Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 January 15
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 14 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 16 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
January 15 edit
Natural-Born Citizen Requirement for Office in Other Countries edit
Do any other countries currently have a requirement for certain elected public offices similar to the United States' natural-born citizen requirement for U.S. Presidents? Futurist110 (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- The problem with that question is that it's obvious that even Americans cannot agree on what that requirement actually is. So, similar to what? HiLo48 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Similar to what at least some Americans interpret this requirement to mean. More specifically, I am talking about a requirement which states that one needs to be born a citizen of a particular country or something along those lines in order to qualify for holding at least one elected public office in that specific country. Futurist110 (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- For a thorough list of qualifications for being president check: List of presidential qualifications by country. The requirements don't seem to vary much: 35-40+ years old, natural-born citizen, 10 years+ of residency. According to Alberto Fujimori, there was even a similar 'birther' problem in Peru, although it didn't generate as much discussion as in the US. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for this information about Peru and for this list. This list is useful to me in terms of using it as a base for further research. In addition, I suppose that I can look at various articles for each country separately, though this will obviously take a lot of time. Futurist110 (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- From a quick look at that list, I'd say that 'natural-born' appears to be true in the majority of examples given, but is far from universal. Frankly though, the list is far from complete (note that 8 of the 19 countries listed start with 'A' - it looks like someone was trying to compile a complete list, but gave up) and doesn't always state whether 'natural-born' is a requirement. I'd say that you'd be better off trying to find the answer elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Being a citizen is a requirement in Canada, but not being born a citizen. Most recently (30 years ago) was John Turner. And then there is our official head of state, who isn't technically a citizen of any country... Mingmingla (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I thought she was Canadian. At least, when visiting Canada, she talks about "coming home." But yes, she can't be a citizen because her countries have subjects, not citizens. She can't be subject to herself. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Can we please squash this idea that her countries have "subjects"? It is not true. Canadian citizenship has existed since 1947 and all the other Commonwealth countries created their own citizenships shortly afterwards. My passport definitively states that I am a "British Citizen", as have all my passports since issued since 1982; prior to that I was a "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". The only people who are still "British subjects" are some people who had a connection with British India prior to 1947 and didn't subsequently become Indian or Pakistani citizens, and some people born before 1949 in what is now the Republic of Ireland who petitioned for their British status to be restored when the Republic was established in 1949. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, British subjects became British citizens on 1 January 1949 according to our British subject article; however British citizens are still
Britishthe Queen's subjects and some people are British subjects without being British citizens - you can read the article yourself because I'm not sure that I fully understand it. Trying to dispose of an empire leads to all kinds of complications. Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)- While, yes, the "Queen's subjects" is a vague term that still gets used, it's still deeply misleading to suggest (as above) that this in some way diminishes or invalidates the concept and use of "citizenship" in a constitutional monarchy - and it's amazing how often the line gets trotted out as though it has legal or political significance. Arwel's point is entirely correct in practice. (On the residual "British subjects", incidentally, this is essentially a transitional provision - I suspect it will be completely abolished about a week after the FCO is confident the last people entitled to that status have died or taken citizenship elsewhere) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Point taken. Alansplodge (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- While, yes, the "Queen's subjects" is a vague term that still gets used, it's still deeply misleading to suggest (as above) that this in some way diminishes or invalidates the concept and use of "citizenship" in a constitutional monarchy - and it's amazing how often the line gets trotted out as though it has legal or political significance. Arwel's point is entirely correct in practice. (On the residual "British subjects", incidentally, this is essentially a transitional provision - I suspect it will be completely abolished about a week after the FCO is confident the last people entitled to that status have died or taken citizenship elsewhere) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, British subjects became British citizens on 1 January 1949 according to our British subject article; however British citizens are still
- Can we please squash this idea that her countries have "subjects"? It is not true. Canadian citizenship has existed since 1947 and all the other Commonwealth countries created their own citizenships shortly afterwards. My passport definitively states that I am a "British Citizen", as have all my passports since issued since 1982; prior to that I was a "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". The only people who are still "British subjects" are some people who had a connection with British India prior to 1947 and didn't subsequently become Indian or Pakistani citizens, and some people born before 1949 in what is now the Republic of Ireland who petitioned for their British status to be restored when the Republic was established in 1949. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- She is certainly now subject to tax on at least some elements of her income in the UK (albeit, in some cases, only because she agreed to be so subject). Not in any of her other realms afaik. But residents of most countries have to pay tax whether they're citizens or not. But this is all beside the point. The question was about elected public officials, not inherited monarchs.
- As for the list linked above, only Angola and Mexico seem to have the "natural-born citizen" requirement. However (and I use the word deliberately in initial position), I strongly doubt the accuracy of that wording: it's famously ambiguous/unclear in the USA case where it originated, and the other 2 constitutions are not even written in English to begin with, so how a translator came up with that strange and troubled phrase rather than saying more accurately (if perhaps a little more wordily) what the requirement is, is beyond me. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess that it is a good idea to examine the original texts if possible. That said, I also discovered that Brazil has a similar requirement for its President--it requires that its President be a native-born citizen or something like that. Futurist110 (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- The constitution of Angola is available here. The relevant article for eligibility rules for the office of president of the republic is # 110 which says among other things that the eligible persons are "cidadãos angolanos de origem". I take it to mean that no naturalized citizen can run for president. The second paragraph also excludes people who acquired another nationality (2. São inelegíveis ao cargo de Presidente da República: a) os cidadãos que sejam titulares de alguma nacionalidade adquirida). Cfmarenostrum (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I thought she was Canadian. At least, when visiting Canada, she talks about "coming home." But yes, she can't be a citizen because her countries have subjects, not citizens. She can't be subject to herself. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Being a citizen is a requirement in Canada, but not being born a citizen. Most recently (30 years ago) was John Turner. And then there is our official head of state, who isn't technically a citizen of any country... Mingmingla (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- From a quick look at that list, I'd say that 'natural-born' appears to be true in the majority of examples given, but is far from universal. Frankly though, the list is far from complete (note that 8 of the 19 countries listed start with 'A' - it looks like someone was trying to compile a complete list, but gave up) and doesn't always state whether 'natural-born' is a requirement. I'd say that you'd be better off trying to find the answer elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- To Jack and HiLo on the "ambiguity" — yes, it's a little ambiguous in corner cases (born abroad but to US parents? one US parent? born in a US possession that's not a state?) but most of the time there's no confusion at all (e.g. it clearly excludes Arnold Schwarzenegger). Even where there is ambiguity as regards the plain language, there's not much serious debate about the practical effect (there's broad agreement that the three cases above all qualify). --Trovatore (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's the ironic thing about the 2008 election in the USA — neither major candidate was undisputedly born in the United States. We know about the people who disputed Obama's birth in Hawaii (funny, they seem to have become a bit quieter since his birth certificate became public), but I don't remember anyone even mentioning McCain's birth in the Canal Zone, except for encyclopedias and other sources that were attempting to give a comprehensive account of his life — it definitely didn't attract the kind of objections that Obama's nativity did. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the simple answer to who else has laws that cause confusion like that is "Nobody". A better question might have been to explicitly ask "Which countries require any elected officials to be born in that country?", and avoid mentioning the mess with the US rule. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- While that question might have been simpler to ask, it is worth noting that at least many people consider Americans who had U.S. citizenship since birth and who weren't born in the United States to also be "natural-born citizens", and thus to also be eligible for the Presidency of the United States. Futurist110 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is really not much "mess". The 2008 election was an anomaly. --Trovatore (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- But it hasn't gone away. There was a flurry of activity following the recent death of the Hawaiian lady who issued the birth certificate, with attempts to add that fact in several different places in Wikipedia, obviously implying some evil government conspiracy. Maybe that's just a price we pay for freedom of speech. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see that as anything inherent in the natural-born rule. Conspiracists have to talk about something; if it weren't that, they'd find something else.
- I don't want to give the wrong impression — I'm against the rule. I think it's a little embarrassing that we say we're a country of immigrants, come be a real American in every way, except just this one. But I'm not particularly embarrassed by it not being crystal-clear. It's as clear as most of the Constitution, and a heck of a lot clearer than a lot of it. --Trovatore (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Futurist110, to answer your original question, there's a very similar provision in the Constitution of Liberia. The relevant provision includes the requirement that the person be "a natural born Liberian citizen of not less than 35 years of age". Assuming that they weren't trying to exclude someone who was "from his mother's womb/Untimely ripped", native-born status has only been the law since the current constitution was promulgated in 1985. Unlike most of the changes that the People's Redemption Council made while ruining the country, this change actually pushed Liberian law closer to that of the USA; the analogous provision in the original constitution disqualified anyone "who has not been a citizen of this Republic for at least five years", and as it read in 1955, the amended original constitution read "No person shall be eligible to the Office of President who is not a citizen of this Republic by birth or a naturalized citizen of over twenty-five years residence". If I remember rightly (sources aren't at my fingertips), there were some well-substantiated allegations that Samuel Kanyon Doe, the PRC head of state, had mandated this provision in order to exclude likely opponents from running against him in that year's election, in which his victory was accomplished by fraud. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- This information about Liberia is helpful and useful as well. Thank you for sharing it. Futurist110 (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Futurist110, to answer your original question, there's a very similar provision in the Constitution of Liberia. The relevant provision includes the requirement that the person be "a natural born Liberian citizen of not less than 35 years of age". Assuming that they weren't trying to exclude someone who was "from his mother's womb/Untimely ripped", native-born status has only been the law since the current constitution was promulgated in 1985. Unlike most of the changes that the People's Redemption Council made while ruining the country, this change actually pushed Liberian law closer to that of the USA; the analogous provision in the original constitution disqualified anyone "who has not been a citizen of this Republic for at least five years", and as it read in 1955, the amended original constitution read "No person shall be eligible to the Office of President who is not a citizen of this Republic by birth or a naturalized citizen of over twenty-five years residence". If I remember rightly (sources aren't at my fingertips), there were some well-substantiated allegations that Samuel Kanyon Doe, the PRC head of state, had mandated this provision in order to exclude likely opponents from running against him in that year's election, in which his victory was accomplished by fraud. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- But it hasn't gone away. There was a flurry of activity following the recent death of the Hawaiian lady who issued the birth certificate, with attempts to add that fact in several different places in Wikipedia, obviously implying some evil government conspiracy. Maybe that's just a price we pay for freedom of speech. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note that as per our article Natural-born-citizen clause#John McCain, there were at least 2 court cases and a Senate resolution. So while it may not have gotten as much attention or fuss, it clearly didn't pass completely by. The funny thing is that while there are similar wacky conspiracy theories, as I understand it and as per our article, there is actually more of an open legal question over McCain's eligibility when you ignore the wacky conspiracy theories (on both sides). Of course beyond possible racism, political differences and the fact he lost (and let's be honest, never really looked like winning); the fact that McCain's father was serving in the US armed forces at the time which was the reason he was out of the US probably made it less likely that people will challenge. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the simple answer to who else has laws that cause confusion like that is "Nobody". A better question might have been to explicitly ask "Which countries require any elected officials to be born in that country?", and avoid mentioning the mess with the US rule. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's the ironic thing about the 2008 election in the USA — neither major candidate was undisputedly born in the United States. We know about the people who disputed Obama's birth in Hawaii (funny, they seem to have become a bit quieter since his birth certificate became public), but I don't remember anyone even mentioning McCain's birth in the Canal Zone, except for encyclopedias and other sources that were attempting to give a comprehensive account of his life — it definitely didn't attract the kind of objections that Obama's nativity did. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your responses to this question, everyone. Futurist110 (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Guru edit
What do you call it in hinduism (?) when the guru is not a person but an object or a situation or something, I don't remember, it's not a person that's for sure. 46.239.240.219 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Avatar (not the movie)? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Guru Granth Sahib is a holy book, regarded by Sikhs as the religion's final, eternal Guru. I don't know a particular term for this situation though. Karenjc (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- There might be a term equivalent to oracle or omen.
- —Wavelength (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Does television ever censor Nazi symbolism? edit
Or do they have to avoid it entirely? --96.40.43.34 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Where? Certainly it's not avoided in the US in the same way it is in, say, Germany. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- TV Tropes' "No Swastikas" has some interesting examples in the live action tv and films subsections. - Karenjc (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- One purely personal observation, which may or may not be the experience of others: There was a Star Trek (original series) episode where they wind up on a Nazi planet. It doesn't seem to get shown very often. I think it's the only ST:TOS episode I've never seen all the way through. --Trovatore (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's called Patterns of Force. I've seen it very recently, as one of the channels shows a continuous loop of all three series of the 60s show. It's not shown in Germany. There's also a double-episode of Star Trek: Enterprise called Storm Front in which Nazis invade America in an alternate-history scenario: great shots the White House with big swastika flags hanging from it. At least in the US and UK, far from TV stations censoring Nazi imagery, it sometimes seems difficult to get away from it. Paul B (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Possibly inspired by It Can't Happen Here? Hack (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's called Patterns of Force. I've seen it very recently, as one of the channels shows a continuous loop of all three series of the 60s show. It's not shown in Germany. There's also a double-episode of Star Trek: Enterprise called Storm Front in which Nazis invade America in an alternate-history scenario: great shots the White House with big swastika flags hanging from it. At least in the US and UK, far from TV stations censoring Nazi imagery, it sometimes seems difficult to get away from it. Paul B (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Even in Germany they can get away with it - there was a bizarrely hilarious The Office parody on Switch Reloaded, with Hitler as the David Brent character. (Although I seem to recall this is a parody of something else and only superficially similar to The Office.) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)