Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 6

= December 6 =

Questions about immigration
What are the demographic origins of "legal immigrants" to the United States by region/continents rather than countries?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For statistics on the origin of new immigrants, see . For information on the total immigrant population, see . -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Amish have been 100 years behind us. The Model T started 102 years ago. Do they drive them now?
If so, would you please link us pictures of the Amish driving cars dating from 1910 or before? I'd also like to see photos of inside their houses having candlestick phones. Thanks. --70.179.178.5 (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They don't drive cars. If they need the services of a car, they usually hire a person to drive them. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How could they drive? There's no cops or traffic lights.  In all seriousness, though, serious Amish people don't drive at all.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 07:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghostexorcist is right here. While the Amish are not allowed to do the driving it is not against their culture to have another person drive them someplace they really need to get to (such as a hospital or courthouse).  Them  From  Space  07:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that the Amish are techonlogically "100 years behind us", but instead it's religious rules that prohibit them from using technology such as cars and electricity. If they wish to remain a member of their community then they must obey all the rules.  If not, then according to our article, "Members who do not conform to these expectations and who cannot be convinced to repent are excommunicated".  I'm sure that in the unlikely event that the rules were relaxed to allow driving, they would start driving modern cars rather than progressing through all the technological and style changes that have occurred since he Model T.  Astronaut (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting if they did. Although, I hate to say that I probably wouldn't live to see the day that they'd catch up to the high finned land-yachts of the 1950s.  I'm curious where the OP got this notion that they kept 100 years behind the times.  There's no reference to 100 years in any of the literature that I've read about the Amish.  Dismas |(talk) 07:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They're actually 100 years ahead of us.  Blakk   and ekka 13:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are situations in which Amish do drive. Not all Amish are born and raised Amish.  Some have a driver's license and become Amish.  Some leave and come back, with a driver's license.  As such, those Amish who can legally drive will often become the driver for others. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "An "outsider" becoming a "successful" member of the Old Order Amish church is an extremely rare occurrence, but not impossible." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Amish technology/culture questions
I'm aware that different Amish communities take different approaches to technology, so that some, for instance, employ off-grid electricity to a limited extent, and others employ gas-powered farm machinery and genetically modified crops. My questions concern the strictest old-order Amish: (1) Do any of them use bicycles? This would seem a more efficient means of conveyance than a buggy in situations where there is no cargo to be hauled. But I've never heard of Amish on bicycles. (2) Do they use mechanical clocks? Or do they make do with natural cues, sand-clocks, etc. ? (3) Do they employ any musical instruments? Or do they shun music as the puritans did? (4) Do they employ firearms, to protect their livestock from predators or to hunt game? If so, what sort of firearms would they use? (5) Do they wear sunglasses? L ANTZY T ALK 13:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Amish limit themselves to materials, techniques and objects that present in biblical times, on the religious assumption that modern materials are distractions that draw people away from the moral life. it's not about simplicity or efficiency; it's about ethics and faith.  Bicycles are a 19th century invention, I believe, which adopted the same technology that went into early industrial machines to human-powered transportation, so they would probably be excluded by default, but religious matters like this are usually resolved through some form of discussion or debate - e.g. if the question of the morality of riding bicycles ever arose, community elders would sit down and discuss the matter from the perspective of their beliefs and decide whether it was acceptable.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not quite right, about limiting themselves to Biblical technology. Things like the horse collar are post-biblical; and the Amish regularly use horses to plow their fields.  The article Amish way of life and Ordnung contains a description of various Amish practices, and none of it says that it must be restricted to first-century lifestyle.  Instead, the Amish live a life which is free from the sort of distractions which are likely to cause intereference with a proper relationship with God.  Even the strictest Amish use various technologies which are roughly 18th or 19th century in age.  -- Jayron  32  15:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Browsing through Commons:Category:Amish shows bikes, kick scooters, strollers and wagons - but not all the images in that category actually show Amish. Some are from other similar groups. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Barbara Kingsolver once described some Amish friends of hers' attitude toward technology as judging each machine based on whether it will add to or detract from community cohesion. She gave an example (this is from memory) of a family that had rejected an electrical cow milking machine on the grounds that milking cows together builds community, but later bought the machine when one family member grew too old to lift the heavy milk barrels.  It's not an unreasonable stance and certainly isn't an arbitrary "nothing that wasn't around for Jesus" rule. --Sean 18:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the pragmatic, consequence-based stance is common among more liberal Amish, whereas the orthodox still adhere to a dogmatic approach whereby a technology is accepted or rejected on the basis of received tradition, not on the basis of its potential effects. However, such an approach could nevertheless admit a degree of flexibility. Orthodox Jews have devised some pretty clever ways of circumventing Halakha, of which my favorite is the "letter tile" phenomenon: Because writing is forbidden on the sabbath, some Orthodox puzzle enthusiasts have been known to manufacture tiny letter tiles, like Scrabble tiles in miniature, which they can use to complete crosswords without writing. L ANTZY T ALK 18:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly are "Biblical times"? That covers a hell of a lot of ground. I'm sure Sodom boasted certain apparatuses that the Amish wouldn't care for. Things like bicycles and clocks and sunglasses could probably have been constructed in earliest antiquity, if only they had been conceived of. So what exactly do the Amish shun? The materials or what to do with them? It reminds me of Heidegger's conception of technology, which (if I recall correctly) he described as a process inseparable both from the universe and from human beings, a way of being rather than an external thing. I wonder what exactly is the Amish conception of technology. L ANTZY T ALK 18:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the articles? The difference between conservative (Older Order) vs. more liberal Amish communities is not in fundemental philosophy, but in application of the Ordnung.  The Amish believe that the use of technology should not interfer with either community cohesion NOR with one's relationship with God.  The application of this principle is handled on a community-by-community basis; in fact the description of an Amish community as particularly "conservative" or "Older Order" vs. "liberal" is a consequence of how they apply this principle, not the other way around.  It is often incorrectly stated or assumed that the Amish wish to live with the technology that existed when Jesus lived.  This is plainly not true, and does not show up in Amish dogma NOR in practice of any Amish community.  The Amish merely wish to live in a world where technology does not interfer with their cultural values.  Whatever that means is left up to each individual community to decide for themselves.  There is no specific material or technology or device or anything else which is universally shunned by the Amish; they tend to judge each application on its own merits and in their own community.   -- Jayron  32  18:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would note that Heidegger's conception of technology is as a way of seeing the world. What bugged Heidegger is that "technology" means that you start to see the world in terms of resources to be exploited ("standing reserve") and that eventually this false way of experiencing the universe becomes totalizing. It is a good deal more philosophical (and less practical) than the Amish approach in my opinion. It can be reduced to a "practical" critique but that isn't really the spirit in which Heidegger made it. The essay in question though is particularly cranky, late Heidegger. Heidegger's interview with Der Spiegel from 1966 is in my opinion a good deal more clear about he was trying to say than the original essay is. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I live around the Pennsylvania Dutch region and pass through the areas where the Amish live quite often. They do use bicycles. In fact I just saw one on a bike with a large basket earlier today. They also use non-electric clocks and I believe are allowed to own types of guns for defense and hunting purposes. I've never seen any wear sunglasses... I think that would conflict with the "plain" style dress that they keep. The belief that the Amish adhere to practices of biblical times is nonsense, if anything the practices they adhere to would be akin to life in 18th century colonial Pennsylvania.  Them  From  Space  02:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There a lot of somewhat related Anabaptist groups with varying practices. Hutterite for example. When I was a kid, there were a related group locally who would drive cars, but in the interests of eschewing the sins of vanity, pride and ornamentation, would buy only black cars and paint all the (at the time plentiful) chrome on the cars black, gaining for themselves the nickname "The Black Bumpers". Similar to the constant admonitions in the movie Witness (1985 film) regarding the virtues of being "plain", to the point where buttons on clothing are considered the sin of pride. Gzuckier (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pro bono Fair Use consultation? (US, online)
Are there any websites that offer pro bono consultation on Fair Use? I'm finding discerning copyright violations from fair use extremely difficult, and would like some knowledgeable advice for a simple question. I also realize this is NOT the place to ask for legal advice, so I'm asking YOU for a link to a place that is! :-) The Masked Booby (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether you can obtain pro bono help has a lot to do with how much research your question takes, and whether you're with a nonprofit or otherwise less well heeled. http://www.lawyerbureau.com/getalawyer.cfm has a copyrights category under "Intellectual property" and http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/lris/directory/ lets you get local and phone numbers right away usually. If the question takes half an hour or less, you can almost always get it for free or almost free. E.g., the customary initial consultation in Texas is anywhere from free for an hour to $20 for 30 minutes, unless the attorney isn't taking any new business at the time, in which case they will almost certainly be able to refer you to a colleague attorney who is. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 Asian Games - why was Kuwait the Olympic Athletes of Kuwait or something like that?
Watching from China, the Kuwaiti men's soccer team had a very unusual name. It translated into "Kuwait Men's Olympic Soccer Team" or something similar. I also noticed it referred to in an English publication by an equally unusual name, though I've forgotten what exactly. Was there any particular reason they weren't just called the "national team" like every single other country? The Masked Booby (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See Kuwait_at_the_2010_Asian_Games and Kuwait Olympic Committee. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Any evidence that organisations with zero secrecy would be impossible?
Is there any a-priori reason that organisations such as government, military, police, or business would be able to function if they had zero secrecy and every detail of them was available to everyone? Thanks 92.29.120.120 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are referring to organizations which are in competition with other organizations that would not be required to avoid any and all secrecy. As such, it depends on the equality of the organizations.  For simplicity, consider cops and robbers.  The cops have no secrecy at all.  So, if they plan to stake out a possible criminal location, they have to tell the criminals that they will be there looking for illegal activity.  If they find a lead on a crime, they have to tell the criminals that they found a lead.  If they need to sneak something extremely valuable from one place to another, they have to tell the criminals exactly where it will be moved from, the path, where to, and all known weaknesses in security along the way.  This would work if the police were far superior to the criminals - so much so that even knowing everything about the police wouldn't benefit the criminals.  However, it wouldn't work in the real world. --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You somewhat contradict yourself by titling the question by asking for "evidence" and then asking for an "a-priori reason." Nonetheless, there is no "evidence" of an organization failing who had no secrecy because they could have had secrets, but we don't know. There are some "a-priori reasons" why an organization lacking any secrecy may fail. These may include, but are not limited to, limiting the amount of 'new recruits,' as it were, or because the 'non-secret' may expose the focus of the 'leader(s)' which may tend toward maximizing personal gain. Q.E.D.. schyler (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is an amusing take on the concept on an individual level. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are good a priori reasons to thinking that some secrecy (or privacy, depending on your turn of mind) is necessary in said organizations. In government, total transparency can be constraining, and prevent the expression of controversial or not-yet-completely-formed ideas. It can carry tremendous political implications. (Would Kennedy and Khrushchev have been able to negotiate the Cuban Missile Crisis if everything they said to each other and to their advisors at the time was being simultaneously broadcast? Obviously most secrets have a half-life — we can see said negotiations today without endangering national security or souring the negotiation process.) There are plenty of examples of leaked information souring discussions prematurely or causing them to be scuttled before their time. Historically speaking there are bountiful piles of evidence that knowing about another nation's military planning and deliberations can be exploited by an enemy. There is zero evidence that transparency in military matters aids anyone, except maybe those who want to lose a war. Police is a complicated issue, but there's lots of examples to be found of information about an ongoing investigation being released totally ending said investigation. In business, information is a commodity; giving away information is the same as giving away money.
 * The key thing, in my mind, if I may get on a soapbox for a second here, is not whether you can or should get rid of secrecy. Secrecy can be valuable and useful. History gives us plenty of examples in which the preservation or violation of secrecy has affected world events in many different ways. Secrecy can, however, be abused, and it can be self-destructive, and it can be wielded improperly. The effort should not be to totally end all secrecy — that is not in fact even a very good goal. The effort should be to insure that there is sufficient oversight for existing secrecy, and that there are bodies in place that can reasonably guarantee that secrecy regulations are regularly reviewed and do not hamper existing operations. These kinds of "reform" efforts are in fact hurt by the kinds of things Wikileaks is doing, which serve only to promote a more conservative attitude towards secrecy, unfortunately.
 * For references, there are lots of examples for and against the above in Sissela Bok's Secrets: on the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation (1989), among other places. Steven Aftergood's Secrecy News is an excellent resource for thinking about secrecy reform, and has a lot of good commentary on the Wikileaks activity. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For a debate between Glenn Greenwald (who gets my vote) & Steven Aftergood on Wikileaks, see and .John Z (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

what the hell, this question is really obvious to answer. you know those senate hearings you can always see on CSPAN? well, they're boring, but all the sesions are taped. lots of organizations exist whose every meeting is of public record!! (verbatim). It is very easy to imagine such an organization where members have no other direct communication with each other (outside the public sessions). so, the answer, is organizations can exist with 0 secrecy. next! 82.234.207.120 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Senate is not an open organization, and arguably the taped hearings are not where any of the real decisions and deliberations take place. If you think that the open CSPAN hearings represent an organization with zero secrecy, then you simply don't understand what's going on.
 * One of the real criticisms of things like mandatory "sunshine" laws is that they make it so that all that is open is meaningless. I have myself heard someone on a Congressional committee complain that they had to do all sorts of tricky things (like meeting without a full quorum) in order to avoid having their meetings all be publicly accessible, because publicly accessible meetings on controversial subjects focus too much attention (and too many interest groups) on issues that have not yet been worked over very completely, and can therefore slant the whole process. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My state of Australia has recently had a change of government, with one of the campaign catchphrases of our new government being "No secrets!" It was, of course, intended as a criticism of the previous mob, but it will be interesting to watch how long and how firmly they stick to that commitment. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Less than a week, apparently. (See David Davis's reported answers to questions.) --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   22:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. Nice observation. Good to see the media doing its job. I regarded it as just another election promise anyway, so I'm neither too surprised nor too disappointed. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In my experience personnel issues are always the big problem. It is nearly impossible to have an open and frank discussion in public about whether a specific person is suitable for a specific position and how much that person should be paid -- you find that the best people won't have anything to do with you because they don't want their private information discussed in public. Looie496 (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you imagine organizations like Wikileaks in a world without secrets? They wouldn't have secrets of others to reveal, and they wouldn't have any place to hide. In another example, in the case of military, you always need a specific amount of secrets. Your enemy has to know how strong you are (or how strong you pretend to be). But, your enemy shouldn't know your weaknesses. Conclusion: as long as there is competition of any kind, healthy or destructive, you need secrecy and privacy. Mr.K. (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Almost any organization needs some areas of secrecy. If it has money, it came from either customers or donors.  Either way, people may not want everyone else in the world to know how they spend their money, so their identities probably need to be kept secret by default.  And it's hard to discuss personality conflicts or to prevent every considered course of action from becoming a rumor unless it's possible to hold closed-doors meetings.  Paul (Stansifer) 03:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Charities in the UK in theory have no secrets apart from those relating to privacy, yet still function, so many businesses could as well. Many other organisations would continue to function without secrets if they gaurded their physical resources, or were bigger than their rivals and benefited from economies of scale and bargaining clout. For example Tescos or Walmart probably do not have much in the way of secrets. The military could operate without secrets if they have superior resources to enemies. 92.15.11.224 (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Charities aren't competing for profits and they don't list on the stock market. Those two aspects make information a very precious commodity. Charities aren't businesses; comparing their operation to for-profit enterprises is like comparing apples and oranges. You could hypothetically have a world in which all businesses were open but it would require a revolution in finance and I don't think we can predict the implications of that. (Note that governments can subpoena information from businesses if there is reasonable doubt that they are breaking the law, so their secrecy is not absolute.) And the military example is just daft. There have been many instances where superior intelligence trumped superior resources. Consider the Battle of Midway for example, where a superior Japanese naval fleet was wiped out by an American fleet which, because they had cracked Japanese cables, knew exactly what ships were arriving at which times and where, and could set up an ambush for them. This kind of stuff is textbook military history. Operational secrecy is a huge asset, and superior resources do not guarantee victory in any event. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Either you didnt read the last sentance, or you don't understand the meaning of the word "if". Charities are run like businesses, except they don't make a profit. 92.24.176.134 (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is like saying people are like birds, except they don't have wings and feathers. Under some circumstances, the comparison might be valid and useful, but when it comes to discussing flight, equating the two becomes ridiculous. Likewise, business secrets are highly valuable because profit is involved, so bringing up charities is pointless. Matt Deres (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Birds? What have birds got to do with it? You can think up a zillion non-sequitor illogical similies if you like. You're attributing to me something ridiculous by a similie, and then criticising me for your ridiculous similie. 92.29.123.221 (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been ignoring facts and logic so far; I thought I would give something else a shot. The point we've been trying to get into your head is that you can't just compare businesses to charities and then handwave away the completely central point that businesses are based on profit and charities aren't - charities have nothing to lose (by being open) because they have no profit at stake. Your point here is no better than your ridiculous assertion that the military could get by with no secrets. Matt Deres (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many other ways of making a profit apart from having a secret(s). For the second time I have to write: either you didnt read the last sentance above, or you don't understand the meaning of the word "if". 92.15.30.71 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of a Simpsons cartoon courtroom scene arguement which went something like "Elephants can't jump: therefore the defendant is guilty". 92.28.255.24 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I rather suspect Congress would work much better with zero secrecy at least where domestic legislation is concerned. As for security, international matters, and all, those are another matter... P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 21:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The simplest example of an organisation that couldn't function without secrecy would be the courts. You simply wouldn't be able to have a fair trial by jury where juror names and home addresses are made known to the defendant - no one would ever convict.    You can have high security around the houses of a small number of judges, but not dozens of fresh jurors every single week, for an indefinite period.  Similarly, without some degree of secrecy (at least as to media non-publication of complainant names) you would have very, very few people ever reporting crimes of domestic violence or sexual abuse. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, re: Congress, consider the value of a traditional "open" speech by a Congressman. You know the contents before looking at it, they say nothing of real substance, they hedge every bet. Now consider the efficiency of a behind-the-scenes meetings and discussion. They lay their cards on the table. They say what they are willing to do. They express what kind of compromise they can live with. They make a decision. There is value in public organizations having both a public and private side. There are certainly downsides to having a private side. But there are strong downsides to having every decision being made under the full blare of publicity, too. Some kind of hybrid system (much like what we have now) where certain things are done behind closed doors, but accountability is eventually public, is probably more ideal than one or the other extreme. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

See also security by obscurity 203.214.100.65 (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are some types of business that could run without secrecy. In fact many small businesses where the "hard work" is what is being sold do run this way. I have seen small farmers sharing knowledge of how to deal with dropping yields, early frost, etc. rather than keeping it secret. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are obviously going to be some business models that use proprietary information more than others. I'm not sure that's up for dispute. The idea that you could get rid of proprietary information in all business and have it function more or less in a way analogous to the way it works today, though, is an entirely different proposition. There are lots of different models for how to keep, share, or pool proprietary information, and reasons one might do it. (E.g. there are companies which enter into trade secret sharing pools, because they feel it benefits them all more mutually than keeping their individual secrets.) The fact of this does not have any real impact though on the larger question; it just points to the fact that information is indeed valuable and there are different ways of exploiting that value. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you consider all the businesses in a Western country, only a very tiny fraction of them are reliant upon any secret to make a profit. The ones where secrets are important would be only those at the cutting edge of technology, and they are rare. 92.15.30.71 (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nearly every business is dependent on secrets. Things like price lists, contract details and even hire & fire decisions are all totally or partly secret.  While the general details may be known or pretty well fixed for the industry, the specific details can be the difference between succeeding and going out of business.  If your competition knows exactly how much you pay for a product or how much you'll sell it for, they can underbid you.  If they know exactly the terms of a contract, they can offer a slightly better contract and win.  In many decisions to fire an employee, it's no one's business why that employee was fired, except the employee.  When employees are hired or not hired, the reasons are secret for good reason.Tobyc75 (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I infer you have no experience of business. For example a candy/sweet shop: the prices to the public are not a secret, the prices of the goods they purchase from the wholesaler are not a secret. The bookkeeping system they have is not a secret either. Most businesses are small with few staff. The reasons for making a profit are listed at the barriers to entry article: a profit from a secret is rare, especially as new technology is usually patented and made public. Details of who are hired or fired are privacy issues, not secrets, and the business would still function if the reasons had to be made puiblic. If the "secret recipe" of Coca Cola was published, it would have little effect on its sales as its really just a marketing gimmick. 92.15.28.181 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Opensource software projects are usually only loosely created by "organizations", but they're often completely conducted in public. APL (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)