like "misinterpretation". Our extensive space exploration since the 60s has made distant planets more "real" and less the object of a pseudo-religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One common suggestion (see, for instance, this essay and this xkcd comic) is that the ubiquity of HD cameras has jaded us. In the 50s, you could get away with a photo like this (or even worse quality) as evidence of a UFO. Yet as technology progressed, UFO images never really got any better. The obvious "pie-tin in front of the camera" trick no longer worked, and what was once an omninous blob in the sky was now revealed to be a fast bird or a bit of film grain. By the 90s, UFOs were reduced to weird lights, just barely mysterious at the resolution of a cheap VHS-based camcorder, and now that everyone carries a smartphone with them, the best anyone can do is stuff like this. Add to that the fact that it's now easy to fake a UFO - you can buy a drone for a couple of hundred, or spend a couple of days learning Blender - and the public are very skeptical of the poor quality evidence for UFOs. Smurrayinchester 09:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the real truth behind the 11-07-2006 Chicago O'Hara airport UFO sighting ever gets out to the general masses, things may pick up a bit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.28.10 (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got a link for that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]