Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 October 7

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.

October 7

Verhoeven's sneaking sympathy for RAH?

The conventional wisdom is that Paul Verhoeven's film version of Starship Troopers is a deliberate satire on its source novel, a way to show what a reprehensible fascist Robert Heinlein was. Supposedly Verhoeven started work on the film before optioning the rights to the novel, then read only part of it, finding it depressing, and then made a film intended to subvert everything RAH was trying to say.

But you know, I must have seen the film several times by now in bits and pieces (it seems to be always on cable when I'm flipping through late at night). And admittedly there are a number of set pieces that fit the narrative above, mostly but not exclusively the Federal propaganda broadcast on television, plus some of the behavior of victorious troops towards captured Bugs. But outside of those, honestly, the movie feels fairly sympathetic.

An example: When Rico asks his History & Moral Philosophy teacher whether he should join up, the teacher replies, "the only freedom any of us really has is to figure things out for ourselves. Use that freedom." That's a line that could very easily have flowed from Heinlein's pen, and the context does not appear ironic at all (even if Rico's application of it is to be led into service because he likes a girl).

So what's going on here? Is Verhoeven's satire too subtle to register with me, or did he fail to get it across? Or does he have more sympathy for the supposedly "fascist" Heinlein (a complete slander in my book, BTW) than he lets on? --Trovatore (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Heinlein's my third favorite author, and I have never been able to figure out what's going on with this claim. The movie has great integrity toward the novel. Some of the commercials are over the top, but that seems more a parody of American TV than Heinlein. I do think there's an interview of Verhoeven on the topic. μηδείς (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The movie shows a highly hierarchical society drenched in media that are obvious propaganda for the military state, so when the teacher says "freedom to figure things out for ourselves" it uses the chance that the students will have been sufficiently influenced, that is to say brainwashed, by these outside factors to choose what they are meant to choose. That is how sophisticated propaganda works and has done since the early 20th century when it was refined by the totalitarian states. I haven't read the novel, so I have nothing to comment about Verhoevens intentions regarding that, but the movie does seem to brilliantly explore the question of the theories of free will and political freedom in face of modern media and ideals influenced by power structures. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm so glad to find someone else spotting out problems of this self-contradictory film like that. Thank you, Trovatore! My opinion is that Verhoeven just wanted to make another movie about which you could quibble greatly, which ensures public debate, viewers, and money. There's nothing else behind. --KnightMove (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll just say that my impression is that Verhoeven has been obsessed with fascist themes ever since Soldier of Orange -- they are especially glaring in Robocop -- and he portrays them in a way that I find very unpleasant. In fact I have refused to watch any of his movies since Total Recall (1990 film), although I've seen snippets of Starship Troopers in various places. I don't think Heinlein would have liked Verhoeven at all, though. Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a link to an interview with Verhoeven. Note that the director describes some of the effects (not the aliens) as kitschy, but nowhere does he speak of fascism. He says he was eager to do the film. (Kind of hard to be fascist in a free society when army service is voluntary and there is no war between humans. Unless maybe you define patriotism as fascism.) Then look at the caption added by the interviewer under Neil Patrick Harris describing him as Goebels! That's a disservice to those who haven't seen the movie, an insult to those who have, and an attack on historical dignity. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well... (glossing Verhoeven the same way he glossed Heinlein) I can sort of see where the criticism comes from (even if I don't quite think it fits). Allowing full citizenship and voting rights solely to people who have served in the military sticks in a lot of people's craw, including mine. While Heinlein notes that the "Federal service" necessary to earn citizenship is not limited to the military, we never really see what other government duties qualify. Do they have a Peace Corps (or equivalent)? What do people do who want to serve and earn citizenship, but have serious moral objections to the means or even the ends of government policy? If you want to change policy, first you have to help enact it, no matter how horrific it may be? That's not an individualist position, no matter what else Heinlein has written elsewhere. I always thought he could have done a little more to ensure the reader's understanding that, having once looked into the Bug abyss, we must recognize that it looked also into us, and take care lest we become, like the Bugs, unwilling or unable to consider the individual in the face of the mass's interests (the H&MP class's "Men are not potatoes" line is insufficient given the government structure he's set up at such length). A claim that everyone who thinks this does indeed smack of fascism to some degree is "defin[ing] patriotism as fascism" is a straw man, I think. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're focusing on an aspect of how the workings of the State are decided, rather than what they actually are. Heinlein was indeed openly questioning whether voting should be extended on what he called the "warm-body" criterion; that was a theme he addressed in non-fiction essays as well. If the State is defined as the body with a monopoly on violence, then voting is tantamount to directing violence by proxy, and Heinlein explored various ideas about how that power should be allocated.

But there is no indication in the novel (and hardly any in the film, actually) that anyone suffers loss of personal liberty by not being a citizen. Now, you can question whether that's realistic — unfortunately, it really is questionable — but Heinlein's intent seems to be that, if you just want to direct your individual life, you will be as much as possible left alone to do it. --Trovatore (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I despaired of bothering to say that; thanks for doing so, Trovatore. I would just add, under Heinlein's system, no one would be prevented from volunteering for a private peace corps, which is a charity, and no one would be forced to pay for it through his taxes, either. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be starting to talk about two different things. All of the above was directed precisely at "how that power should be allocated," which is inextricably bound with "how the workings of the State are decided." I acknowledge 1) that there's nothing that necessarily or intrinsically means that restricting voting rights to veterans restricts the other civil rights of non-voters; and 2) that there's nothing stopping anyone from going out and doing whatever they can get away with to aid others. What I was trying to say is that there is something inherently flawed in a society that forces its members to participate in its policies before it will allow them the right to try to change those policies. In fact I imagine there must have been at least one debate in which Starship Troopers was brought up during the 26th Amendment ratification campaign, albeit as a corollary rather than a direct argument: in order to vote against a war which you know to be a useless, foolish waste of lives with no significant difference between victory and defeat, you must first sign up to fight in that same war. These are not exact parallels, obviously; Heinlein is writing a thought experiment about citizenship in general while 26th Amendment advocates were talking about allowing the people who fight wars to have a say in when we go to war. But the point is that just societies try to minimize the inevitable Catch-22s of governing, not build on them as cornerstones. All I was trying to say previously was that while I do not remotely agree with critics who describe Heinlein as advocating fascism, I do see why they were tempted to drop that particular F-bomb. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, this may be a case where one's own views inevitably color things. Personally, I agree with Auberon Herbert that "that which one man may not morally do, a million men may not morally do", so I don't see why there's anything "inherently flawed" (and certainly not anti-individualistic) about not basing one's use of violence on any particular person's say-so, just because there might be a lot of people in the class that person belongs to. Now, as I say, it's probably not realistic to think that non-citizens' liberties would not be curtailed in some way, but unrealistic or not, it does seem to be the situation Heinlein describes. --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. But when that man or those million men disregard what they may or may not morally do, and the system of government is set up so that they are not subject to the votes of a broader population, even if that population has a clear view of their acts - that is not a situation set up to breed justice, except in the roughest frontier / guillotine sense. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No matter what Verhoven says, reading Robert A. Heinlein#Life suggests to me that the author was initially a supporter of various liberal causes - so much so that Isaac Azimov described him as "a flaming liberal" and in 1954 he described himself as having in his "...background much political activity well to the left of Senator McCarthy's position". Though it goes on to say "Isaac Asimov believed that Heinlein made a swing to the right politically at the same time he married Ginny [Gerstenfeld]" (in 1948). It is quite a stretch to suppose he suddenly became a "reprehensible fascist". Is it not possible that the satire was in Heinlein's original novel and that Verhoven missed that completely simply because he gave up on the novel? Astronaut (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I identify three elements. The basic parts are the plot and theme, which are a coming of age story set in a time of war with an inscrutable enemy. Vehoeven sticks to this and while he omits some of the plot as is necessary in any film adaptation he doesn't rewrite it or lose its spirit. The second is the over-the-top acting and direction, as with the history teacher/drill instructor. There's nothing subtle or underplayed, no ambiguity, no long quiet shots of misty horizons without bombastic dialog. The third is the addition of the pop-up military recruitment adds and documentaries within the story itself. Those last two elements simply make the movie "modern" and attractive to males 18-34. They certainly don't vitiate the moral of the story. As for Heinlein, he went from a New Deal liberal to a classic liberal. Anyone who thinks he's a fascist is misinformed, to be generous. Read Farnham's Freehold about the nature of racism, where the white hero abandons his corrupt son and wife to save the black teen next door, or Friday, which is about the rights and dignity of women and genetically modified humans. Heinlein is entirely pro-human and pro-individual rights. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

One can't simply place Heinlein on the liberal-conservative spectrum that exists in the United States (or anywhere else that I know of). At some point Libertarian was a good word to describe Heinlein but now that this word has been recuperated by people who are very keen on restricting individual rights (regarding e.g. gay marriage) I'm uncomfortable making the association. I certainly doubt Heinlein felt attracted to either major political parties while he was alive and I doubt things would be different nowadays - although he probably would get along fairly well with Ron Paul (or at least better than with most politicians).

I think the movie does a decent job of presenting Heinlein's ideas (the writer is a huge fan of the book) and I'm pretty certain Heinlein would have approved of the shower scene (which is a brilliant exposition, btw). I'm also fairly certain Heinlein approved of corporal punishment - I remember reading him saying that punishment should be swift, that the reason for the punishment should be clear, and that there should be no grudges afterwards, although I can't find where I'm getting this from. Certainly imprisonment seems at odd with his philosophy as a form of punishment. People have called both the movie and the book "fascistic" but I don't know that that is accurate. Heinlein was pretty radical in his way but to call him a fascist is to completely miss the point. Certainly one should read his oeuvre and make an idea for oneself - or least read some quotes - the man is eminently quotable and extremely interesting (although not all his books are great from a literary standpoint) Effovex (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

TSDR. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Too stoned; didn't read? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I wish. Too small'. Non-jokes should not be smalled--it is hard for some of us old folk to read all that small print, and I am averse to CTRL +. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I always thought the film sequence that comes the closest to making the point Heinlein was most clearly trying to propound in Starship Troopers is the "His Name is Robert Paulsen" elegy in Fight Club (another book/movie that's been accused of smuggling "fascist" ideas into American culture). I'd insert a snide comment here about liberal commentators who still haven't noticed (much less gotten over) either the demise of the post-war consensus or the enormities wrought by its economic institutions and their successors, but this is WP:NOTAFORUM. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It is worth considering that especially the movie, and perhaps the book, were not trying to portray a perfect society nor one which was absolutely evil, but merely sought a somewhat consistent set of ideas. It is pretty clear from the film that their society is dominated by propaganda, enters into war needlessly (remember the line about the disputed mining planets that led to war with the bugs), and makes a spectacle of suffering (a trait which is as much a sign of honesty as of brutality). Yet within the military citizenry it had preserved a sort of democracy. Though the logical contradiction of democratic rule with censorship and propaganda is unresolved - but it is also unresolved in real life, as with the PRISM controversy. Wnt (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Any attempt to deal with fascism without dealing with its seductive nature is seriously suspect. In Starship Troopers Verhoeven manages to portray the seductive nature of fascism, in particular its idealisation of the subject's relationship to the national, concepts of service, etc. I find the imagery to be far more interesting though. Neil Patrick Harris in nazi regalia, genitally mutilating a giant psychic vagina monster and then claiming it is "afraid." The themes of war corruption, stab-in-the-back, and the weakness of the old in the fire base sequence. The mimicry of Pearl Harbour and its hysteric over reactions, and the prescient gesture towards the same recent cycle. Honestly, looking at the chief bug, my brain went T-34. I have no idea why, but it seems like nostalgia for the drang nach osten. Rather than a defilement of Heinlein, I'd prefer to think of this as a derivative work that would have failed if the source didn't provide such fruitful depth to explore these themes. Shakespeare's Hamlet is about a depressed student with Daddy issues, it isn't very faithful to the ur-text, but it is still a good play. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Signing of constitiunal amendments (USA)

G'day;

Do presidents sign constitiunal amendments? The only signed amendment I have seen is the 13th, signed by President Abraham Lincoln. The 25th does not show the signature of President Lyndon B. Johnson, but I have watched a documentary where he signed it. Interesting to note is, that congress passed it 1965, but President Johnson signed it sometime in 1967 when it became law. Or did he sign something else? Further, do governors sign amendments if their legislature approved an amendment (the constitution requires 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendments). Thanks in advance --84.160.155.45 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The 1965-1967 time lag was to have enough states to ratify the amendment, 2-3 sometimes 4 years after being passed by Congress is somewhat typical for these. Good question on the signatures though. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

^^That's very likely. But Lincoln signed the 13th before the states appoved. The 13th was finnaly ratfied after he was shot. --84.160.155.45 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting 84.160.155.45, yet another reason President Lincoln was one smart cookie. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Presidents aren't required to sign, but can, just as a show of support, if they wish. I'm not aware of governors signing US Constitutional amendments, although they might well symbolically sign amendments to their state constitutions. StuRat (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Are governors required to sign amendments to their state constitution (not federal constitution)? --84.160.155.45 (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, each state can set up their own rules, but I doubt if any would differ that much from the federal constitution. Requiring a governor to sign would completely eliminate a major point of amendments, bypassing the executive. StuRat (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• The President's signature is not required since amendments must be passed with a 2/3 majority of both houses, which is equal to a congressional override of a veto. No reason he can't have a ceremonial signing. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

North/South split in Italy

The time periods when homosexuality was decriminalized in various countries worldwide.

The map from a previous question shows a division between the date homosexuality was legalised in the south of Italy (1800-1869) and the north (1870-1928). What was the legislative division at this point? Was there a simple north/south split or were/are there smaller administrative regions and those in the North just all happened to be slower in enacting this change? -- Q Chris (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

See unification of Italy. Specifically, this date seems to correspond with the capture of Rome, which deprived the Pope of political power. This would make sense, since it's hard to imagine the Pope authorizing the legalization of homosexuality, at least at that time. StuRat (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had no idea that the unified Italy was so recent! -- Q Chris (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and about the same for Germany. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Germany had to do it all over again in '89 too. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Law

If somebody stole sensitive information from a person, which would get that person into trouble with the law, could the stealer be sued too?--2.245.192.102 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

With the caveat that we can not give legal advice here but can speak on general legal issues the best answer is anyone can sue anyone else for anything, absolutely anything, there are hundreds of cases every year that get dismissed before they are even given a court date as frivolous or worse have sanctions such as fees/fines assessed.

I think thouthough you're asking if they can prevail. Several factors play a part, was the thief under contract, under a non-disclosure agreement? Did it involve government work with a security clearance? Usually just simple data theft absence the above examples is not a civil matter but then one may end up like Brad Birkenfeld who despite being hailed as a "whistle blower" was convicted to jail time for the information, The Insider (film) also gives a blow by blow of what life is like sharing sensitive information that the ones your accusing of law-breaking are accusing you of what amounts to bad-faith or broken contracts.

Also "stealer" is better termed as: thief, phonetically it may be confused with a Steel worker or someone on the Steelers. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Under which legal jurisdiction? The question is unanswerable without specifying that. And you probably need to say who it is you think might do the suing. (It may still be unanswerable even with those specified: I don't know). --ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC

Jurisdiction matters a lot, even if informed of the geographic location in the USA & some other nations there is even a vast difference in statute & precedence in the state courts from the federal courts for that state division & appeals district. I don't feel it is "unanswerable" thoutho legal questions with a lot of details get into the 'should not answer per: legal advice', perhaps I'm in error but when I ask a legal type question on here I intentionally make it vague so no response could constitute something to the effect of how to do it in the 5th Federal District of Appeals etc. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you please stop typing "thou" when you mean "though"? Thou is an actual word with a distinct pronunciation. If you want to economise, tho is available and has its adherents. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Purists see the usage "tho" and say "ugh!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks μηδείς for catching that, I was thinking phonetically earlier in the thread but you seem to be right, been thinking that way this week too. Corrected it & thanks again. As far as the "purists" Bugs, it will be interesting to see if the Twitterization sweeps the current dialect to the modern equal of Old English or even Middle English. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not woried about spelling purity. I just keep thinking I am being addressed biblically. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

When I first read it I'm like all what μηδείς doing talking 'bout Shakespeare. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody got my little "tho" + "ugh" joke. Oh well... So as regards being addressed biblically, do you mean as in those creatures Gog and Ma Gog and Granny Gog and all the little Gogs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Some jokes are eminently gettable but even more eminently not-worth-commenting-onable.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I often get that very response from my wife. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I do get it...now (world speed record in the other direction!) ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Extorsion might also be relevant if you threaten to release the information if not compensated. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Extortion is the wikilink I think μηδείς was meaning to type instead of -sion (spelling cultural?). It's cool, some minds think faster then the time it takes to type, I should know. :-).

I'd read OP to mean those times where the 'thief' is doing something based on principal or already 'burned his/her bridges' with the organization, making extortion less likely (though still possible) with a principled 'thief' refusing to accept any extortion or the 'burnt bridges' organization welcoming a public (& potentially litigation-bullying of the 'thief') fight. Then again μηδείς may be the most right, for every 'whistle blower' or 'insider' case complete with motivations & intents we hear of there could be dozens of organizations that were so successfully extorted that the secrets remain just that. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Going back to Marketdiamond's earliest response — see Jonathan Lee Riches. According to his article, he sues deceased and fictional people as well as entities such as the Roman Empire, on top of real, living people. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice find Nyttend, those filings would make for some entertaining reading as I stroll through my PACER or Google Scholar accounts lol. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't stop people trying to report it as a crime... Man reports drug robbery to cops, gets arrested. Astronaut (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of the Romansh language in Swiss, legal citations.

Greetings!

I've been researching legal-citation guidelines from various countries, and have gotten somewhat bewildered by Switzerland's Civil Law. The country has 4 national languages, viz., French, German, Italian, and Romansh; also, their unique hierarchy of government dictates that only the court-of-last-resort is Federal, and all lower courts are those of the cantons.

According the Bluebook guide to legal citation (published by Harvard University) one may cite Swiss statutes and codes one of two ways:

A.) With parallel, French and German citations—as well as with parallel, Italian citations, but only if they're "available and pertinent."

or B.) With a citation in the one language "of which they are the most relevant."

Also, one may city a Swiss case:

In whatever language the court issued the ruling.

The Bluebook then goes on to say that all cantonal law must be cited in the "language or languages of the canton." It also lists the proper names—and appropriate abbreviations—of the courts, reporters, et al, in French, German, and Italian.

My question involves the fourth (and oftenest excluded) Swiss language, Romansh. Since it is one of three official languages in the canton of Graubünden, then mustn't one also cite cantonal laws from there in said language? Also, has the federal court in Bern ever issued a ruling in Romansh? And finally, if one must (in certain situations) cite Swiss laws in Romansh, then does anybody here know where someone could find the proper names—and appropriate abbreviations—of the courts, reporters, et al, in the language?

--Thank You. Pine (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As for the abbreviations since you have the Bluebook, is a specific canton's abbreviations the same for all the languages?

I understand some languages may invert (or revert) the word order and thus the abbreviation but part of the reason for abbreviations--especially in a multi-language state--is to assign a simplified, universal series of characters to something, but I can see how ethnic concerns could override that.

My concern with the nature of this question thou is that jurists usually strive to be very clear & unambiguous in both pleadings & rulings. That is most likely why each canton can choose a language best for them but the Swiss stop short of having all cases in all languages. The focus for the courts isn't to appeal to all languages but to be clearly understood. For that reason I'd be surprised if the canton you mention would use more than one language in their court, the federal court as you mention may have resources for that and is forced to do that since cases are coming from different cantons but as you said "of last resort" which tells me the Swiss really try and keep the cases in the cantons where "lost in translation" will not be a problem usually. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. While the Swiss Confederation has four national languages, including Romansh, it has only three official languages - German, Italian and French. That is, although some important federal laws are translated into Romansh and native Romansh speakers may (in theory) write to federal authorities in Romansh, there are no federal authorities, including courts, that work in Romansh and the Federal Supreme Court hasn't ever issued an opinion in Romansh. The very thorough citation rules of the Federal Supreme Court mention all relevant terms and abbreviations in the three official languages but do not mention Romansh. The terminology database of the Federal Chancellery has Romansh translations for some terms related to court decisions, e.g. Bundesgerichtsentscheid, BGE - decisiun dal Tribunal federal, DTF.

In Grisons, Romansh is one of three official languages. According to the cantonal language law (art. 7), courts use the official language they consider most appropriate depending on the languages used or understood by the parties. In practice, this means that most opinions are issued in German as the most widely understood language. I recommend against citing anything in Romansh as almost nobody outside Grisons reads that language. Use one of the two other official languages, German or Italian, instead; as the most-used language, German is probably the most relevant.  Sandstein  20:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the find, Standstein! That definitely obviates the need to purchase a Swiss, legal citation guide.

I'll definitely use that site to look up the proper Romansh abbreviations for the courts and reporters, but—even then—only for the laws of Grisons. (Parallel with German and Italian citations.)

Henceforth, my references to that canton's laws will no longer resemble Swiss cheese. :P

@Twinpinesmall: Actually I have to correct myself. It seems that Rumantsch Grischun, the standard form of Romansh, is in fact an official language of the Federal Supreme Court (art. 54 BGG), and the Court has on occasion published rulings in that language (BGE 139 II 145), although interestingly accompanied by a German version of the text.  Sandstein  08:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)