Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 February 2

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

February 2

Soccer riots/stampedes versus American football riots/stampedes

I read from time to time of tragic incidents at soccer ("football") matches, wherein the gates open and people die in a stampede, or there is a riot and people die in stampedes, or walls collapse and cause mass deaths. A 1980 article said ",,it has become almost customary in Great Britain for soccer fans to riot." A recent example of an international soccer riot is 70 people killed recently in Egypt in a soccer stampede. Yet I do not recall a riot or stampede causing multiple deaths at an American football match. I suppose there have been US riots after victories or defeats in various sports, but not with the large numbers of deaths. Is the difference best explained by different layouts of the stadiums, assigned seat ticket sales versus just tickets to enter the stadium, differences in crowd control, differences in alcohol consumption, obsolete and crumbling facilities, a perception of corrupt officiating, ethnic/nationalistic hatred or what? US college or professional football stadiums I've seen are mostly reinforced concrete. Seating is usually by assigned seats. Are soccer stadiums often cheap high walls of cinder blocks which can be pushed over by crowds? Is a ticket just a permit to stampede in and try for a good vantage point? This is not just one incident. Google News archive shows up to 500 killed in Peru in a soccer riot in 1964, , 41 killed in a soccer riot in Turkey in 1967, 38 killed when Liverpool supporters rioted before a game started in 1985 in Belgium and a wall collapsed, 8 killed in rioting after a soccer match in Ghana in 1987, 94 fans crushed or trampled to death in Britain in a soccer match in 1989, 40 killed in a soccer riot in South Africa in 1991, 83 kiled in a soccer stampede in Guatemala in 1996, 7 killed in a stampede during a riot" at a Congo soccer game in 2001, following a stampede in South Africa during a soccer game which killed 43, and [100 more killed in Ghana in a soccer stampede in 2001. There are many more listing of multiple deaths during rioting or stampedes incident to soccer matches. Edison (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is probably less assigned seats and more no recent history of serious violence at sporting events. Combine with that, teams are likely to lift the season ticket rights of offenders. We do not have separated seating, fans of both teams sit together, and usually nothing happens worse than glares and snide comments. At some events, the visiting supporters may be a majority.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Do soccer fans ever get a ticket entitling them to "Section 10, row 11, seat 4" or just "permit to stampede toward a good seat?" Edison (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The tragic events do seem to occur in places with terraces.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

We do have riots after a team wins or loses a championship, like the ones in Vancouver last year after the Stanley Cup (which, unfortunately, might be the last time they ever allow thousands of people to watch a sporting event on big screens on the street). We also have sporadic incidents of violence at sporting events, just as you would have anywhere where you have thousands of people, mostly male, and lots of alcohol. Think of the guy who got pummeled almost to death at a baseball game in California last year. What we don't have in North America is the hooligan culture they have in some other countries. Hooliganism is like a combination of street gangs and hard-core sports fans. Like imagine if the Crips were big Dodgers fans, and the Angels came up from Orange County and their fans, the Bloods, came along. Then a Dodger gets beaned by a pitch and pretty soon all hell breaks loose. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Less likely in American football, maybe because it's too cold to riot in early February. Rioters prefer agreeable weather. Unfortunately, segments of the soccer fancy seem to have turned rioting into a fine art, known as 'Ooliganism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well that doesn't explain why there's not a lot of baseball hooliganism, though. The only case I can really think of is the Giants fan who got brain-injured at Dodger Stadium last year. Come to think of it, the other explanation I've heard (violence on the field in American football sates the appetite, so the fans don't feel as much need for violence in the stands) also doesn't seem to fit baseball. Seems likely to be just the way the fan culture has evolved. --Trovatore (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There were a spate of baseball riots in the 1970s as a result of events like Disco Demolition Night and Ten Cent Beer Night, but I think better alcohol control has generally seen off the worst of that. I wonder if the length of the games plays a part - if you're going to a game like ice hockey or association football, where games last 60-90 minutes, the match is the high-point of your day and emotions will naturally run high. This creates a very different culture to a hours- or days-long game like cricket or baseball, where the game isn't just the high-point of your day - it is your day. You can't afford to be on your feet yelling for a whole baseball game unless you're really drunk - you'll just tire yourself out otherwise. Smurrayinchester 11:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The situation in Peru took place as a result of policemen throwing those smoke bombs (or whatever they are called) on the angry crowd, and then the crowd getting stuck inside the stadium as a result of the gates being locked (so several choked or got trampled to death). As such, this matter had nothing to do with hooliganism.

Association football is played worldwide and is the main sport activity of several countries. It's only logical that, given the greater prevalence of this sport, more accidents will take place in association football stadiums. By contrast, even Rugby has a greater following and practice in the world than American Football.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There's an idiotic tradition in soccer of fans taking flares to games, and using them stupidly. It's a major reason I won't go to games. That was part of the problem in Port Said. Another problem seems to be very long periods without scoring. That just seems to build up the tension in some fans beyond breaking point. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know a lot of those examples, but the 94 deaths (ultimately 96) in 1989 is the Hillsborough disaster, which happened as a direct result of countermeasures taken against hooliganism. Basically, to stop both pitch invasions and fights between rival firms, massive wire fences were built around the terraces. At the time terraces were mostly standing room only - basically concrete steps with iron railings you could lean on - and this meant that the grounds could get away with letting in far more than they were supposed to. The match had kicked off despite a lot of supporters still being outside, and the police decided to let people in through a gate that didn't have any turnstiles, while the stewards failed to direct fans to the empty areas. This meant that people started rushing through, and people at the front of the terrace were crushed against the wire fence, which also made it hard to escape. Without proper communication between grounds staff, no-one realised until it was too late.

As a result of that disaster, the Taylor report recommended that football stadia be converted to 100% seated, and the wire fences be taken down (nowadays you generally see rows of policemen between the sets of fans instead). There hasn't been a repeat of the disaster in the UK, nor (as far as I know) in any of the other stadiums worldwide which have similarly banned standing (UEFA categories 2-4).

As an aside, blaming the Hillsborough disaster on hooliganism is a massive faux pas in the UK (particularly Liverpool), after The Sun (and a few other papers, plus some MPs) falsely claimed that the disaster had been caused by rioting Liverpool fans who, they said, subsequently attacked police and urinated on the dead - despite the fact that all the dead were Liverpool fans, and the fans helped rather than hindered the paramedics. Unsurprisingly, circulation of The Sun on Merseyside plummeted from half a million to a couple of thousand. Smurrayinchester 10:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How could ALL the dead be Liverpool fans? Was there nobody there supporting the other team? HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, but only Liverpool fans were sold tickets to that area of the stadium. This was a neutral-site game, as is customary for FA Cup semi-finals (nowadays, they are held at Wembley). The Nottingham Forest fans were elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously if you're worried about hooliganism the last thing you'll want to do is put opposing fans in the same area. Liverpool fans would have been completely separate from Notts fans at every point of the game - different gates, different stands, different toilets. Edit If you watch footage of Old Firm games, the fans are even kept separate on their way to and from the stadium, with lines of police all along the access roads to the grounds. Smurrayinchester 11:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Stampedes kill people when the crowd is moving and spooked by something. At Hillsborough, it was cheers from the crowd that prompted an inrush, just as the crowd had surged forwards, as is common when standing. (An extraordinary thing to experience, I can vouch for) The Second Ibrox disaster was caused by fans leaving the game early in disgust, trying to turn round and re-enter the ground when the roars of the crowd told them something significant had happened. In non-sporting terms, the various stampedes at Mecca have been caused by the pilgrims getting spooked and panicking. Where you don't get this combination of large numbers moving and being spooked, you won't get a stampede. As Wehwalt says, since legislation forcing all-seater stadia, there haven't been stampede disasters in the UK. You can peruse Category:Human stampedes if you're interested in learning about more examples. --Dweller (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And it is well worth noting that the most notable stampede I can think of in the US in the last half century, 1979 The Who concert disaster involved factors such as Dweller rightly points out.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Soccer is a much more violent and a much less organized game than baseball or American football. A lot of physical contact, no protective gear, and essentially no equipment required to play, you just need a ball and a piece of flat ground. No sophisticated point-counting, no firm rules to follow (only a few, like the off-side rule, which can be easily ignored), you can play without a referee. It tends to attract fans correspondingly. In many countries, street gangs declare allegiance to one or the other soccer club and then spend their free time seeking and beating up members of other gangs wearing colors of rival clubs.

The two games that might come close to soccer in these aspects are ice hockey and basketball. You don't see ice hockey riots as often, mostly because, like Bugs says, it's hard to riot in subzero temperatures. Still happens though, weather permitting (read about Vancouver riots in June 2011). Basketball fans riot from time to time too.--Itinerant1 (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, wearing colours marks you as a fan. Members of Football firms apparently ignore fans - it's only the other firms that they attack. However, most stampede deaths in the UK - and from what I've seen elsewhere - have not been the result of violence. --Dweller (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As Dweller mentioned, stampedes are more of a matter of crowd behaviour in reaction to something which spooks them (or another reason which means they feel they need to get somewhere fast through a fairly restricted area) then anything else. Our stampede article mentions this. Dweller mention examples involving the Hajj, but religious pilgrimages in general are a common cause, e.g. a number in India involving Hindu (and occasional Muslim) pligrams which are mentioned in our stampede article. There's also the very deadly 2005 Baghdad bridge stampede and the Phnom Penh stampede.

Speaking of the US, from both the stampede article and its own article, some of the deaths in the The Station nightclub fire resulted from the stampede. And that happened 4 days after the 2003 E2 nightclub stampede.

Of violence in sport, we do have a List of violent spectator incidents in sports although as with many wikipedia articles it's has a fair dose of WP:RECENTISM and to a less extent bias towards incidents involving developed countries. And of cricket, there was the Sydney Riot of 1879 although it didn't result in any deaths. There are some problems in cricket, particularly India vs Pakistan games although the worse problems tend to be amongst people after the games and directed at their own players. In baseball, I believe there are occasionally minor fights involving either players or spectators in Taiwan [1] and South Korea and even a few largish pitch invasions, e.g. [2].

As a bit of an out there example, I also distinctly remember the behaviour of the Indonesian fans in the 1994 Thomas Cup final which seriously intimidated the Malaysian players [3] and resulted in the cancellation of the remaining 2 matches (Indonesia had already won but as evidence by Thomas Cup [4], at the time all matches were played even those not which were rendered moot by the victory.) Indonesia did have a bit of a history with fan behavioural problems at badminton, as evidence by 1964 Thomas Cup (involving Denmark) and 1967 Thomas Cup (involving Malaysia). Although Malaysian-Indonesia relations are often a bit strained for various reasons and the 1967 match was not long after the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation. And after the fiasco of laser use during the 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup, it's not like there aren't serious problems with some Malaysian fans. (There's an obvious comparison between the 2010 events and the 1964 and 1967 events in that both involved apparent attempts to temporarily blind or at last distract players during key moments.) BTW, Dweller's link to Football hooliganism (via football firm) may be of interest when it comes to football.

I don't know if I'd agree with Itinerant1 on 'violence'. In many ways, rugby (union) is 'more violent' (on field) then football even if protective gear is used and it has a lot more rules. In particular, a minor brawl among players in football will often results in players being red carded, with the potential for further fines and sanctions to follow. Yet in rugby such 'handbag stuff' will often simply result in the ref warning the players to cut it out in the first instance.

Simplicity is even more important than violence. Here in the U.S., neither baseball nor football seem to attract many street gangs. One reason, I think, is complexity. In both games, you need a man of authority to referee, a nerd to track the state of the game (is it 4th down or still 3rd?), and a nerd to keep score. Neither nerds nor men of authority are popular among criminally-inclined youths.

Consequently, baseball and football fans attending major games are older and more level-headed. Median age of a Super Bowl attendee, is, I think, around 40. By contrast, median age of a victim of the Hillsborough disaster was 21. I can't find data about the recent Egyptian stampede, but I would expect the median age to be in low twenties or even high teens too.--Itinerant1 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And of course, minor contact in football in a professional game tends to result in the dreaded simulation (Association football), with the player acting as if they've been shot until the referee either penalises the other player or it's clear they're not going to and then the player gets up and carries on like normal. You wouldn't catch many rugby players dead acting that way, even if they felt some minor but genuine pain. (In ice hockey of course they seemed to have refined fighting among players into a bizzare semi-sanctioned art form.) Yet you don't see the level of problems in rugby involving hooliganism that you see in football, and I don't think it's just because of the number of players and games or limited interest in developing countries. Often times, you don't even need to seperate the fans. (Of course, you do get some problems e.g. [5].)

As Dweller also mentioned, if you've ever been in a crowd surge you may know how scary it can feel. (I was in Auckland 'party central' during the opening of the Rugby World Cup 2011. Because I got there a bit late (about 2PM?), the waterfront area was already closed according to signs, so I didn't try to get in. At some stage they started to let in small groups (still advertising it was closed) so I joined the que. They stopped all movement a bit before the opening ceremony and started to allow people in againt after it finished, but before the game which resulted in an initial surge. They were able to slow things down by repeated warnings to the crowd that they're stop all entries, but particularly as I was very near the front of the surge by that stage and trying to slow down as instructed, it was not a pleasant experience. Fortunately no one suffered major injuries AFAIK and I believe those who had continue to try to push thru were barred from entering for at least a while. Ironically I did later suffer a fairly painful scuffed/cut lower leg from being kicked by a dancing drunk during the bands after the game, who didn't even notice he'd kicked me.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if there's much more to add to this discussion, but to add to something BaseballBugs said, it would be hard for the kind of lowlifes who make up hooligan groups to even get into American sports events, simply because it's too expensive. It's hard to get a ticket to an NFL game for less than $50, and that doesn't include parking, food and beer, all of which are at crazy jacked-up prices. For alumni to get season tickets to some NCAA football programs, you have to donate thousands of dollars to the university. On the other hand, you could go to soccer games in Eastern Europe for a few euros when I was there. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Football in the UK is also very expensive. I just looked at the website for Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C., a club with something of a reputation for hooligan fans, and in the lower reaches of the top league in England. A cheap seat for a forthcoming game against another low ranking team is £39.50. You can assume that each of the following would increase that price: a) a better seat b) against better opposition c) at the home ground of a top team d) in London. People give up a substantial part of their income to watch football live and on satellite TV, home and away, including travelling across the continent. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sports in the US is also very expensive. I recall going to school in the early Eighties in Philadelphia and the most expensive ticket for a 76ers game was $11. Quite good student tickets for the Flyers were $4. I remember they made tickets available to students to see an off session of the women's tennis tournament for $1 and going to see Billie Jean King. Today, there are very few tickets for a popular team in any sport running much under $20 and most considerably more. But the fan culture is different. A thought: perhaps it is because football is all-consuming in so many nations. In the US, we have a choice of major sports. So if the Jets lose, the fan looks ahead to how the Knicks are doing and possibly root for the Giants in the playoffs. Bugs can tell you better than me that there was a time when baseball fans were far more passionate and even today's Cubs fans, say, would have been considered wimps. I would date the change to about the 1920s. Additionally, we have less at stake in American sports as there is no relegation.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input. Some observations of points that were made: The incidents likely have a variety of root causes. Low ticket prices mean more youthful exuberance, and less funding for large numbers of crowd control police and security guards, as well as less funding for reinforced concrete walls which do not collapse. Poor crowd control practices (chokepoints and fences) offer more chance of crushing incidents. Lack of assigned seating may enhance revenue by allowing more tickets per square meter of stadium footprint, and encourage rushing in to get a vantage point. In US college stadiums this past season, entrants were searched at some facilities and almost nothing could be carried in, not even cameras, binoculars, water bottles, or womens' purses, more for fear of terrorism than for fear of hooliganism, whereas in some third world events spectators brought weapons such as large knives. Edison (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Football stadiums are for football-games; if we want to riot and beat up on innocent people, we join the military and go to Iraq or Afghanistan. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Finding a person with a first name, birthday, and [most recent] city

How hard would it be to find someone with the above information? --Melab±1 ☎ 02:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

With only that information, impossible unless the city was really tiny, to the point where you could just ask someone in that city, "Hey, do you know Brian? About 25 years old?" Otherwise, only knowing a first name, birthdate, and place of residence would be really difficult, if not impossible. --Jayron32 02:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In a city the size of Toronto? --Melab±1 ☎ 02:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the first name (Mary vs. Hortense, for example) and maybe also on how much you're willing to pay a detective, along with providing further context details that you probably don't want to bring up in this public forum. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

With just that info there are likely to be many matches, so many that most web searches would refuse to do such a search. If you know the age in addition to the birthday, that would help. StuRat (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Toronto has a population of about 2.5 million so around 6,850 citizens on average will share the same birthday. If the person's name is 'Brian', you'll have problems, but if it is 'Leonides' you might be in with a chance. Then again, if the city was Hanoi, even with a population of 6.5 million, finding a 'Brian' with a particular birthday might be relatively easy. Basically, you aren't giving us enough information to answer the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the people above. There are a ton of publicly available records (see e.g. voter file, not to mention business registries if they've founded a company, property tax rolls if they're available, etc), and firstname/dob/city is a pretty decent amount of information (especially if you have a year in the birthday, or even a range of years). Even in a large city, having all this info could nail it down to a small list of people, and once you have a small list, you could dig up more info about each person on the list that would exclude more and more people. It would be a project, but totally doable. The real trick would be getting access to the records you need, but that's what private investigators are for. Meelar (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The above answers assume that the person is not deliberately trying to avoid being found. If the person uses aliases, doesn't register to vote, always ticks the "do not include on the public register" boxes, etc. it could be much harder. If the person has assistance of the authorities in hiding (witness protection, police officer working under cover) then it could be too difficult for even the best private investigator - and reputable ones would cease looking if they ever discovered the situation. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No such public voter database exist in Canada AFAIK. I don't go through the hassle of preregistering for elections. I just walk in with two pieces of ID on election day.99.245.35.136 (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Lucky you. That wouldn't work in Australia. We're required by law to register on the electoral roll; then those who are registered to vote are required by law to vote. But if you fail to do the first thing, you can't do the second thing, not even if you turn up at the polling place with 10 forms of ID and 20 character referees. That's because the law sets a date when the rolls are closed, and nobody has the power to make changes until after the election. You can't be charged with failing to vote if you never registered to vote in the first place. But you can be charged with failing to register. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So, let's say the day before the election you're involved in an auto accident and you're unconscious in the ICU for 3 days. Once you regain consciousness, what are they going to do? Arrest you for having failed to vote? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

They'll probably ask you why you failed to vote, and when satisfied you had a valid reason (perhaps with evidence to demonstate you're telling the truth), let it be. Or perhaps they'll automatically send you a fine, but give instructions on how you can challenge it if you think you have a valid reason for not voting. And even if they don't accept your reason, you can take it to court and be virtually asured of victory. [6] And why do you expect the person will be arrested? I'm pretty sure the only possible punishment is a fine, Electoral system of Australia says as much. Sure if you repeatedly fail to pay the fine perhaps you'll eventually be arrested, but that'll surely be for failing to pay fines (the same as is possible with many fines like speeding or even parking tickets) rather then for not voting. Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So it's kind of like the reverse of a "poll tax": You have to pay to not vote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, only kind of. I'm sure there are people who refuse ever to vote, on the principle that they shouldn't be forced to vote (whether they would have voted or not if it were not compulsory), and willingly (or grudgingly) pay the fine every time. Afaik, the system is not so smart that it can detect regular non-voters and send them off to re-education facilities. So, for them, it's effectively like paying not to vote, because they choose in advance to pay whatever fine may be imposed, and they don't regard it as a form of punishment, but rather as the price of taking a stand for a principle they consider important. But for those who just one-off inadvertently forget, or couldn't be bothered, or were too high, drunk or disorganised to get around to it, and whose conscience prevented them from making up some white lie, or whose white lies are not believed, they pay because they failed to vote and didn't have a reasonable excuse. As far as the law is concerned, there's no difference between the two groups. I suggest there'd be far more in the latter group; not that Australians typically spend their Saturdays being high, drunk or disorganised, although I'm sure some do. And not just on Saturdays either. (We always vote on Saturdays here, unlike other countries where you have to fit it in during the working day; but you mostly aren't required to vote either.)-- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In NZ, you can enrol to vote normally up to a day before the election although if you enroll too late you'll have to make a special declaration vote. Enrollment is compolsury but rarely enforced, voting is not. [7] [8] Also while an unpublished list does exist, there needs to be a possible threat to you or your family before you can be on it [9]. The information on Canada is correct, see [10]. How a register does exist, it's just not necessary to be on it to vote. Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if voter databases don't exist, there are probably private companies that maintain and compile this sort of information. I know they exist in the US (see e.g. Infogroup, although that article is in a sorry state) and I'd imagine there's a Canadian equivalent as well. Meelar (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The answer is different depending on which country you're talking about. In Sweden you can use ratsit.se to do pretty much what you describe, although you'd have better luck if you knew the surname. But with just the information you have I would expect that for someone living in a low-population area you could find them quite easily. In Stockholm you might be able to narrow it down to 2 or 3 possibilities. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You may want to clarify whether you mean birthday without the year or birthdate including the year since it sounds like people are taking you to mean different things. Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The month, day, and year. --Melab±1 ☎ 22:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In Norway, tax paying information on an indivudual level used to be publicly and easily available. Online sites went to great lengths to make the income and financial status of your neighbours, bosses etc. available to you (and vice versa). The sites are still around, but they were last updated 2009. Here is one such page [11]. If I enter only my first name and the municipality in which I live, I get 163 hits. I'm listed as number 16 on the first return page. If I sort the list by birth year, there are only two matching persons (strictly, only one - yours truly - the other person had a double given name). Background info: My first name is used approximately by 8000 Norwegian men as their only given name, and in double names by another 10000 Norwegians. source. My municipality has a population of about 14,000. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

By what right does anyone besides your employer and the tax collector need to know what your income level is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The people who run the census and any other compulsory surveys that ask for income levels probably have a right to know. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Government agencies acting in an official capacity, sure. But what business is it of my neighbors how much I paid in taxes last year? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To play the devil's advocate, making all tax information public might help people report tax evasion.

I honestly can't believe something this Orwellian is being practiced in a such a liberal and developed country. Maybe this little bit of trivia should be added to Taxation_in_Norway? 99.245.35.136 (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason is a long tradition of freedom of information in the Nordic countries, where official information is public unless there's a compelling private or public interest to keep it non-public. And, I strongly disagree with using "Orwellian" to describe a practice where information is made accessible to the public, instead of only the government. The opposite would be more Orwellian.Sjö (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

My employer will obviously know, and my tax collector has a "need to know". My next-door neighbor does not have a "need to know" what my income is, nor I his. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The lists are disclosed by the tax authorities, not by employers. Needless to say, the publication of tax lists is a very controversial subject. One problem is of course privacy concerns, another is the fact that publication of the distribution of wealth on an individual level facilitates crime, burglaries etc. Such concerns are the reason why access to the lists on the internet has now been restricted. It is still possible to look up your neighbour's income, but to get access to the information, you need to log in to the web pages of the tax authority, and identify yourself (by your National identification number, combined with a series of pin codes to verify that you are the person you claim to be). And the person whose information you have accessed can then see who's been snoping. My understanding of the reason for publishing tax lists, is that it gives the public a means of controlling the fairness of the system, thus promoting tax morale. As far as I know, it is still possible to go to the tax office and read the lists on paper.

Here's what the Norwegian Wikipedia has to say on the subject no:Skattelister:

Public access to the tax lists has a long tradition in Norway (from the mid-1800s). Since 2001, tax lists have been available on the internet. In 2003-2004, mass distribution to the media was stopped, and street address and birthday and month were removed. In 2006-2007, disclosure of tax lists to the press was re-introduced. The legal basis for publication of the tax lists is the Tax Administration Act. Proposals to prohibit the publication of tax lists have repeatedly been voted down in Parliament.

The Norwegian Wikipedia is not quite up-to-date on the subject, as it fails to mention the restrictions that were made from tax year 2010 and onwards. The legal basis of publishing the tax list is here [12]. My legalese is a bit rusty, so I ran the paragraph through Google translate, and hand-edited the output. Here goes:

§ 8-8. Tax list

1. When the tax assesment is completed, a list is compiled of all those who for whom tax has been assesed. The information in the list may be accessed [by third parties] and printed out as far as follows from this provision. The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to claims for access to such lists.

2. The tax list shall contain the individual taxpayer's name, postcode, city, municipality, year of birth for personal taxpayers, organization of impersonal taxpayer, the prescribed net worth and net income, taxes and fees. The tax list shall not contain information about deceased persons, information about persons who are 17 years or younger at year-end income, information about people with addresses that are blocked pursuant to the provisions made in or pursuant to law on national registration of 16 January 1970, paragraph 1, information about persons of no fixed abode, and information about individuals where the information contained in the tax list may reveal a client relationship.

• Personal taxpayers should only be included in the municipality where the person is liable for tax §§ 3-1 or 3-4.
• The lists of personal and impersonal taxpayers may be issued at different times.
• The Ministry may decide that tax lists for specific groups of taxpayers should be published, and where such lists are to be posted.

3. Upon request, the information from the tax list for the individual taxpayer is given in writing to himself, his spouse, estate, bankruptcy estate or court. Such information may also within reasonable limits be given in writing to others.

4. Full tax rolls may be delivered in electronic form to the press. The list of individual taxpayers may only be disclosed if an agreement is made between the individual editors and the Tax Directorate, that all of the received tax list or parts of it may not be posted on the Internet or given to others. Payment may be charged for delivery of the tax lists.

5. The Ministry may issue regulations to supplement the provisions here.

The media still publish information on selected individuals, persons whith a high public profile, whether they are wealthy or not. -NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Executive bathrooms

Does corporate America still believe in the Executive bathroom, such as those featured in Trading Places and Simpson and Delilah? Astronaut (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is more a more an expression than anything else. Perhaps some high executives have private washrooms attached to their office. But a locked-off facility for those of a certain rank at a company seems someting out of the Fifties. Especially since today you would need two of them. If you want an analogous experience, try the rest rooms of a high-end Vegas casino.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen some. They're usually not particularly lavish, but they allow the CEO or senior executive to do their business and wash up without needing to come out of the office and face people who may be waiting for an appointment. Top executives usually have very tight schedules, and often need to make sure their appearance is fine before any public event. You wouldn't want them to have to walk halfway across the floor to do this - unless they want to. Since they serve only one person (or one plus a couple of very close assistants, it's not necessary to have both a male and female washroom). --Xuxl (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd think private washrooms (one for each executive) would be better than shared executive washrooms. This doesn't sound like much of an expense, to me, relative to the multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses such executives get these days. I've also thought that all washrooms should be private. That is, instead of one room with multiple stalls and sinks, make each stall/sink combo into a separate room, so you don't have to hear and smell other people using the toilet. (They could have a timer that leaves a "just used" sign on the door to each, until the fan has had a chance to clear the air.) StuRat (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've designed a number of private potties, usually for someone at the CEO or president level, or for a small private client who's just particular and willing to spend the money. As noted above, it gives the VIP some privacy and keeps them from being sidetracked on the trip to the shared toilet, and is a minor mark of status. While it used to be that you could make such a toilet rather small, nowadays with universal handicapped access, individual toilets are much less efficient in their use of space than shared toilets, in which the maneuvering space can be shared between the fixtures. By the time you get a 5' turning circle in the private room, deal with the door swing, etc., you get something you could play half-court basketball in. Acroterion (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So, even if the current executive isn't handicapped, you must give them a handicapped toilet anyway ? StuRat (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, under the current DoJ interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (which is civil rights legislation, not a building code, by the way), all new toilets in non-residential structures (and a proportion of toilets in certain residential buildings) must comply with the ADA design requirements. There are a few minor loopholes for issues of technical infeasibility, lack of an accessible pathway, and historic structures, but those are out of the ordinary. With outswinging doors, a minimum size for a single-occupant room is about 6.5' x 7.5'. With an inswinging door, which can't overlap the turning circle, you get something even bigger. Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure about that? Most of the new buildings I've seen have a minimum of one handicapped toilet per floor, but not all toilets are handicap accessible. The handicapped have my full support, but making every single toilet handicap accessible seems a bit excessive. This site [13] seems to agree with me: "Provide for at least one handicapped-accessible toilet on each floor." 99.245.35.136 (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A simple search for 'accessible toilet united states' finds [14] which says:

If toilet facilities are provided on a site, then each such public or common use toilet facility shall comply with 4.22. If bathing facilities are provided on a site, then each such public or common use bathing facility shall comply with 4.23. For single user portable toilet or bathing units clustered at a single location, at least five percent but no less than one toilet unit or bathing unit complying with 4.22 or 4.23 shall be installed at each cluster whenever typical inaccessible units are provided. Accessible units shall be identified by the International Symbol of Accessibility.

So it seems the OP is correct. I'm not sure why this differs from your experience, perhaps the DOJ doesn't bother to enforce their intepretation much so many don't follow it. (I presume you're referring to toilets in non-residential buildings since the OP already mentioned there's a difference with residential buildings although this isn't that clear to me from the regulations.)

Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As I have already noted, there are narrow loopholes, clustered single-occupant units are another one. My professional experience is that clustered single-occupant toilets are so unusual as to be (nearly) non-existent, since they're still expensive and inefficient uses of space, given the non-handicapped code minima for fixture clearances. Shared facilities are almost invariably used where more than one or two toilets are required, since the space savings are significant. My experience with local approvals is that they simply won't approve non-HC toilets outside of those circumstances: the ADA overlaps with a hodgepodge of local regulations, each more stringent than the next. Even then, they frequently insist that the facilities be big enough, but not necessarily equipped with grab bars and such. I've had requests to local authorities for single non-HC-sized private toilets explicitly denied in what-were-you-thinking tones in several Mid-Atlantic jurisdictions. Residential design gets into HC accessibility where multiple units in the same building are involved: a proportion of such units must be accessible throughout, not just in the loo. Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OP here. Seems this thread has been sidetracked into a discussion about a CEO only toilet connected to his office, and the relevant building codes. I was thinking more in terms of a shared bathroom set aside for senior executives for which being given "the key to the executive bathroom" was seen as a status symbol. Astronaut (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Levels of quality of toilets strongly tends to stratify people. Sometimes you don't even need a key to enter a toilet above your rank. It is just understood. Here in America instead of class consciousness we have toilet levels. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that an "executive floor" or "executive suite" would be more prevalent, with its own toilets for that area's inhabitants, rather than a designated executive toilet separate from a facility for the groundlings. Acroterion (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Txortena

While researching another question, I found my way to this blog about berets. Apparently, the little stalk in the middle of a traditional beret is called a "txortena" (sounds a bit Basque to me). I thought it might be an interesting addition to our Beret page, but can't find a reference. Can anyone help? Alansplodge (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly a reference, but I found this [15] which says that a destemmer (machine for removing stalks from grapes in winemaking) is called "txortena kentzeko makina" in Basque, confirming that the word is Basque, and suggesting that it could mean stem/stalk. I then tried Google translate, which confirms that kentzeko means remove and txortena means stems. Plural, curiously. I skimmed our Basque grammar article, which seems to indicate that Basque plurals usually end in "k". A google image search for "txortena" returns a lot of berets, and the articles that contain the images agree that the stalk/wick/fuse is called a "txortena". I didn't find any reliable sources, though. Maybe the question would get better answers at the Language desk? Someone there might have a Basque dictionary which gives the translation in the beret context directly. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

La gran enciclopedia vasca agrees that it is called a txortena, although it puts the word in guillemets, presumably to indicate that this is not a naturalised word in Spanish. Warofdreams talk 23:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks both. 109.170.169.29 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Now added to the article under the "Spanish" section. Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mortgage brokers NZ

Were there mortgage brokers in nelson new zealand in 1978? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.52.62 (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)