Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 28

= December 28 =

External Links for Historical Race and Ethnicity Data from Various Countries
For this Wikipedia article of mine (Race and ethnicity in censuses) I have added some useful external sources (in the "External Links" section) showing historical race and ethnicity data for various countries. However, I am obviously missing a lot of countries and I don't know how to navigate the statistical websites of many countries. Therefore, if someone is able to find historical race and ethnicity data for countries other than the ones I just added, please let me know and I'll add them (or you can add them to that Wikipedia article yourself if you want to). Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Futurist110 (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You have already included information from my country, Australia. I tidied it up a bit. Be aware that in some cultures, to some extent even mine, your asking about racial data can be interpreted as a sign of an unhealthy obsession with race, something people in other countries see as a problem in places like the USA. As you had already identified, in Australia, the information collected changed from "official" classifications of race to self identified declarations of ethnic background, a very different thing. Many people (and countries) just don't care what "race" you are. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer in my question. I apologize. By historical data for race and ethnicity in this specific question, I meant data such as the one in my link for the United States which states that the U.S. had 9,827,763 black residents in 1910 comprising 10.7% of the total U.S. population that year. The sources for Australia simply say which years Australia enumerated people by race and/or ethnicity, but don't give exact numbers of percentages for the various races and/or ethnicities like my links for the U.S. and some other countries in the "External Links" section do. I'm aware that race and/or ethnicity are sensitive issues in many countries, which is why some countries don't enumerate people by race and/or ethnicity. This is also why I try to be very cautious in discussing things like race and ethnicity as to avoid offending anyone. That said, personally I find historical race and ethnicity data to be an interesting topic, since I am interested in demographics, including historical demographics. Futurist110 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A simple question for Futurist110: do you understand the difference between 'race' and 'ethnicity'? From the article, it appears that you don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Race is often more focused on heritable phenotypic characteristics (physical appearance), while ethnicity is often (though not always) focused more on other things, like language and culture. However, some people use the two terms interchangeably, and both of these things are used to classify people into various groups based on specific traits which don't pertain to gender, age, place of residence, or citizenship. Futurist110 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any confusion in the article between race and ethnicity. Note that sometimes questionaires combine them into race/ethnicity categories. Please remember to criticize (and improve) the article, rather than criticizing the good-faith editor. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for defending me, Duoduoduo. Futurist110 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that you have understood my point. There has never been any international standard definition of race, and it has virtually no meaning at all now (or many meanings to many people). And to even equate race and ethnicity at all is quite offensive to some people. That you emphasised the American way of doing things in your response to me still worries me a lot. It suggests that while creating a seemingly global article, you're not taking a global view at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to try improving this article, please be my guest. And Yes, I'm aware that different counties have different definitions of race. What I said in my response to you is true--if a country collects data for race, it should have this information available somewhere to people who want to look at it. In my article, I even have this statement, which I had before as well: "Different countries have different classifications and census options for race and ethnicity/nationality which are not comparable with data from other countries." Futurist110 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My ethnicity is western European and my race is white. I don't know if that fits any international standards, but that's the way it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me asking, which Western European exactly? Futurist110 (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My race is human. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Human isn't a race, it's a species. It is quite offensive to me for you to compare the two. Futurist110 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At which point, since it is self-evident that Futurist110 doesn't understand the subject matter, the only decent course here is to suggest a voluntary withdrawal from the subject matter, before it becomes necessary to make it obligatory. Futurist110, if you are actually 'offended' by HiLo48 asserting the overwhelming scientific consensus, I suggest you find another forum to promote your ignorance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, you completely missed the point of everything I said and meant. Congratulations. I know that there is no scientific basis to human races. And also, please stop being so harsh and aggressive towards me. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And there you have it. "I know that there is no scientific basis to human races" - but you have created an article with a title that implies exactly that - and when asked earlier if you understood the difference between 'ethnicity' and 'race', you asserted that "Race is often more focused on heritable phenotypic characteristics (physical appearance)" - a statement entirely at odds with the 'social construct' model of race that much of academia now holds. The list is inherently POV in its conception (conflating two different concepts), flawed in its execution, and quite possibly shouldn't be included in Wikipedia at all. I may well nominate it for deletion on the grounds that a 'list' is inherently inappropriate for subject matter where the existence of (part of) the subject in the first place is contested, the definitions used incompatible, and the data (if that is what it is) lacking entirely for much of the potential entries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no scientific basis to race, but it does have social and cultural importance in some countries. Heritable phenotypic characteristics are used to determine race in some countries. Where exactly in that article did I imply that race has a scientific basis to it? The title simply talked about countries enumerating people by race and ethnicity--it said nothing about science. And again, hate it break it to you, but some people and countries do have some overlap between race and ethnicity. For instance, in the Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom article, it says that "The 2001 UK Census classified ethnicity into several groups: White, Black, Asian, Mixed, Chinese and Other." The U.S. has racial categories of White, Black, Asian, Mixed/Multiracial, and Other in its censuses. Also, I want to point out that we already have Wikipedia articles on race and/or ethnicity in some countries, such as the U.K., U.S., Brazil, Colombia, and maybe some other countries. Futurist110 (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some countries ask about the person's race on their census form. If anyone is using a meaningless concept, it is those countries, not the article that reports what they do. Likewise, some countries conflate race and ethnicity on their forms. If anyone is conflating two different concepts, it is those countries, not the article that reports what they do. Wikipedia readers who are interested have a right to come to Wikipedia and find out what countries do. And Andy, someone who says "I suggest you find another forum to promote your ignorance" is more likely to encounter an "obligatory" "withdrawal from the subject matter". Stop the personal attacks. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Given Futurist110's ridiculous and entirely inappropriate response to HiLo pointing out that he considers himself a member of the human race, I don't see that he is in any position to complain about incivility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed that you have zero sense of humor at all. And what I said was accurate--human is a species. Futurist110 (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I take it you've never heard of the human race? That's as valid a nomenclature as trying to say people from a certain geographic region are a "race" or from a certain ethnic background are a "race." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right. In this specific case, race and species would be interchangeable. Futurist110 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Duoduoduo. I second everything that you said. Futurist110 (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Futurist110, you write in your list, regarding the United Kingdom that "In the 2011 census, the race/ethnicity options for England and Wales were White, Mixed, Asian British, Black British, Chinese or other ethnic group, and Not stated, with ethnic sub-group choices for most of these", and cite this document:. Can you tell us where it states that "the race/ethnicity options for England and Wales were White, Mixed, Asian British, Black British, Chinese or other ethnic group, and Not stated"? Can you tell us where it refers to 'race' at all? Since it appears that it doesn't and you are apparently misrepresenting the source, I would like an explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed it right now. As for the explanation, I previously made a typo. Futurist110 (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Purchasing power of the Weregild?
I can't make any sense of the prices contained in the article weregild (the payment or fee legally required as compensation for killing someone) ... so a rich noble could have legally killed a Mercian king he didn't like if he just paid a weregild of 30000 shillings? How much of an army could 30000 shillings buy in the 9th century? 76.23.194.179 (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's supposed to be premeditated like that. Compare it with the lawsuit awards corporations have to pay families of victims they kill through negligence, which averages somewhere around $1.3 million in the US.  But, if a corporation put out a hit on somebody, there would be jail time.  StuRat (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The answer is nothing, since the Shilling (English coin) didn't exist until the 15th century. The most common small silver coin in the Anglo-Saxon period was the Sceat, which was roughly 1 gram of silver.  One gram of silver is about $US1.00 today, but purchasing power is much trickier to calculate, since people do very different things with money today than they did back then.  For example, though $30,000 is probably an average salary for one person for one year, a similar amount of silver 1200 years ago may have been more than a person could hope to make in a lifetime.  Still looking for more info.  -- Jayron  32  03:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a different kind of shilling. They certainly had shillings in the Anglo-Saxon period too. In any case, the article doesn't give a citation for the amount of 30 000, but I'm sure it's meant as a prohibitively, maybe impossibly large number. And in practical terms, there was also no way you'd simply get away with killing a king even if you did happen to have an extra 30 000 shillings lying around. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * According to our article Shilling, a shilling in Anglo-Saxon times was equal to the value of a sheep. By the high Middle Ages, according to this site, a sheep was worth 1s 5d.  Meanwhile, according to the same site, a laborer was paid £2 per year (or not quite 2d per work day), while a weaver was paid 5d per day, or roughly £6 10d per year. Now, applying math to the figures from this source, in the high middle ages, 30,000 sheep would have cost £2,125.  That amount would have equaled the annual wages of 1,063 laborers or 352 weavers.  Another way to look at it is to consider that in Anglo-Saxon times, wages for laborers were unusual, since most labor was performed somewhat involuntarily by serfs.  Typically, serfs turned over around 40% of what they produced to their lord and lived on the remaining 60%.  That 60% would have been about equal in purchasing power to a laborer's wage.  The annual livelihoods of 1,063 serfs would have been equal to the fees paid by 1,595 serfs, or roughly the yield a lord might expect from a 50 square mile territory of fertile agricultural land.  Marco polo (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I didn't answer your question about an army. According to the same site for the high Middle Ages (and assuming that relative prices were similar a few centuries earlier in Anglo-Saxon times), £2,125 would have paid for about 700 Welsh infantrymen for a year.  Or, it would have paid for 233 mounted archers.  Or, it would have paid for 59 knights.  Or, if you wanted an assortment of soldiers, this amount would have paid for 10 knights, 50 mounted archers, and 430 Welsh infantrymen for one year.  Marco polo (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow thanks! 76.23.194.179 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Although Anglo-Saxon kings didn't actually pay for their armies, their subordinates were simply required to provide armed men when called upon; a system known as the Fyrd. Alansplodge (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ruling that America is Christian
I've heard that the American supreme court has ruled that America is a Christian country. Is that true?


 * No. -- Jayron  32  03:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you know which ruling you're thinking about? The year of the ruling, for instance? Some of the details? Futurist110 (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Searching American supreme court has ruled that America is a Christian country yields a number of hits, of which I present two with entirely different point of views: Austin Cline at About.com and Vine & Fig Tree's Anti-Separation of Church and State. Just to get you started on the right track, but I make no assumptions as to the reliability of any of the arguments. Sjö (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

America and Christianity
I've heard that America is and was founded and established as a Christian country, with a Christian heritage. Is that true? How have atheists, agnostics, secularists, and supporters and defenders of the separation of church and state reacted and responded to this claim? What is their answer to this claim?


 * It wasn't founded and established as a Christian country, although the heritage is Christian. So the first part is simply factually inaccurate,and all the "atheists, agnostics, etc." need do is say "that's not true; read some history." The second part is trivially true; most of the people who established the US were of Western European heritage, hence Christian going back many centuries. --jpgordon:==( o ) 03:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a complex and long history of various religious traditions in America, and trite statements are next to meaningless. "America was founded and established as a Christian country" is neither true nor false.  It's just trite and incomplete.  You may want to read establishment clause and free exercise clause for some legal background over the government's role in religion, and visa-versa, in America.  Of course, a country is not its government, so one could also look at historical demographics of America and its citizens to find out what religion they have practiced over time.  But a single sentence like "America was founded and established as a Christian country" isn't even worth refuting or verifying, as it is so simplistic as to be completely unworthy of addressing.  Its the kind of thing that someone says to try to invite debate or trap someone into a particular falsehood of their own.  If you want to know about the history of religion in America, you're better off to avoid getting caught in such simplistic views and instead take the wider view.  History of religion in the United States contains a broad overview, and will lead you to many places.  -- Jayron  32  04:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This again? Wow, it's like deja vu. Wow, it's like deja vu. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Many of the prominent founding fathers were more Deists than conventionally-orthodox Christians. David Barton, the most prominent (or loudest) recent quasi-scholarly advocate of the "America was founded as a Christian nation" hypothesis has come under withering criticism from Christian historians, and his latest book was withdrawn by its publishers due to concerns over accuracy. AnonMoos (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Communism
When I asked this question, User:DOK (HK) answered:


 * With its “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” egalitarianism, there would be no need for any kind of government.

What did he mean by that? What did Marx mean by that? What does that mean?

Annihilationism (talk • contribs) 04:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You might want to read the Wikipedia articles titled "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and "Withering away of the state". -- Jayron  32  04:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Marx was wrong about lots of things, but that withering away of the state was a doozy. StuRat (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Even Criswell's prediction accuracy was probably better than Marx's. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a reference desk, or FaceBook? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. I'll concede that Marx was right about the Communist states withering away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the heads of university political science departments the world over will rejoice at your concession... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They already have. Except the ones in former Communist states, many of whom no longer have heads to rejoice with, alas. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is FaceBook - add your facile comments below... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no, we're faceless drones in a withering state. This is WikiBook.... as for the OP, I highly doubt that something as purely ideological as that (if everyone gets what they need and deserve, no need to squabble) will ever be applicable in the world of hu-mans. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Facile" means "easy", and there's nothing wrong with that. If Grumpy wants to insult us, he's going to have to try harder. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary: facile – adj. (4): Lazy, simplistic (especially of explanations, discussions etc.) is what he was getting at. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there's the EO citation I provided, and then there's a wiki edit. Which one would you believe? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wiki edits are not to be sniffed at. You yourself have often cited Wikipedia articles in your answers to questions, and what are they but collections of wiki edits?  The Wiktionary def accords with my long-held understanding of the meaning of the word as used in the pejorative way Mr Grump used it.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  06:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless, if the editor wants to hurl insults at us, he has to first find something we consider to be insulting. He's not there yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be assuming that he wanted to be insulting, but that he failed. We don't know that was ever his intention.  Grumps are just grumps; it's not the same as being malicious.  Anyway, I never heard of anyone being criticised for failing to insult another.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points. As to the disappointing insult, let's just say, "Don Rickles he ain't." But Grumpy has to be true to his own style. As Yogi Berra once said, "If you can't imitate him, don't copy him." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OP, I would recommend William Morris' News from Nowhere for an idea of an egalitarian and state-free society. Note that no-one has ever suggested that such a society could grow up overnight. Many socialists and communists propose a transition to some kind of democratic socialism, which would still be a money economy, with an important role for the state in regulation, but it would be a deeply democratic state. Marx also talked of "the society of associated producers". Itsmejudith (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe their work or school is closed for the holidays and they have nothing better to do. Oh heck. I'm here too. Hmmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you're active and the OP is indef'd. So we're here, and he's not. So it goes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this principle has actually been tested. The existence of money seems directly contradictory to "to each according to his need", because accumulated cash clearly is irrelevant to that.  Did any Soviet or PRC-affiliated nation ever actually get rid of money and use some sort of straight rationing of resources? Wnt (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'principle' of living without money was 'tested' for most of humanity's existence. As for the 'Soviet and PRC-affiliated nations', none ever claimed to be living under communism. Not that a claim to that effect would necessarily be evidence that they were. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I recall Khrushchev telling us our grandchildren would live under communism. If the USSR was not actually communist, maybe Khrushchev missed that memo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Did he actually say communism, in English, or are you recalling a translation by the American media of the time? HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. But this historical revisionism about the USSR reminds me a bit of the southern US states insisting that the Civil War was not about slavery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugs, since I like you (on the whole) in spite of your failure to grasp elementary concepts, I'll spell it out in terms that even a carrot-munching wisecracker can understand. The guys running the Soviet Union didn't claim that it was 'communist', they claimed that they were trying to make it that way. They thought that it was a good long-term objective - but they didn't claim to have got there yet. Lots of people think that they were going about it the wrong way. Many others think that they were lying through their teeth, and used it as excuse to do whatever they really wanted to do. Either way, they didn't say that they'd achieved 'communism'. Neither does anyone else, unless 'communism' just means "living under the control of a political party with 'communist' in its name". At which point, the label becomes meaningless anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And I think we have good reason to think about revising some of the things that might have been said about the USSR in the 1950s by those pushing western propaganda at the time. I'm in no way saying it was a wonderful place. I just suspect that the truth, whatever it was, was probably nothing like what the American propaganda machine told us it was at the time. It may have actually been worse. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For example, the many Americans who defected to the USSR. Oh, wait... they were already free to leave the USA. Funny how things work out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On the whole, if you are looking for 'truth', you look for it in the place it refers to, not the other side of the world. There is no more logic in trying to understand the 1950s USSR from 1950s US propaganda than vice-versa. Neither portrayed 'reality' - but neither were intended to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * THAT'S the truth! HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What does the Russian term Kommunisticheskii Soyuz Molodezhi mean? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Communist Union of Youth, literally. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The USSR used the term "Communist" to describe their youth group? Shazam! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Shazam, schnazam. They also called their party the "Communist Party", but they still never claimed to have achieved Communism.  Did you read what AndytheGrump wrote above?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I suppose that the many opposition parties in the USSR hindered the Communists from achieving their lofty goals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugs, it is quite simple - they expected it to take decades, if not generations, to achieve communism - it wasn't something that they could impose overnight. In fact it wasn't something that could be imposed at all, since the point was that at the end of it there would be no party and no state to do the imposing. What they were doing in the meantime, or at least what they claimed to be doing, was creating the conditions by which communism could come about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And in the meantime, it was necessary to keep the populace in chains. Yup. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're confusing issues, badly. Nobody defends the abominable way the Soviet Union treated its citizens. In fact, that would only have hindered them ever reaching the lofty goal of pure communism.  The USSR never got anywhere remotely close to a truly communist state, and they never claimed to have done so.  They explicitly denied it.  US propaganda was powerful, but even it could not create "achievements" that did not actually historically occur.   --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be because Communism, like unfettered Capitalism, is a utopian ideal. Humans just don't work that way. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Right on. Mind you, Christianity and democracy and capitalism and reason and common sense all have their mismatches with human nature too.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And we still call ourselves capitalist despite the degree of socialism we employ, and the USSR still called itself Communist even if it didn't live up to Marxian "ideals". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OP, As I said earlier in the same paragraph, “If you accept Marx’s definitions, analysis and theory, then the withering away of the state was just a logical conclusion.” If everyone is equal, and equally cared for (as per needs, not wants), then government – which in Marx’s time was the elite – could not exist. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

constitution of the zionist federation
I am interested if anybody can find the constitution of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland for me? or articles of association. Praskovv (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That page has an External link to the Federation's website. If a visit to the website doesn't provide the materials you seek, I suggest you contact them by e-mail. Possibly they make the documents available as downloadable .pdf files. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

W. Augustin
Seeking information about painter W. Augustin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.123.193 (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a full name? If not, where are you getting the name from? Paul B (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * After a quick Google search, I only found William Augustin Kolliker (1905-1995), a Swiss born painter, illustrator and print-maker, who worked in Texas. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Research and informed consent
Hi, in my time, I have participated in (ie. been a subject in) numerous experiments, chiefly by other students. In all that time, I do not recall ever signing an informed consent form. Yet for my own research, participants have to read a long, boring information letter, then sign an informed consent form. What is the usual practice for low-risk research? Is informed consent considered to be implied by someone's showing up? Or is more usually expected? Note that I'm not asking for legal advice, since lawyers won't help me in dealing with ethics committees. I just want to know what the usual situation is. If there are any laws that pertain to particular jurisdictions in this regard, I would be curious to hear them. It is not central to the question, but it would explain some things, hence it would be relevant to the question, just in explaining how things work. It will not be misinterpreted as advice, I assure you, and I know plenty of lawyers. They only know the law here, however, so they cannot tell me how things work around the world. IBE (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason you have to get consent now when you participated without consent in the past is that universities and research institutes are tightening up. They are getting advice from their lawyers, and also they are swapping stories about dreadful things that have happened. Many ethics approval processes are two-stage, with an initial assessment to sort out proposals into high, medium and low risk, and then further procedures depending on which category. Even if your research is really low risk, you have to show that the person did consent. Sometimes, "just showing up" is enough to indicate consent, but there has to be information available about what the research is for. In an online questionnaire, a blurb at the top explaining the purpose of the questionnaire might be enough, but still you would want the blurb to say what happens to the data after the research is over. If you are interviewing people in their professional capacity, you need to tell them whether they are talking on or off the record. People might send you confidential documents - would you know how to keep them safe? All this seems like a nuisance, and it is a drag to have to do it, but in the end it benefits the cause of Knowledge if the public can have confidence that they are not being exploited. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for the informed reply. What are these "dreadful things"? This is exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to find out about, since in Australia, these procedures are getting really eccentric, and involve putting odd things in information letters. At my university, one of the sillier ones is "There are no other benefits to you from participating in this research." Pointless, because you would tell them if there were. Not a small problem, because the longer the letter goes, firstly, the greater the chance of them simply not reading it (who reads Ts & Cs on software?), and secondly, the greater the chance of them getting sick of you. Personally I would find this a genuine ethical problem, simply because it involves bugging people much more than the research. It depends on what the research is, but you usually have a fair idea of what you are doing, and might even be looking forward to it (I do it for the intelligent conversation afterwards with the researcher). On the other hand, the boring long letter is rarely part of the deal. IBE (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think "There are no other benefits to you from participating in this research." is silly. It avoids after-the-fact arguments or lawsuits about whether the person was promised anything, such as payment, for their participation. In the absence of things like this being put in writing, there will frequently be honest misunderstandings and dishonest behavior, both along the lines of "But you told me I'd get money for this." Duoduoduo (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * [Note: I have moved the above comment so others can follow the discussion. I do this very rarely] 2.2.4 2.1.4 National Statement: "In determining the existence, likelihood and severity of risks, researchers and those reviewing the research should base their assessments on the available evidence, whether qualitative or quantitative." This is one of the few restraints on the power of ethics committees. Hence my (follow-up) question about the evidence. I'm still wondering about the experience of others, although Itsmejudith has given a very good intro to the topic. Still curious if this is really happening everywhere. I can imagine it's different to what it was 10 years ago, but it looks like something funny is going on downunder. IBE (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This pdf put out by the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia goes over ethics in human research and what it entails. There are guidelines for the National Statement on Ethical Research that requires subjects of human research to be notified of certain information before giving consent. Hopefully this is of some help to you. Livewireo (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fantastic link to Uni of Tassie, not least for showing exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. The National Statement says: "2.2.6: Information on the following matters should also be communicated to participants. Except where the information in specific sub-paragraphs below is also deemed necessary for a person’s voluntary decision to participate, it should be kept distinct from the information described in paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.2.2:" Note that 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are about the real conditions for informed consent, and they are much more general. But by the time an ethics committee gets hold of it, it becomes "According to Section 2.2.6 of the National Statement, for consent to be deemed voluntary the following information must be given to potential participants". I've read the whole National Statement (not just put out by the NHMRC, but also the Australian Research Council and the Australian Vice Chancellor's Committee), and I know more or less what's in it, and I can see what ethics committees are making up. Pure gold, although for a different reason than the exact question. Although I have a certain opinion of ethics committees in Australia, I am still interested in what the raw evidence is regarding information letters and legal/ethical concerns. The emphasis is certainly on the "ethics" bit, but as explained, there is a legal dimension to any such discussion. IBE (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This sounds more like institutional going through the motions and covering one's back than actual concern for ethics. In real life, I would suggest that you start not from this but from first principles. Write an information leaflet about your project, make it readable for your target group -full colour? Illustrated? You can also send your leaflet to other teams and organisations that might be in a position to support your research. Write a consent form. Again, it's got to be appropriate. If you are interviewing young children, for example, it's positively unethical to ask them to sign a document written in legalese. Send your drafts to the ethics committee with a brief justification, and see what they say. In terms of "dreadful things", the most difficult have probably been in relation to animal experiments, when scientists' homes have been attacked. With human subjects, someone died in a drugs trial. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the suggestion, although this is for a very simple pilot, looking for about 20 to 40 people. The information letter is separate to the recruitment flyer, although the ethics committee has suggested I use the 2 page information letter as a recruitment flyer. I'm not clear on how I would pin that up on noticeboards, nor how I would get anyone to read it. As for the horror stories, people attacking people's homes are breaking the law, so it becomes a control problem, rather than a legal one. People's behaviour in breaking the law (or any rules in general) can be quite eccentric and inconsistent, so the solution depends on the circumstances. As for drug trials, they are much higher risk, although the risks related to the actual drug-taking are relatively predictable. They try things on animals first, after all (but don't tell any animal activists I said this). IBE (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)