Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 29

= September 29 =

Mizrahi and sephardi jews neighbourhoods in Israel
Which cities of Israel has neighbourhoods where there are significant numbers of Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews regardless they are Haredi, Hasidic, Modern Orthodox, Reform/Progressive and Masorti/Conservative Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.151.92 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC) --65.92.151.92 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa


 * I would assume that there would be more Mizrahi Jews in Israel cities which are poorer and more conservative, such as Jerusalem. Mizrahi Jews are on average less educated and more conservative than Ashkenazi Jews. Futurist110 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that I was wrong. Based on table 2.23 here (http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/), the districts in Israel where a majority of Jews (excluding those whose fathers were born in Israel) were originally of Asian or African origin are the Southern District, but Jews of Asian and African origin (Mizrahi Jews) are also close to a majority (45.00+%) (excluding those whose fathers were born in Israel) in the Northern and Central Districts of Israel. Futurist110 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest evaluating cities by age (i.e. how many generations have passed since founding), and consider that flourishing locales with employment opportunities and available housing would attract internal migration of all demographic groups, while stagnating locales would suffer exmigration (not necessarily to elsewhere in Israel, but abroad). More recent immigration would have been directed towards underdeveloped, underpopulated locales, particularly the "development towns." Studying patterns (often called "waves") of immigration is highly relevant. Note that small or communal settlements such as moshavim and kibbutzim founded by ideological groups are more likely to be and remain demographically homogeneous, particularly in requiring membership or acceptance by a screening committee. Also, some later immigrant groups don't fit the conventional definitions of Sephardic or Mizrahi but parallel and compete with them for socioeconomic niches, including housing. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the table that I linked to, keep in mind that it might not be completely accurate since more Mizrahi Jews have fathers born in Israel than Ashkenazi Jews (most Asian/African migration into Israel occurred before 1975, while there were hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants from the USSR and former USSR after 1975). Futurist110 (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

candidates Israel election Shas and Meretz Parties
Is there a website where I can find the candidates of Shas and candidates of Meretz for 2009 Knesset elections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.151.92 (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC) --65.92.151.92 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa
 * You mean the whole candidate list or just the ones that successfully managed to enter the Knesset? Futurist110 (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The page List of members of the eighteenth Knesset lists the members by faction, evidently in the order they appeared on the slate. For those in lower positions (if that's what the OP requires), check the individual faction's official website appearing under External links on its Wikipedia page here (or in Hebrew if possible), using its Contact Us feature if you don't find information on the site. You might otherwise try sending a query to the Knesset's English-language website, or check the archives of Haaretz in English by dates. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the whole candidate list of Shas and Meretz.--65.92.152.148 (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

Honestly, guys, I couldn't find the list of the candidates of Shas party and Meretz party for the 2009 Knesset elections. Please help me. I just want to know.

candidates each political parties last elections Sweden Norway Denmark Belgium Netherlands Italy Spain Portugal
Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. Social Democrats, Moderate, Sweden Democrats etc) in Sweden's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. Labour, Conservative, Progressive etc) in Norway's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. Social Democrats, Danish People's, Liberal etc) in Denmark's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. Labour, PVV, VVD etc) in Netherlands' last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. Socialist, New Flemish Alliance etc) in Belgium's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. the people of Freedom, Democratic Party etc) in Italy's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. socialist workers party and peoples party) in Spain's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. Socialist and social democratic) in Portugal's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? This is not a homework question. I am just curious about who were the candidates of the political parties and what were the name of the seats. Thank you.--65.92.151.92 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa


 * Just for future reference, there was a way to ask that question, with no loss of meaning, that would have required about 95% fewer words. This advice is in your own interest. The longer the question, the greater the chance people will just switch off and ignore it (TLDNR).  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The question has 279 words (including "Thank you"). I'm sure we'd all love to see your 14-word version. —Tamfang (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party for each European country" has 15 words. So perhaps Jack's math was of a percentage point or two.  -- Jayron  32  05:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maths was never my strong point. I only have a Bachelor degree in it, unfortunately.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  05:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has some information for you. Start at "Politics of XXX" (where XXX is the country you are looking for). From there you can usually find a link to the most recent general election. For example, Politics of Sweden has a link to Swedish general election, 2010 which lists the results by party. Many of the countries you are asking about don't use the First past the post election system, instead using some form of proportional representation, whereby the parties are allocated seats in parliament based on the percentage of votes that party, or its slate of candidates, received in the election. For the Sweden example, Elections in Sweden covers some of the details: In Sweden, voting is done by Party-list proportional representation: voters select a party, and have the option of selecting which candidates of their prefered party they wish to serve, but they are only required to vote for the party. Many voters may not be directly aware of which candidates they are directly voting for, just the party. After the election the Sainte-Laguë method is used to allocate the number of seats to each party. The parties allocate their seats to specific candidates after the election, using in part the voting preferences of those voters who chose to give a preference. Back to Sweden, the specific "constituencies" are listed at National apportionment of MP seats in the Swedish Parliament. For the list of members of the Parliament, you can find it at List of members of the parliament of Sweden, 2010–2014. -- Jayron  32  02:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, the question is long, but not impossible to answer (at least in part). For Sweden, go to http://www.val.se. If you are interested in the last parliamentary election, you will find the ballots/candidate lists (not only those elected) at http://www.val.se/val/val2010/valsedlar/R/rike/valsedlar.html. Information about who got elected is and from which constituency found at http://www.val.se/val/val2010/slutresultat/R/rike/valda.html. As Jayron32 pointed out, there are cases were the order candidates elected differ from the ballot due to personal vote. You might also be interested in http://valpejl.se, where detailed biographical info on 2010 candidates is presented (however, they removed the data on unelected candidates following the election). --Soman (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For Norway, see http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/krd/kampanjer/valg/navn-pa-alle-valglister-og-kandidater-ti/valglister-og-kandidater-20071.html?id=647367, where all candidate lists of the 2009 parliamentary election (grouped by constituencies) are listed. --Soman (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For Denmark, you find all candidates for the 2011 parliamentary election grouped by constituency and party listed at http://valg.im.dk/Valg/Folketingsvalg/Kandidater.aspx --Soman (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Government opposition to a private member's bill in the Parliament of the UK
Lord Dubs proposed the Succession to the Crown Bill to adjust British royal succession some years ago, but he withdrew it after the government told him that they would block it. Imagine that he had decided to be stubborn about it — how would they have blocked it? Simply by ensuring that there were enough votes against it, using whatever means they use to ensure that government bills pass? By refusing to bring it up in committee or otherwise ignoring it, so that it couldn't be voted on? Some other way? Or is there no single method that's typically used to suppress obnoxious private members' bills? Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not all that familiar with Parliament, being an American, but in the U.S. the party in charge has a lot of power in seeing what bills come to the floor. Of course, lots of bills from the minority party do make the floor eventually, but only after a lot of horse trading.  However, the Majority power in Congress controls how and when bills get to the floor, so in America they weild a lot of power and could very easily prevent such bill from ever seeing the light of day.  As to the UK, see Filibuster which could be one method, but I would imagine that the Government could just stonewall the bill in Parliament by any number of methods.  Private_Member%27s_Bill mentions some options for limiting the success of such proposals.  -- Jayron  32  02:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In a parliamentary system, the government is based on the parliamentary majority, and in a first-past-the-post system, as the British, it is easy for the government to achieve an absolute majority in parliament. If the government then doesn't want certain legislation to pass, given that they have the majority, it's just a matter of the voting the bill down. Jayron32 also provides an interesting comment that, potentially, the government could even block debate on the bill by preventing it 'coming to the floor'. Not knowing exactly what the procedures are for these things in the UK parliament, I am not sure how it works. To me there seems to be a contradiction in that the Speaker is chosen from the parliament itself, but is expected to be neutral/impartial. Given that s/he's been voted into office on the ticket of one party, s/he is still a partisan with certain views, even if s/he's meant to be non-partisan. First of all, given that the House of Commons votes on its speaker, it is overwhelmingly likely that the Speaker comes from the same party as the government. V85 (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what all that comment on the Speaker is about. It seems absolutely irrelevant to the question here.
 * At the end of the day, the government can vote down any bill it doesn't like (or indeed, support any bill it does like), no matter who proposed it. That's what "having the numbers" means.  But it can also effectively block undesirable bills from ever being debated at all, because it controls what business the House deals with.  This is part of the reason there so few private members' bills to begin with; and why such a small percentage of them ever go to a vote; and why such a vanishingly small percentage of them ever become law.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  05:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The point about the speaker is whether the speaker, in order to support 'his/her' government could block a bill from being discussed, or could block the sponsoring MP from arguing in support of it. V85 (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The non-partisanship of the Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom) is taken very seriously. On being elected, the Speaker severs all ties with their former party, and in subsequent general elections, the major parties traditionally do not field candidates in the Speaker's constituency.  The Speaker (or one of the Deputies if they are presiding) only votes in the event of a tie, and this is bound by conventions (they generally vote for more debate, against amendments, and against the final passage of a bill).  If a Speaker was seen to consistently favour one party over another, it could seriously damage the functioning of Parliament and might lead to some kind of constitutional crisis, so MPs are unlikely to elect a rabid partisan.  Note that the current Speaker, John Bercow, was a Conservative but elected Speaker under a Labour government, while the one before last, Betty Boothroyd, was a Labour MP elected when the Conservatives had a majority, so it isn't necessarily seen as desirable to have a speaker from your own party. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * V85, thanks for clarifying. The connection wasn't obvious until you explained it.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The ability of the majority party in Parliament to effectively control every aspect of the governance of the country to its own liking is what is often called Elective dictatorship; the lack of checks on that majoritarian rule has been a criticism of Westminster-style Parliamentary democracys for centuries: it forms the core of what the U.S. constitution framers saw as Tyranny of the majority, see Federalist No. 10 where Madison argues against the sort of government that allows what he calls "majority factions" to rule by fiat without any checks and balances, a concept later revisited in Federalist No. 51. Which is not to say that, in practice, that the U.S. system we have today works any better or worse in terms of serving its people than the U.K. system does, but the criticism is in the scholarship, and in this case the derogatory "elective dictatorship" epithet comes from within the British system itself.  -- Jayron  32  05:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In the US Senate, ONE Senator can say "I don't want this bill to be brought to the floor" and they will, by courtesy, not introduce the bill. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The key here is "Lord" Dubs proposed it. It would therefore not be debated in the House of Commons, rather, in the House of Lords. If and when that House passed it, it would then go to the House of Commons for debate - but the powers that are responsible for scheduling debates in the Commons could schedule 15 minutes for debate on it, or schedule it late on a Friday. I don't think they could refuse to schedule it at all. The House with the Power in the UK is the House of Commons, the elected house. As was seen earlier this year during debates on the Welfare Reform Bill and the Health and Social Care Bill, the House of Lords can pass all the amendments and vote against Bills passed by the House of Commons they like: at the end of the day they will be ignored. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would imagine that the reason the government felt the need to block this particular proposal is that changes to the rules of succession need to be agreed by all the Commonwealth Realms rather than the UK alone. The Statute of Westminster 1931 forbids changes to the succession without the agreement of all 16 countries of which the Queen is Head of State. See Succession to the British throne. Changes have indeed recently been agreed at a Commonwealth summit; see Girls equal in British throne succession. Alansplodge (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * WHAAOE: 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Pain in babies
Up to the end of the 1980s, babies underwent surgery without any anesthetic. This came to light in 1985:
 * Hospitalized newborns, from preemies to babies up to 18 months of age, have been routinely operated upon without benefit of pain-killing anesthesia. This has been the practice for decades but was unknown to the general public until 1985 when some parents discovered that their seriously ill premature babies had suffered major surgery without benefit of anesthesia. Up to this time, babies were typically given a form of curare to paralyze their muscles for surgery, making it impossible for them to move or make a sound of protest.
 * Jill Lawson reported that her premature Baby, Jeffrey, had holes cut in both sides of his neck, another in his right chest, an incision from his breastbone around to his backbone, his ribs pried apart, and an extra artery near his heart tied off. Another hole was cut in his left side for a chest tube, all of this while he was awake but paralyzed. The anesthesiologist who presided said, "It has never been shown that premature babies have pain."

The article Pain in babies seems to present this as a reasonable assumption at the time, due to the difficulty of assessing how much pain a baby is experiencing. Is there any record of a medical professional testifying as expert witness in a case of child abuse involving babies before 1985 making such claims? Has any doctor ever made such a statement under oath? It seems unlikely that they really believed this, yet kept it a secret for so long. Was there a general policy to keep this fact hidden, and if so, what was the motivation? Ssscienccce (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That argument does seem rather weak. I've heard similar arguments that "animals don't feel pain", but see no reason to believe them.  Of course, there may be good arguments against using anesthetics, such as the difficulty in getting the dosage right and therefore possibility of causing harm, and the presumed lack of ability for the baby to remember the pain later. StuRat (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please show up at my house by tomorrow. I will torture you for 6 months using the most painful methods possible.  At the end, I will repeatedly knock you on the head until you suffer amnesia, so that you won't remember anything.  Your post-traumatic stress disorder might also help to deepen your amnesia.  --140.180.242.9 (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I certainly don't remember the pain I felt after breaking my clavicle during birth, but apparently I just wouldn't stop crying. - Lindert (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I find it remarkable that given the number of babies undergoing medical procedures all these years, and some parents presumably asking questions about anesthesia related risks, this never came out. I hoped to read a transcript of a cross examination, I just realised cases that old won't be online. Maybe there are interviews from the time the news broke. I guess that in case the baby didn't make it through the procedure, you'd want the parents to know (think) that at least it didn't suffer during those last minutes. Ssscienccce (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * An example of the research that changed everyone's mind is Infants Feel and Remember Circumcision Pain - Study from 1997. Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Having attended a bris once, which was more than enough, I can tell you the baby was screaming throughout, and I'm reasonably certain it wasn't because it was hungry or something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a pretty interesting historical question. I don't have the time to hunt around for actual references at this point, but I wonder whether part of this wasn't a balance between the negative effects of anesthesia (which can be unpredictable and difficult on small children, much less babies) with the fact of infant amnesia. The notion that babies feel no pain seems unlikely to me — it's obvious that they respond to pain stimulus. But I wonder what the actual line of thinking really was. This should be something reconstructable based on medical sources from the time. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Back at the beginning of the 90s it was still a contentious issue. This article of the NY Times discusses it. Doctors were afraid that anesthesia could suppress the blood pressure and thought that babies experienced pain differently. As a consequence, babies were just slightly anesthetized during surgery. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me start by saying that I'm totally in favor of anesthesia for babies that undergo painful procedures. That being said, it's worth mentioning another point here:  until recently, even people who were unclear on whether babies experienced pain were generally convinced that they would not remember it even if they did.  That has a substantial effect on the ethical considerations.  Suppose I told you that for the next hour you were going to undergo hideous pain, but afterward you would not have the slightest memory of it.  That would make a big difference to you, wouldn't it?  Also, for what it's worth, I think it would be reasonable to discuss some of these points at Talk:Pain in babies. Looie496 (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, but the problem of pain is more than just remembering how horrible it was. From the article I linked above: " bodies feel pain and react to it" and The doctors found that the 30 babies who received deep anesthesia recovered much better. All survived, while 4 of the 15 babies who received light anesthesia died after surgery.

The babies who got light anesthesia produced high levels of stress hormones. They were more prone to infections, their blood made unnecessary clots and acid built up in their muscle.

The researchers theorize that the hormones, while useful in brief bursts when people need them to cope with danger, are unhealthful when high amounts are produced for days.
 * OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, right. But until recently those facts were not known.  I was trying to explain the way doctors thought about it during the days when anesthesia was mostly unused in neonates. Looie496 (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled by this discussion. There's an awful lot of speculation here. Where are the reliable sources telling us that babies weren't anaesthetised during surgery until around the 1990s? (I'm not interested in the other issue of whether they feel pain. From many visits to wards for premature babies, I simply know they do.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Read the article I linked to in my last contribution. Not a primary source, but it's still the NY Times. At 1992 it was still a topic open for debate. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See PAIN AND ITS EFFECTS IN THE HUMAN NEONATE AND FETUS which states; "One result of the pervasive view of neonatal pain is that newborns are frequently not given analgesic or anesthetic agents during invasive procedures, including surgery. Despite recommendations to the contrary in textbooks on pediatric anesthesiology, the clinical practice of inducing minimal or no anesthesia in newborns, particularly if they are premature, is widespread." Although this is on the website of a pressure group, the article comes from THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987. One of the sources quoted is "Shearer M H. Surgery on the paralysed, unanesthetized newborn. 1986". Alansplodge (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That helps. But not being American, I'd be interested in the situation outside the USA too. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) One more: Fetal and Neonatal Physiology: Expert Consult - Online and Print, 2-Volume Set By Richard A. Polin, William W. Fox, Steven H. Abman. It says; "Until the 1980s, newborns frequently underwent invasive procedures, including surgery, with no analgesic or anaesthetic." Alansplodge (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That last one was also a US source, I'll have another try at a more civilized hour. Alansplodge (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No luck on that I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original question, the full text of the article that the OP quoted from is Standards of Practice and the Pain of Premature Infants, by Jill R. Lawson. She relates that after baby Jeffrey died, she "consulted with two attorneys. They concluded that there are no laws extant requiring doctors to mitigate pain and that unquestionably the doctor involved met 'standards of practice'." Alansplodge (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a 1987 article in The Lancet (a British journal, at least historically) on the subject. I'm supposed to be able to access it through my university's subscription, but it doesn't seem to be working, so I have no idea what it says... --Tango (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be still a view in the medical profession that pain or other unpleasantness, such as the horror of being paralyzed by a drug and unable to breathe for some time while being intubated, or pain from procedures, is ok as long as the patient doesn't remember it after the operation. They routinely administer Midazolam, which makes the patient sleepy and causes amnesia. It does not particularly block pain; that is done by local anesthetics or opiods. I've had operations with Midazolam in which I remember nothing for some time before the operation, and others in which I remember getting on the table, and much of the sounds, discussion,and  twinges from cutting, with Fentanyl and local anesthetics preventing the experience being worse than getting a filling by the dentist. I may be more resistant to Midazolam than the average patient.  I suppose the vibration of cutting, sawing or drilling on their bodies  would bother some folks in retrospect and make them less likely to go in for surgery at some later date, if there was any way to avoid the needed operation."The baby felt pain, but he will not remember it as a child or adult" or "You were in pain and distress, but you don't remember it, so it's ok" does smack of "We waterboarded you to get information, but we gave you a date rape drug so you don't remember it, so it's ok." An anesthetist told me that decades ago they were afraid of babies or small children dying under general anesthesia, because there was less of a margin for error than with adults, so pain during the operation was far preferable to explaining to the parents the child had died.  Edison (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)