Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 May 19

Humanities desk
< May 18	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 20 >

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.

May 19

Three Questions on Boundary Commissions (United Kingdom)

I'm from the other side of the pond so I don't know how they redistrict in the UK. It is my understanding, that Boundary Commissions will set up a constituency with a population between 100K and 111K (+/- 5% of 64 million divided by 596). Is that true?

If it is, I have three questions (which I inserted in this talk page a week ago):

In the Boundary Commissions (United Kingdom)#Considerations and process section, the article states that "the electorate of each constituency must be within 5% of the United Kingdom electoral quota. This number is the total mainland electorate divided by the number of mainland constituencies, which is 596. In simple terms, it is the average electorate of a mainland constituency." Question #1: What people are included in that "electorate"?

For example, the United States Census uses "actual counts of persons dwelling in U.S. residential structures. They include citizens, non-citizen legal residents, non-citizen long-term visitors and undocumented immigrants." Thus, in the first place, the Census counts all children and people not entitled to vote. Do the UK Boundary Commissions count children and other non-voters as "electorate" or just people entitled to vote? Do they base it on "usual residence" or some other measure?

Q#2: On a slightly different topic, how often do they redistrict? The US performs a census every 10 years. What basis does the UK use to determine how often they rebalance?

Q#3: And what about the 54 "non-mainland" constituencies? Do they use a different system?

Thanks --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies has a little template at the bottom that lists the previous five. It doesn't seem to happen as often as in the U.S.; the one prior to the one currently being undertaken appears to have been in 1945. --Jayron32 09:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the one before the Sixth was the Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies in 2000-2007, with boundaries taking effect in 2005 in Scotland and 2010 nationwide. DuncanHill (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I misread the template. It looks like Reviews 1-6 all took place since 1945, and that those dates are for prior reviews and redistricting. My bad. --Jayron32 16:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There are four non-mainland constituencies (Orkney and Shetland, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, and two on the Isle of Wight, listed in the article), not 54. I think your maths is producing 54 because you're using population, but the article says "electoral quota" which it defines as "the average number of electors per constituency". The Boundary Commission for Scotland explains what that means here - it's the number of people on the Electoral Register. This 2011 report suggests that about 82% of people eligible to vote are registered, meaning about 6 million people who could vote aren't registered. Note that, for the purposes of elections to Westminster, British Citizens can vote, plus Irish and some Commonwealth citizens ordinarily resident in the UK. The census includes those, plus convicted prisoners, children, EU and non-EU nationals, and those incompetent to vote. Note also that the 5% number is a handwavey target - the actual targets vary between the four constituent countries, as described in this document. The four non-mainland constituencies are considered special cases, where their small sizes (Na h-Eileanan an Iar has an electoral role of only about 22,000) are balanced by other considerations - see Na h-Eileanan an Iar (UK Parliament constituency)#Boundaries. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 09:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

RoyGoldsmith the rules for the Boundary Commissions and "Redistricting" are about to change. Basically pre-1948 the members of parliament just got together and drew the boundaries themselves. When the boundary commissions were set up, the rules were for there to be "not substantially more than 613 seats" in the UK, 12 in Northern Ireland, at least 71 in Scotland and at least 35 in Wales. The "not substantially more" wording was vague, so there was a tendency over time for numbers to creep up. From 630 to 635 in 1974, 650 in 1983 and 659 in 1997. There were other changes that took place as well. Northern Ireland had been deliberately underrepresented due to having its own parliament. When that was abolished in 1973, that justification went and it has has had 16 to 18 under the rules since 1983. When Scotland got its own parliament in 1998, the justification for its over-representation went and mainland Scotland now gets the same proportionally as England. Wales is still overrepresented.

The people they count are those on the electoral register, including some Commonwealth and all Irish citizens resident there. This is different from almost all other democracies which just use census figures. Under the rules up to now reviews have had to take place every 8 to 12 years and there has been no set deviation. Constituencies just have to be "close to the quota" and respect local government boundaries, so the public enquiries which have followed reviews have often tended to feature arguments over which is more important. Usually they've gone for a deviation of up to 12% but have approved the odd one outside that. Constituencies in sparsely populated rural areas (Scottish islands and the counties of England bordering Scotland) are allowed to be smaller due to "special geographic considerations." The Isle of Wight has been a special case, it's usually been entitled to about 1.42 constituencies, but residents have opposed having a half constituency in the north of the island combined with parts of the mainland so it's stayed as an exceptionally large constituency. One difference from the USA is that the commissions have to be impartial. There is no messing about to protect incumbents or political parties drawing the boundaries themselves. However, parties will be heavily involved in the public enquiries and can often swing things more to their direction.

The Conservatives have now changed the system. The Scottish islands will be protected, with 2 constituencies. Isle of Wight will also be protected and will get two constituencies instead of one. The total number of constituencies will be set in stone at 600 (a reduction of 50) and the deviation at no more than 5% and reviews will have to take place every five years. Valenciano (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong: it was not the Conservatives who changed the system, but Parliament. The change may have taken place under a (partially) Conservative government, but this is not the same thing: decisions are always made by Parliament. In particular, there is a long-standing convention that matters of this kind require a substantial degree of cross-party support (though this support may not be unanimous - the requirement is only for fair-minded people on both sides of the aisle to agree). RomanSpa (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Valenciano and others: If I wanted to add this to Wikipedia, would you suggest a new section to Boundary Commissions (United Kingdom) or a new article titled something like "Redistricting in the United Kingdom"? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Not "Redistricting in the United Kingdom" because we don't have redistricting. Something like "Parliamentary Constituency boundary changes in the United Kingdom would be better, but perhaps best dealt with within existing articles such as the Boundary Commissions one or one on constituencies in general. DuncanHill (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Deal with this within existing articles. "Redistricting" is about as meaningful to British readers as "football in Kazakhstan" is to USA based readers. Valenciano (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The seven lamps of style - P.M.Fulcher,

I have searched the Internet for "the seven lamps of style" by P.M.Fulcher, defined in his book, "Foundations of English Style"(New York, 1927). Wikipedia has returned a note: "The document you are searching does not exist. You can ask for or create one". I have set out to create an introductory document while making reference to the above source from memory:

Drawing on Ruskin's concept of "The Seven Lamps of Style", Mr Fulcher proposed seven key features of verbal style, which arguably included the following: 1)truth, 2)power, 3)beauty, 4)simplicity, 5)clarity, 6)brevity, and 7)urbanity. A reference to the book by P.M.Fulcher titled above would help best of all. It is not available on the Internet. I expect contributions on the Seven Lamps of Style by P.M.Fulcher and their elaboration. Thank you.

• Aked by DebrisRutkausk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Copied from deleted article To create new article --Shirt58 (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NBOOK is the relevant guideline; I doubt if this book will pass it, as it's only referred to in a couple of footnotes in the works of Bryan A. Garner. Tevildo (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Novel Sci-Fi Regarding a genetic reason for Jesus Healing

I am looking for the title of a novel. During experiments it was found that some animals can heal others but not themselves. There is a race to find the humans with this ability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonM0267 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a bit more information? Do you remember the author, target audience (young adult, adult, children), main characters or place names? 140.254.226.181 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Target readership would be adult. As I understand the plot, it centres around a discovery that a rare genetic mutation allows an animal to heal others of its own species. During the investigation of this, it was discovered that there are humans who have the same ability. The tory revolves around the science of the anomaly, and the search for those with the gift. There are competing groups, mainly one that fears a scientific reason for Jesus healing abilities (miracles) should be prevented etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonM0267 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This sounds very familiar. Was it written within the last ten years or so? If it was, I may be able to find the title as I know someone who may have this book. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@JonM0267: it sounds like you are describing The Miracle Strain (1997) by Michael Cordy. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Are most or all American companies and organizations Equal Opportunity Employment employers?

Are most or all American companies and organizations Equal Opportunity Employment employers? Does a company or organization have to label itself as an Equal Opportunity Employer? How is Equal Opportunity Employment enforced? 140.254.136.182 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You may find Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enlightening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I took a look, but that agency seemed to focus on enforcing Equal Opportunity Employment for minority groups and to protect companies/organizations from being falsely accused of discriminatory practices. It sounds like a win-win situation. You answered my third question, but I still have two earlier questions. Are all or most American companies and organizations Equal Opportunity Employment employers? Does a company or organization have to label itself as an Equal Opportunity Employer? 140.254.226.181 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Companies are not required to register with the EEOC, every employer with more than the minimum number of employees as defined by statute (the actual number varies by the type of company) is subject to the laws which the EEOC enforces. See here for more details. Here is more information about the laws in question. --Jayron32 17:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Expanding Sahara

The Sahara is expanding. This could cause huge problems in the future due to the third world population explosion and their need for non-arid land. Also, there are wealthier Asian nations who own farmlands in Africa wherewith they feed their own population. Is there an international effort to protect Africa from soil erosion? Rlaftive (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, there was that proposed project to build a canal to bring water from the Mediterranean Sea into a basin in North Africa. This would generate electricity and allow plants to grow, although it would be saltwater, so that would limit the crops that could be raised there. However, the moisture which evaporated would help nearby crops, at least in the direction the wind blows. StuRat (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Here [1] is a nice article describing the scope of the problem, not just in Africa, but worldwide, and covering many forms of land degradation.

At the top level, there's things like the Earth_Summit, which included many NGO participants. Desertification in Africa and ways of combating are among the topics. So that's lots of high-level talking (and money), but for "boots on the ground", we'll have to find specific NGO and governmental programs.

This article [2] discusses many projects, programs and plans, one of which is the Great_Green_Wall, which is supported by several African governments. Here is another overview article discussing many NGO and governmental programs [3].

So let me stop and say clearly: YES, there are many programs to fight desertification and erosion in Africa, and to promote soil conservation on the continent more generally. There are also many research dollars being spent to better understand the problems, and find cost-effective solutions (you didn't ask about scientific research, but that's an important part of solving the problem). The question is almost too broad, if you have more specific interests, we may be able to direct you to more specific programs. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding, we have an article on the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Saltwater crops ?

The above Q inspired me to ask: "What food crops (or non-food crops), if any, grow in saltwater ?" (I realize this is more of a Science Desk Q, but the history of saltwater crop production might belong here, and I'd like to keep it with the above Q.) StuRat (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Seaweed farming - many spp are cultivate, Porphyra in particular is commonly eaten (Nori, laverbread, see also algaculture)). Other than some beach grasses like Ammophila_(plant), most terrestrial plants can't survive much salt water. A few species can tolerate higher salt concentrations than others but nothing so high as sea water concentrations. Basically, salt water on land is just not that common on evolutionary time scales. The development of higher salt tolerance in food crops is an area of active research [4]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Asparagus can tolerate a goodly amount of salt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This blurb [5] indicates Kosteletzkya virginica and Salicornia as having high salt tolerance, and potential use as oil crops. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Plants which tolerate high levels of salinity are called halophytes. As well as the article, we have Category:Halophytes. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Also Category:Sea vegetables. Also Samphire relies on salt water, though it doesn't actually grow in it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Fish farming --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

True, but the term crop usually refers to plants. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That might be a good option in the above Q's scenario, though, with the basin in North Africa flooded from the Med Sea, although due to evaporation the salt level may soon get too high for even saltwater fish. Maybe brine shrimp could still live there ? StuRat (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Operations management

What's the best way to start your career after college if your eventual ambition is to work in operations management for a large organisation and strategic development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.57.217 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You apply for job postings in your intended career track. --Jayron32 02:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not easy to see sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.235.190 (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Many books about job-hunting recommend finding a person who works in the field that you want, and respectfully asking them for a 10-minute conversation in which you ask for their advice on the best ways to get into that field. See Informational interview. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you were in the UK your university would have a careers office to give you advice on job-hunting. Is there an equivalent in your college, I presume in the USA? Don't large companies have graduate trainee schemes? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)