text:
User talk:Ngchen

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text
 * IRC channel
 * Mailing lists
 * Current polls

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 02:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yang Huimin
Well, I was just checking back on all those articles I started, and saw that you created the article Yang Huimin. At least I now know that someone reads the stuff I write! Thanks, I guess. -- Миборовский U 06:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan legal status
Responding to further detail on my peer review comments: A pros and cons section is always dangerous. If someone writes something a pro you don't like, you can come back with five cons, and they respond with two more pros, and you basically get two people on either side of what, in this case, is a tricky area, and an edit war is bound to occur. FAs need to be stable, but basically letting opinionated people list out every one of their arguments and allowing those who disagree to rant right back at them goes against the Wikipedia idea of consensus, and working out a compromise. Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself, but none the less I think you're basically sticking this article in the middle of the Taiwan Strait and saying, "Let's hear all the outrageous arguments from both sides." Harro5 04:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point on it. Thanks.--StrikeEagle 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have put up some suggetions for improvement regarding Taiwan legal status. Would you take a look? I can't edit the page, please give me some feedback and see if you want to make some improvements on the article. Thanks. Redcloud822 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Argument from morality NPOV
It wasn't me who removed the NPOV tag. Go re-add it if you want. Infinity0 talk 02:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Second-class citizen
I have no serious objections to the article as it is now. Pecher Talk 07:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Abortion!
'Nuff said. --BCSWowbagger 03:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of reminders
Hi,

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Also: Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!

Thanks! :)

Hbackman 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yang
Do you have a reference for Yang surviving the war and going to Taiwan? Can you add details to the article?Rlevse 01:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Restored
I'm sorry. There was no problem with your edit.TingMing 02:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation - Foundation for Defense of Democracies
I'm back, though I'll be quite busy for a while. But, I did sign on to the mediation. --Marvin Diode 14:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Academia Sinica
How about changing it to mainland Chinese instead of just "mainland?"-- Jerry 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks.-- Jerry 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

request for comment
Thanks for your opinion on Talk:¿Por qué no te callas?, but your comment seems to have missed the point of the question. The question is not regarding the notability of the article, or the article as a whole at all. It is about one sentence within the article. - Revolving Bugbear  21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your WP:RFPP reports
Just a courtesy note, I've semi-protected your original research warnings indefinitely, as requested. However, I noticed that you added to the articles. As set out at WP:Pt, you shouldn't do that - protection templates are not to be used as "bluffs". Cheers, Anthøny  17:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Careful
Careful at Image:Senate in session.jpg. Nobody mentioned even once in the deletion debate that it was a work by the U.S. Senate. Rather, they all claimed that it was a public domain image from C-SPAN's video coverage of the U.S. Senate. Unless someone says otherwise (and nobody has, as of yet), your tag is misleading. But I'll fix it for you.

And if you take a look at Jiang's user talk page, it's obvious that while he's a long-term contributor who has done much for the project, he has a very poor understanding of copyright and how we deal with it on Wikpedia. I wouldn't try to glean much from his contributions in that area, and I'm sure that many, many more of his images will be deleted in the coming months. And if you look in the image's history, ; he didn't even provide a source or license. But that was a long time ago.

And per your other uncivil comment regarding my supposed paranoia: Nice cop out, but I'm very well aware that the chances of negative legal repercussions are often slim to none. But we're trying to build a free encyclopedia, and people like you clearly don't understand what that means, but would rather unabashedly steal photos from people who make their living trying to sell those same photos.

Off Wikipedia, the photographer makes money by selling his or her photo to a paper, and the paper makes that money back by advertising to those to view the image on their site. In our case, we simply stole an image to unnecessarily decorate an article, giving nothing back to the people who worked to create it or to purchase the rights to it. And there's a clear difference between the image in question and those that are actually iconic, such as Image:Kent State massacre.jpg, which I myself wrote a detailed fair use rationale for. -- RG2 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, I explained the policy, in detail, in the original nomination. But if you're that sensitive, go ahead and resent me, I suppose.
 * If you look at the image's history, which I go through on the image talk page, you'll see that the assertion that the image is from C-SPAN was admitted to be shaky and unverified. And after that was carried over a few edits and a few years later, everyone went ahead and repeated it. Not much to assume good faith on -- but I'm searching through C-SPAN archives at the moment so we can actually verify it, rather than base everything off a description that read: "C-SPAN's video coverage of the floor proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is public domain, but it is unclear whether this is that footage." -- RG2 01:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Senate image - a logical deduction
You're very, very close, but not quite correct. If something is in the public domain, that means anyone can take it, modify it, and republish it. If the AP takes an image and cleans it up a bit, sharpens it, airbrushes it a bit, they can certainly republish it. And this was from before a few AP/Reuters reiterated their image modification rules after photographers took a bunch of heat for some really tasteless usage of the cloning stamp a year or two ago, so it's a very real possibility that work was done.

Your A Christmas Carol analogy is also close, but not quite correct, in this case. The middle-man didn't necessarily just package the text; in this case, they may have cleaned up the text, reworded some of the text, and added some extra text. Since it's public domain, and not, for example, a GFDL-licensed work, they don't need to republish the work under a free license or in the public domain.

Nice to see you so cocky with the "Thought I'd save you the trouble" and the "HTH." -- RG2 01:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, it's definitely fraudulent, though I doubt there'd be any legal repercussions, given the age of the work. But, anyway, we're getting into a bunch of what-ifs that I don't really care to think about at the moment.

 * C-SPAN's video archives go as far back as 2001 at the moment. I'll get in contact with them to see when they're planning to make more of their archive of Senate floor videos available. They go back to the mid-1980s, I believe, and House videos go back even further. -- RG2 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:History of China
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.

Wikiquette alerts
Hello, this is a friendly notice that I replied to your comment, and I would like your advice. If you have any other questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you! Taric25 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * I received your message. I am afraid I am a bit confused with the number of involved parties. To my understanding, they are (1) you, (2) TTN, and (3) Eusebeus. Hopefully I'm not leaving anyone out. Now, where I am confused (I haven't dug through everything carefully, since I'm after all not ArbCom) is the following. To start, who accused whom of sockpuppetry? The accused person then of course has denied it. How does a third person enter into the picture, with the rant about the 25,000+ edits? Thanks.Ngchen (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question. I will do my best make my answer as short as possible, and please feel free to take a look at the evidence for yourself so you can get both sides of the story and make an objective decision, rather than just believe my point of view.
 * User:TTN and I were not able to come to a consensus on List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, however, I do not believe he should asked for cleanup at WP:VG/C only to use his sockpuppet, User:Henke37, to list the article at AfD, thereby disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. That is why I listed it at Suspected sock puppets, and that is where this situation between Eusebeus and I arose.
 * You may want to look at the history for User:TTN's userpage.
 * 21:11, 4 December 2007, I add sockpuppeteer, per Sock puppetry. My edit summary is "".
 * 02:55, 5 December 2007 User:Eusebeus reverts. The edit summary is "Undid revision 175783905 by Taric25 (talk)".
 * 07:38, 5 December 2007 I revert. My edit summary is "Undid revision 175846854 by Eusebeus (talk) Per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, the notice may only be removed after at least 10 days".
 * 05:05, 6 December 2007 Eusebeus reverts. The edit summary is "Not when it's a completely bogus claim. See WP:TEMPLAR and be warned that sockpuppetry is a serious accusation. Have better evidence next time for your suspicions". Notice WP:TEMPLAR an essay, neither policy nor guideline.
 * 15:32, 6 December 2007 User:Maniwar reverts. The edit summary is "Reverted 1 edit by Eusebeus; Wait until issue is resolved, per Taric25's last comment. using TW"
 * 17:00, 6 December 2007 User:Seraphim Whipp reverts. The edit summary is "Undid. "The templates serve as a convenient shorthand only and are not part of this policy" from Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Tagging. Sorry if I've misunderstood this."
 * 17:00, 6 December 2007 I revert. My edit summary is "Undid revision 176179456 by Seraphim Whipp (talk) I am very serious by the evidence I have presented."

 * On Suspected sock puppets/TTN,(cache) at 20:31, 6 December 2007, User:JzG, an admin Eusbeus identifies as a "rogue admin"(diff), deletes the entire page without using Criteria for speedy deletion, Proposed deletion, or Articles for deletion. The edit summary is "This is clearly fatuous and I don't believe that Taric25's best friend would look on this as his finest hour. Deleting to spare his blushes."

 * At TTN's userpage, at 17:16, 7 December 2007 Eusebeus reverts. The edit summary is "sockpuppet case was dismissed. This is vandalism. STOP FORTHWITH!"

 * On Deletion review, I list Deletion_review/Log/2007 December 7 at 17:49, 7 December 2007, and my edit summary is "Suspected sock puppets/TTN"

 * At TTN's userpage, at 17:45, 7 December 2007 I revert. My edit summary is "Undid revision 176396657 by Eusebeus (talk) The case was not dismissed, and the case's deletion is up for review."
 * Current revision (as of 17:50, 7 December 2007) Seraphim Whipp reverts. The edit summary is "Per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Treatment_of_the_editor Aggressive approaches applied to protect the encyclopedia from sock puppets ordinarily should not be applied to the an editor in goodstanding"

 * On 19:36, 7 December 2007, Eusebeus leaves the message you read at the Wikiquette noticeboard on my talk page.

 * Also, Seraphim Whipp's reason for reverting me is because that editor believes TTN is in good standing, because at Eusebeus points out, TTN has over 25,000 edits, however, Maniwar points out that this is contested, since TTN has three Requests for arbitration. For example, one user shows evidence that More than 80% of TTN's edits are an effort to remove content.
 * Did that make sense? Taric25 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yang Huimin
Sorry, I can't get what you exactly mean by schools in question. Do you mean 台北女師專 and 金甌商職? As for 台北女師專, I checked it up but can't find any official translation so far. According to the website of another similar school, National Taipei Univ. of Edu, I think you might want to translate 台北女師專, the now 臺北市立教育大學(Taipei Municipal University of Education), into either Taipei Municipal Girls' Normal College or Taipei Municipal Girls' Teahcers College. What to my concern is that the most accurate translation depends on when she taught at there. As the college was once a "Taiwan Provincial" institution and shifted to be a "Taipei Municipal" one in 1967, the translation script should be different and change to something like Taiwan Provincial Taipei Girls' Normal Collegeif, if she started teaching at 台北女師專 before 1967. I think the most diffiult part is to find the actual year she entered the school and that might be the very reason you asked me to assist. I'm really sorry that I can't help much, but I think you may try to contact the school through mail, center@tmue.edu.tw

And about 金甌商職, the now 私立金甌女子高級中學(Private Jinou Girls' High school), I can't find any confirmative term, either. BUT, it's official website says in Chinese that it was 私立金甌女子商業職業學校, which I assure is the full name of 金甌商職. At the same time there is another school, 北士商, stated their former name "臺北市立商業職業學校" as "Taipei Municipal Commercial School". Thus I think you may translate it as "Private Jinou Girls' Commercial School. I didn't make any change on the page of Yang Huimin cause I think I should let you know first. If you find any one above suitable, just add it. But if there is still anything wrong that I can help, simply let me know. Thanks ^^ Tsungyenlee (converse) 13:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rate on quality scale
Hi, I am working on Taiwanese opera and trying to expand it.I would like to ask you to watch that article and rate on the scope of Wikiproject Taiwan or give me some opinions or comments on this article. Thanks Qwaszxfish (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Related Articles
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed you had removed WikiProject China from the talk page of several articles. Since, rightly or wrongly, large numbers of Chinese consider Taiwan to be part of it, the removal created issues with maintaining a neutral point of view. Not to worry, I will be restoring the links and such as appropriate. Thanks! Ngchen (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

 * BUT, even though large number of Chinese consider Taiwan to be part of it, IT IS NOT administrated by China, so logically speaking, it is NOT part of China then. Since it is NOT part of China, why will stick Taiwan related articles with China tabs? And remember, this also has to be official, and Taiwan is not OFFICIALLY part of China either. Cheers. JoshuaKuo (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)JoshuaKuo

 * Aren't you supposed to keep it official though? Since Taiwan is not administrated by China, it is logically not part of China. Would you say that because China claims, say, the Diaoyoutai Islands, then it's theirs? It's the same thing. NOW, I know this is a sensitive issue, but because of the logic above. Think about it. Cheers. JoshuaKuo (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)JoshuaKuo

But won't it be a bit misleading to foreigners to put Taiwan in Wikiproject Taiwan and China? Then people will just think that Taiwan is a part of China, and that Wikiproject Taiwan is just a subproject of Wikiproject China. JoshuaKuo (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)JoshuaKuo

Ngchen, I can understand wanting to put Taiwan articles back into a the China WikiProjects from an "inclusiveness" reasoning. That is, if we're not sure whether to include article in a WikiProject because the topics may not match, we should go ahead and include it if people in the project have expressed an interest in the article and the projects reflect interest. However, please don't say that it is an NPOV issue. If you say you are putting the Taiwan articles into the China WikiProject because of NPOV, you are saying that "Taiwan is part of China" is an NPOV, which it certainly is not.Readin (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked over your conversation with JoshuaKuo and noticed you are making the argument that NPOV requires all POVs to be represented. However that does not apply here. Either Taiwan articles are in the China WikiProject, or they are not. That Taiwan articles are also in the Taiwan WikiProject is not providing other views as the articles would be in that WikiProject regardless of whether one imagines Taiwan is part of China. The question is whether Taiwan articles should also be in the China WikiProject. We cannot possibly represent both sides of this question because we cannot have the articls both included in the China WikiProject and not included in the China WikiProject. It just can't be done. This is not quantum physics; the cat cannot be both dead and alive. The decision whether to include Taiwan articles in China WikiProject therefore must be made on something other than NPOV (unless we can all agree that the true NPOV is that Taiwan is not part of China). Readin (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your response over on my webpage. You say you're asking for ideas for a compromise.  I'm not sure what the "Gdánsk vs Danzig" compromise is even though I looked at the Gdánsk article.  I think the solution is the have rules for inclusion in WikiProjects that take precedence over NPOV.  Some rules would be:

 * An article is part of a WikiProject if being part of that WikiProject represents a recognized POV and if the editors of that WikiProject want it to be in the WikiProject.
 * When there is a disagreement about whether an article should be an independent WikiProject or a sub-project of another WikiProject, it is made into an independent WikiProject. The editors who want to make it a subtopic can always provide links to it in their parent topic.
 * The above two rules would both fit with how Taiwan is currently handled. The Taiwan WikiProject is not a subtopic of the China WikiProject, and Taiwan related articles are included in the WikiProject.
 * Articles provide space for explanations of multiple POVs and compromises. Inclusion or exclusion unfortunately does not.Readin (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 * The Danzig-Gdansk compromise is done within an article, not in a WikiProject.  I don't think they are really comparable.
 * Perhaps a better whay to re-state what I said above is to say that articles can achieve Neutral Point of View because they have room to do so. Inclusion or exclusion of in a WikiProject cannot always achieve Neutral Point of View. The next best thing is Neutral Criteria.  If we have Neutral Criteria to apply to the structure of the dispute without considering the merits, we have neutrality even if we find ourselves seeming obviously incorrect - as in your example of California being in the Mexico WikiProject. But if we can say California is in the Mexico WikiProject not because it is part of Mexico, but because the Mexico editors are interested in maintaining it, then we have solid ground for our decision without having to address the merits of the argument.
 * In taking this approach, it should be noted that inclusion or exclusion from a project is related to interest, not to facts.Readin (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage
Hey, you've been here for quite some time. Consider putting something on your userpage so you don't appear like the many sockpuppets appearing on the China talk page. A simple word will do.--Jiang (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One-China policy
The first few times I modified fixed pages by that particular editor, I did not assume vandalism. However, the user has continued to change page-after-page without explanation, without response to messages on his talk page. I sometimes even wonder if he has a bot doing a lot of the work. I'm not sure what to call it at this point, but either the editor is extremely unfamiliar with protocols and it uninterested in learning them, or simply doesn't care about NPOV or the opinions of other editors.Readin (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan article
thank you very much f or the post however i have already posted a warning on the talk page, please follow that post, do not revert thank you.

-MrJanitor1

Nanjing presidential Palace as source
some new information added in the talk-page of Dalai Lama

Raintwoto (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Gymnast Controversy
On the wikiproject China page I made a request for some comments on the Chinese gymnast controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Comments_to_Age_Controversy_of_Chinese_Gymnists. We are stuck in a gridlock and I'd like some neutral opinions, if you have an interest. Thanks.LedRush (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Taiwan is a country"
The statement that the statement that 'Taiwan is a "country"' is non-neutral is non-neutral. Taiwan is clearly a country under some definitions of the word. There are some other definitions where one could dispute whether Taiwan fits. It would be more correct then to say that "Taiwan is a country" is neutral as it clearly is for some definitions of "country", but to say that "Taiwan is not a country" is non-neutral as there is a question of whether all definitions of "country" apply to Taiwan". Readin (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Actually, I'm not sure what definitions you're using for "country." But since obviously an actual dispute exists over whether Taiwan is/is not a country, it would violate neutrality to assert that it is/is not a country, at least without further qualifications. Ngchen (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Three definitions from dictionary.com undeniably apply to Taiwan:
 * the land of one's birth or citizenship.
 * any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions, by a distinctive population, etc.: mountainous country; the Amish country of Pennsylvania.
 * a tract of land considered apart from any geographical or political limits; region; district.

 * It is only the definitions that are tied to politics that are disputed
 * a state or nation: What European countries have you visited?
 * the territory of a nation.
 * Readin (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Capital of Taiwan
"I have no problem with listing the de jure capital as Nanjing, with the current capital of Taipei because well, it is technically true. I'm fairly certain that if editors dig hard enough a source can be found for listing Nanjing."

I thought so too, and was rather surprised at the difficulty we had coming up with a reliable source - even when searching Taiwan's GIO web. Readin (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Addition of NPOV template
Hi, if there's something you don't like about the "Taiwanese identity" section, could you please propose changes? There's no point tagging the section if you don't contribute to the discussion. To quote the template documentation: "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." (emphasis added) Laurent (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Sino-Japanese War
Hi Ngchen, some people are vandalizing the Second Sino-Japanese War article. One tries to add all the individual foreign countries, the other tries to add a POV tag on top without providing any specific reasons. If you can please take a look, thanks. Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War.Blueshirts (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Arilang say Hi
If you are interested in this discussion, please leave some comments.

commons:File talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg Arilang   talk  23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Jerzeykydd
I noticed your revert of voting record edits by User:Jerzeykydd. He made dozens of such edits to multiple congressional articles, and I've reverted most of them. I agree they were too POV and were borderline in violation of WP:OR. I've posted suggestions on his talk page on how to incorporate the information in the future if appropriate.DCmacnut < >  21:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ngchen

Please do not attack me on my talk page by mis-characterizing my actions and threatening me with rules violations. Thank you :)Medusaseesyou (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

TheSmokingGun.com
Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!--otherlleft 20:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Taiwandc
I wonder if the user Taiwandc has any relationship with the website www.taiwandc.org. Readin (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I just checked Taiwandc's talk page, apparantly Cirt thought there was a relation. The account has been blocked indefinitely because the "username seems to exist only to promote a corporation or group" Readin (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Yes, I accidentally editing the version before you put your comments in. T-1000 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Flamarande
Honestly: you can forget your proposal may seem unduly harsh and unnecessary only if someone is unable to appreciate honesty. The proposal of using the native name (Yìyǒngjūn Jìnxíngqǔ) in the English wiki instead of the name 'March of the Volunteers' was one of the strangest proposals ever and I simply explained why it wouldn't work. I will not rephrase my answer and explanation comment as "a civil criticism of the article" because the proposal was not a criticism of the article; it was just a honest but misguided proposal and it received a honest reply. If my honest reply (which included no insults at all) hurt your moral feelings you can, if you wish, file a proper complaint at the proper channels. I also wish to add that User:Calvin Lourdes is perfectly able to defend himself. I hope the issue ends here. Please do not reply in my userpage; I'm largely uninterested in having any contact with you. Flamarande (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Government in Exile Cabal case
I've gone ahead and signed myself on as mediator for this case. see the note I left on the mediation page - Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-17/Government in exile in the mediator's section. If you could each start by explaining what your particular perspective on the problem is (in the 'initial perspectives' section) that would help me get oriented. Please, for this first step try as much as possible to pretend that the other disputants aren't there; just explain your side without (as much as possible) commenting on other people's perspectives, or responding to what they have or do say. I really just want to get your unsullied view on the issue. -- Ludwigs 2 06:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Second-class citizen

The article Second-class citizen has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * not a dictionary

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Second-class citizen for deletion
The article Second-class citizen is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Second-class citizen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Undo the previous move
A move request has been submited here. 219.76.80.86 (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Republic of China article
Since you have previously discussed about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.228 (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll
You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Half Barnstar
Six years ago you awarded me a half-barnstar. I wasn't sure I felt about it. You were giving me part of a barnstar but not the whole thing. But then today I was looking to award a barnstar to someone and started looking through the available barnstars. I see now that a half-barnstar doesn't show lack of enthusiasm but is awarded for collaboration. Now that I understand it I'm embarrassed that I didn't appreciate it earlier. THANK YOU for the half-barnstar! I've awarded you the other half. Readin (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Chemistry: An Asian Journal moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Chemistry: An Asian Journal, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ngchen


text:
User talk:Zamboni~enwiki

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text
 * IRC channel
 * Mailing lists
 * Current polls

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 02:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Zamboni. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Zamboni~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 04:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Zamboni~enwiki


text:
Southeast Asia Treaty Organization

The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an international organization for collective defense in Southeast Asia created by the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty signed in September 1954 in Manila, Philippines. The formal institution of SEATO was established on 19 February 1955 at a meeting of treaty partners in Bangkok, Thailand. The organization's headquarters was also in Bangkok. Eight members joined the organization.

Primarily created to block further communist gains in Southeast Asia, SEATO is generally considered a failure because internal conflict and dispute hindered general use of the SEATO military; however, SEATO-funded cultural and educational programs left longstanding effects in Southeast Asia. SEATO was dissolved on 30 June 1977 after many members lost interest and withdrew.

Origins and structure
The Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty was signed on 8 September 1954 in Manila, as part of the American Truman Doctrine of creating anti-communist bilateral and collective defense treaties. These treaties and agreements were intended to create alliances that would keep communist powers in check (Communist China, in SEATO's case). This policy was considered to have been largely developed by American diplomat George F. Kennan. President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (1953–1959) is considered to be the primary force behind the creation of SEATO, which expanded the concept of anti-communist collective defense to Southeast Asia. Then-Vice President Richard Nixon advocated an Asian equivalent of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) upon returning from his Asia trip of late 1953, and NATO was the model for the new organization, with the military forces of each member intended to be coordinated to provide for the collective defense of the member states.

The organization, headquartered in Bangkok, was created in 1955 at the first meeting of the Council of Ministers set up by the treaty. This was contrary to Dulles's preference to call the organization "ManPac" (Manila Pact) to avoid public identification of the pact with NATO. Organizationally, SEATO was headed by the Secretary General, whose office was created in 1957 at a meeting in Canberra, with a council of representatives from member states and an international staff. Also present were committees for economics, security, and information. SEATO's first Secretary General was Pote Sarasin, a Thai diplomat and politician who had served as Thailand's ambassador to the U.S. between 1952 and 1957, and as Prime Minister of Thailand from September 1957 to 1 January 1958.

Unlike the NATO alliance, SEATO had no joint commands with standing forces. In addition, SEATO's response protocol in the event of communism presenting a "common danger" to the member states was vague and ineffective, though membership in the SEATO alliance did provide a rationale for a large-scale U.S. military intervention in the region during the Vietnam War (1955–1975).

Membership

Despite its name, SEATO mostly included countries located outside of the region but with an interest either in the region or the organization itself. They were Australia (which administered Papua New Guinea, until 1975), France (which had recently relinquished French Indochina, by 1955), New Zealand, Pakistan (which, until 1971, included East Pakistan, now Bangladesh), the Philippines, Thailand, the United Kingdom (which administered Hong Kong, North Borneo and Sarawak) and the United States.

The Philippines and Thailand were the only Southeast Asian countries that actually participated in the organization. They shared close ties with the United States, particularly the Philippines, and they faced incipient communist insurgencies against their own governments. Thailand became a member upon the discovery of the newly founded "Thai Autonomous Region" in Yunnan (the Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture in South West China) – apparently feeling threatened by potential Maoist subversion on its land. Other regional countries like Burma and Indonesia were far more mindful of domestic internal stability rather than any communist threat, and thus rejected joining it. Malaya (independence in 1957; including Singapore between 1963 and 1965) also chose not to participate formally, though it was kept updated with key developments due to its close relationship with the United Kingdom.

The states newly formed from French Indochina (North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) were prevented from taking part in any international military alliance as a result of the Geneva Agreements signed 20 July of the same year concluding the end of the First Indochina War. However, with the lingering threat coming from communist North Vietnam and the possibility of the domino theory with Indochina turning into a communist frontier, SEATO got these countries under its protection – an act that would be considered to be one of the main justifications for the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Cambodia, however rejected the protection in 1956.

The majority of SEATO members were not located in Southeast Asia. To Australia and New Zealand, SEATO was seen as a more satisfying organization than ANZUS – a collective defense organization with the U.S. The United Kingdom and France joined partly due to having long maintained colonies in the region, and partly due to concerns over developments in Indochina. The U.S., upon perceiving Southeast Asia to be a pivotal frontier for Cold War geopolitics, saw the establishment of SEATO as essential to its Cold War containment policy.

The membership reflected a mid-1950s combination of anti-communist Western states and such states in Southeast Asia. The United Kingdom, France and the United States, the latter of which joined after the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty by an 82–1 vote, represented the strongest Western powers. Canada also considered joining, but decided against it in order to concentrate on its NATO responsibilities with its limited defense capabilities.

Budget
Average of contributions to civil and military budgets between 1958 and 1973:
 * United States: 24%
 * United Kingdom: 16%
 * France: 13.5%
 * Australia: 13.5%
 * Pakistan: 8%
 * Philippines: 8%
 * Thailand: 8%
 * New Zealand: 8%

Secretaries-General
Secretaries-General of SEATO:

Military aspects

After its creation, SEATO quickly became insignificant militarily, as most of its member nations contributed very little to the alliance. While SEATO military forces held joint military training, they were never employed because of internal disagreements. SEATO was unable to intervene in conflicts in Laos because France and the United Kingdom rejected the use of military action. As a result, the U.S. provided unilateral support for Laos after 1962. Though sought by the U.S., involvement of SEATO in the Vietnam War was denied because of lack of British and French cooperation.

Both the United States and Australia cited the alliance as justification for involvement in Vietnam. U.S. membership in SEATO provided the United States with a rationale for a large-scale U.S. military intervention in Southeast Asia. Other countries, such as the UK and key states in Asia, accepted the rationale. In 1962, as part of its commitment to SEATO, the Royal Australian Air Force deployed CAC Sabres of its No. 79 Squadron to Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand. The Sabres began to play a role in the Vietnam War in 1965, when their air defence responsibilities expanded to include protection of USAF aircraft using Ubon as a base for strikes against North Vietnam.

Cultural effects
In addition to joint military training, SEATO member states worked on improving mutual social and economic issues. Such activities were overseen by SEATO's Committee of Information, Culture, Education, and Labor Activities, and proved to be some of SEATO's greatest successes. In 1959, SEATO's first Secretary General, Pote Sarasin, created the SEATO Graduate School of Engineering (currently the Asian Institute of Technology) in Thailand to train engineers. SEATO also sponsored the creation of the Teacher Development Center in Bangkok, as well as the Thai Military Technical Training School, which offered technical programs for supervisors and workmen. SEATO's Skilled Labor Project (SLP) created artisan training facilities, especially in Thailand, where ninety-one training workshops were established.

SEATO also provided research funding and grants in agriculture and medical fields. In 1959, SEATO set up the Cholera Research Laboratory in Bangkok, later establishing a second Cholera Research Laboratory in Dacca, East Pakistan. The Dacca (now Dhaka) laboratory soon became the world's leading cholera research facility and was later renamed the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh. SEATO was also interested in literature, and a SEATO Literature Award was created and given to writers from member states.

Criticism and dissolution
Though Secretary of State John Foster Dulles considered SEATO an essential element in U.S. foreign policy in Asia, historians have considered the Manila Pact a failure, and the pact is rarely mentioned in history books. In The Geneva Conference of 1954 on Indochina, Sir James Cable, a British diplomat and naval strategist, cabled the Foreign Office and described SEATO as "a fig leaf for the nakedness of American policy", citing the Manila Pact as a "zoo of paper tigers". As early as the 1950s Aneurin Bevan unsuccessfully tried to block SEATO in the British Parliament, at one point interrupting a parliamentary debate between Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden and Leader of the Opposition Clement Attlee to excoriate them both for considering the idea.

In the early 1970s, the question of dissolving the organization arose. Pakistan withdrew in 1973, after East Pakistan seceded and became Bangladesh on 16 December 1971. South Vietnam was defeated in war and annexed by North Vietnam and France withdrew financial support in 1975, and the SEATO council agreed to the phasing-out of the organization. After a final exercise on 20 February 1976, the organization was formally dissolved on 30 June 1977 during the Carter administration. Despite the dissolution of SEATO, its underlying collective defense treaty remains in force.

title: Southeast Asia Treaty Organization


text: File:Utynfi.png

title: File:Utynfi.png


text:
Bouncer

A bouncer (also known as a door supervisor) is a type of security guard, employed at licensed or sanctioned venues such as bars, nightclubs, cabaret clubs, strip clubs and casinos. A bouncer's duties are to provide security, to check legal age and drinking age, to refuse entry for intoxicated persons, and to deal with aggressive, violent or verbal behavior or disobedience with statutory or establishment rules. They are also charged with maintaining order, and ensuring all laws and regulations are being followed by all patrons.

They are civilians and they are often hired directly by the venue, rather than by a security firm in the United States. Bouncers are often required where crowd size, clientele or alcohol consumption may make arguments or fights a possibility, or where the threat or presence of criminal gang activity or violence is high. At some clubs, bouncers are also responsible for "face control", choosing who is allowed to patronize the establishment. Some establishments may also assign a bouncer to be responsible for cover charge collections. In the United States, civil liability and court costs related to the use of force by bouncers are "the highest preventable loss found within the [bar] industry", as many United States bouncers are often taken to court and other countries have similar problems of excessive force. In many countries, state governments have taken steps to professionalise the industry by requiring bouncers to have training, licensing, and a criminal records background check. In the United Kingdom, all licensed premises are required to have a Security Industry Authority licensed door supervisor when the venue capacity has been appraised. These operatives go through a one week training regime, and are often more highly skilled than operatives without this training, as is evident by the reduced number of assaults by bouncers since the introduction of the license.

Terminology
Other terms include "cooler" in the US and "door supervisor" in the UK. In US bars, "cooler" is often the term for the head bouncer. The "cooler" is expected to have the same ability to respond to physical situations as the rest of the bouncers, but should also have reliable interpersonal skills that can be used to de-escalate situations without violence.

History
In the 1990s and 2000s, increased awareness of the risks of lawsuits and criminal charges have led many bars and venues to train their bouncers to use communication and conflict resolution skills before, or rather than, resorting to brute force against troublemakers. However, the earlier history of the occupation suggests that the stereotype of bouncers as rough, tough, physical enforcers has indeed been the case in many countries and cultures throughout history. Historical references also suggest that the 'door supervisor' function of guarding a place and selecting who can have entry to it (the stereotypical task of the modern bouncer) could at times be an honorific and evolve into a relatively important position.

Ancient
The significance of the door supervisor as the person allowing (or barring) entry is found in a number of Mesopotamian myths (and later in Greek myths descended from them), including that of Nergal overcoming the seven doormen guarding the gates to the Underworld.

In 1 Chronicles 26 of the Old Testament, the Levitical Temple is described as having a number of 'gatekeepers'—amongst their duties are "protect[ing] the temple from theft", from "illegal entry into sacred areas" and "maintain[ing] order", all functions they share with the modern concept of the bouncer, though the described temple servants also serve as holy persons and administrators themselves (it is noted that some administrative function is still present in today's bouncing in the higher position of the supervisor). Door supervisors or bouncers are usually larger persons who display great strength and size.

The Romans had a position known as the ostiarius (doorkeeper), initially a slave, who guarded the door, and sometimes ejected unwanted people from the house whose gate he guarded. The term later become a low-ranking clergy title.

Plautus, in his play Bacchides (written approximately 194–184 BC), mentions a "large and powerful" doorman / bouncer as a threat to get an unwelcome visitor to leave.

Tertullian, an early Christian author living mainly in the 2nd century AD, while reporting on the casual oppression of Christians in Carthage, noted that bouncers were counted as part of a semi-legal underworld, amongst other 'shady' characters such as gamblers and pimps.

Within Buddhist lore, the Nio, the twin guardian statues who decorate the entrances of temples, dojos, and various places related with religious importance, are believed to be the embodiment of wrathful deity bodhisattvas such as Vajrapani, Mahasthamaprapta, Vajrasattva, Acala, or various figures within Buddhist legend who accompanied Gautama Buddha during his journeys to spread his teachings to protect him and aid in cases needing justified force.

Modern
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, US saloon-keepers and brothel madams hired bouncers to remove troublesome, violent, or dead-drunk patrons, and to protect the saloon girls and prostitutes. The word "bouncer" was first popularized in a novel by Horatio Alger, called The Young Outlaw, which was first published in 1875. Alger was an immensely popular author in the 19th century, especially with young people and his books were widely quoted. In Chapter XIV, entitled "Bounced", a boy is thrown out of a restaurant because he has no money to pay for his meal:

"'Here, Peter, you waited on this young man, didn't you?' 'Yes, sir.' 'He hasn't paid for his breakfast, and pretends he hasn't got any money. Bounce him!' If Sam was ignorant of the meaning of the word 'bounce,' he was soon enlightened. The waiter seized him by the collar, before he knew what was going to happen, pushed him to the door, and then, lifting his foot by a well-directed kick, landed him across the sidewalk into the street. This proceeding was followed by derisive laughter from the other waiters who had gathered near the door, and it was echoed by two street urchins outside, who witnessed Sam's ignominious exit from the restaurant. Sam staggered from the force of the bouncing, and felt disgraced and humiliated to think that the waiter who had been so respectful and attentive should have inflicted upon him such an indignity, which he had no power to resent."

An 1883 newspaper article stated that The Bouncer' is merely the English 'chucker out'. When liberty verges on license and gaiety on wanton delirium, the Bouncer selects the gayest of the gay, and—bounces him!"

19th century
In US Western towns in the 1870s, high-class brothels known as "good houses" or "parlour houses" hired bouncers for security and to prevent patrons from evading payment. "Good house"-style brothels "... considered themselves the cream of the crop, and [the prostitutes working there] scorned those who worked in (or out of) saloons, dance halls, and theatres." The best bordellos looked like respectable mansions, with attractively decorated parlours, a game room and a dance hall. For security, "somewhere in every parlor of the house there was always a bouncer, a giant of a man who stayed sober to handle any customer who got too rough with one of the girls or didn't want to pay his bill." The "protective presence" of bouncers in high-class brothels was "... one of the reasons the girls considered themselves superior to [lower-class] free-lancers, who lacked any such shepherds."

In Wisconsin's lumberjack days, bouncers would physically remove drinkers who were too drunk to keep buying drinks, and thus free up space in the bar for new patrons. The slang term 'snake-room' was used to describe a "...room off a saloon, usually two or three steps down, into which a bar-keeper or the bouncer could slide drunk lumber-jacks head first through swinging doors from the bar-room." In the late 19th century, until Prohibition, bouncers also had the unusual role of protecting the saloon's buffet. To attract business, "...many saloons lured customers with offers of a "free lunch"—usually well salted to inspire drinking, and the saloon "bouncer" was generally on hand to discourage [those with too] hearty appetites".

In the late 19th century, bouncers at small town dances and bars physically resolved disputes and removed troublemakers, without worrying about lawsuits. In the main bar in one Iowa town, "...there were many quarrels, many fights, but all were settled on the spot. There were no court costs [for the bouncers or the bar]; only some aches and pains [for the troublemakers]."

In the 1880s and 1890s, bouncers were used to maintain order in "The Gut", the roughest part of New York City's Coney Island, which was filled with "ramshackle groups of wooden shanties", bars, cabarets, fleabag hotels and brothels. Huge bouncers patrolled these venues of vice and "roughly ejected anyone who violated the loose rules of decorum" by engaging in pick-pocketing, jewelry thieving, or bloody fights.

During the 1890s, San Diego had a similarly rough waterfront area and red-light district called the 'Stingaree', where bouncers worked the door at brothels. Prostitutes worked at the area's 120 bawdy houses in small rooms, paying a fee to the procurer who usually was the bouncer or 'protector' of the brothel. The more expensive, higher-class brothels were called "parlour houses", and they were "run most decorously", and the "best of food and drink was served." To maintain the high-class atmosphere at these establishments, male patrons were expected to act like gentlemen; "... if any customer did or said anything out of line, he was asked to leave. A bouncer made sure he did".

20th century
Bouncers in pre-World War I United States were also sometimes used as the guardians of morality. As ballroom dancing was often considered as an activity which could lead to immoral conduct if the dancers got too close, some of the more reputable venues had bouncers to remind patrons not to dance closer than nine inches to their partners. The bouncers' warnings tended to consist of light taps on the shoulder at first, and then progressed to sterner remonstrations.

In the 1930s, bars in the bawdiest parts of Baltimore, Maryland docks hired bouncers to maintain order and eject aggressive patrons. The Oasis club, operated by Max Cohen, hired "...a lady bouncer by the name of Mickey Steele, a six-foot acrobat from the Pennsylvania coal fields. Mickey was always considerate of the people she bounced; first asking them where they lived and then throwing them in that general direction. She was succeeded by a character known as 'Machine-Gun Butch' who was a long-time bouncer at the club".

In the Weimar Republic in the Germany of the 1920s and early 1930s, doormen protected venues from the fights caused by Nazis and other potentially violent groups (such as Communists). Such scenes were fictionalised in the movie Cabaret. Hitler surrounded himself with a number of former bouncers such as Christian Weber; the SS originated as a group designated to protect party meetings.

In early Nazi Germany, some bouncers in underground jazz clubs were also hired to screen for Nazi spies, because jazz was considered a "degenerate" form of music by the Nazi party. Later during the Nazi regime, bouncers also increasingly barred non-German people (such as foreign workers) from public functions, such as 'German' dances at dance halls. Bouncers also often come into conflict with football hooligans, due to the tendency of groups of hooligans to congregate at pubs and bars before and after games. In the United Kingdom for example, long-running series of feuds between fan groups like The Blades and groups of bouncers in the 1990s were described by researchers.

Bouncers have also been known to be associated with criminal gangs, especially in places like Russia, Hong Kong or Japan, where bouncers may often belong to these groups or have to pay the crime syndicates to be able to operate. In Hong Kong, triad-connected reprisal or intimidation attacks against bouncers have been known to occur.

Hong Kong also features a somewhat unusual situation where some bouncers are known to work for prostitutes, instead of being their pimps. Hong Kong police have noted that due to the letter of the law, they sometimes had to charge the bouncer for illegally extorting the women when the usually expected dominance situation between the sex worker and her "protector" was in fact reversed.

In the 1990s and 2000s, a number of bouncers have written "tell-all" books about their experiences on the door. They indicate that male bouncers are respected by some club-goers as the ultimate 'hard men', while at the same time, these bouncers can also be lightning rods for aggression and macho posturing on the part of obnoxious male customers wanting to prove themselves. Bouncing has also started to attract some academic interest as part of ethnographic studies into violent subcultures. Bouncers were selected as one of the groups studied by several English researchers in the 1990s because their culture was seen as "grounded in violence", as well as because the group had increasingly been "demonised", especially in common liberal discourse (see Research section of this article).

21st century
In 2006, a German newspaper reported that organized crime is operating bouncer extortion rackets in "Berlin, Hamburg, the Ruhr Valley and the Rhein-Main region" in which bar owners are "compelled to hire a bouncer, for 100 euros ($128) per hour", to "protect" against damage to their venue from the "wrong" type of patron or violence. In 2008, newspapers reported that some bouncers in London and other northern UK towns were "extorting cash from [club] businesses" by operating protection rackets, in which they offer to sell "protection" to club owners, telling them "you're going to pay us, or else" the club owner's venue may be damaged.

Outside studies

In the early 1990s, an Australian government study on violence stated that violent incidents in public drinking locations are caused by the interaction of five factors: aggressive and unreasonable bouncers, groups of male strangers, low comfort (e.g., unventilated, hot clubs), high boredom, and high drunkenness. The research indicated that bouncers did not play as large a role "... as expected in the creation of an aggressive or violence prone atmosphere [in bars]." However, the study did show that "...edgy and aggressive bouncers, especially when they are arbitrary or petty in their manner, do have an adverse effect." The study stated that bouncers:

...have been observed to initiate fights or further encourage them on several occasions. Many seem poorly trained, obsessed with their own machismo, and relate badly to groups of male strangers. Some of them appear to regard their employment as giving them a licence to assault people. This may be encouraged by management adherence to a repressive model of supervision of patrons ("if they play up, thump 'em"), which in fact does not reduce trouble, and exacerbates an already hostile and aggressive situation. In practice many bouncers are not well managed in their work, and appear to be given a job autonomy and discretion that they cannot handle well.

A 1998 article "Responses by Security Staff to Aggressive Incidents in Public Settings" in the Journal of Drug Issues examined 182 violent incidents involving crowd controllers (bouncers) that occurred in bars in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The study indicated that in 12% of the incidents the bouncers had good responses, in 20% of the incidents, the bouncers had a neutral response; and in 36% of the incidents, the bouncers "... responses were rated as bad—that is, the crowd controllers enhanced the likelihood of violence but were themselves not violent." Finally, "... in almost one-third of incidents, 31 per cent, the crowd controllers' responses were rated as ugly. The controllers' actions involved gratuitous aggression, harassment of patrons and provocative behaviour."

Inside studies

At least one major ethnographic study also observed bouncing from within, as part of a British project to study violent subcultures. Beyond studying the bouncer culture from the outside, the group selected a suitable candidate for covert, long-term research. The man had previously worked as a bouncer before becoming an academic, and while conversant with the milieu, it required some time for him to re-enter bouncing work in a new locality. The study has, however, attracted some criticism due to the fact that the researcher, while fulfilling his duties as a bouncer and being required to set aside his academic distance, would have been at risk of losing objectivity—though it was accepted that this quandary might be difficult to resolve.

One of the main ethical issues of the research was the participation of the researcher in violence, and to what degree he would be allowed to participate. The group could not fully resolve this issue, as the undercover researcher would not have been able to gain the trust of his peers while shying away from the use of force. As part of the study it eventually became clear that bouncers themselves were similarly and constantly weighing up the limits and uses of their participation in violence. The research however found that instead of being a part of the occupation, violence itself was the defining characteristic, a "culture created around violence and violent expectation".

The bouncing culture's insular attitudes also extended to the recruitment process, which was mainly by word of mouth as opposed to typical job recruitment, and also depended heavily on previous familiarity with violence. This does not extend to the prospective bouncer himself having to have a reputation for violence—rather a perception was needed that he could deal with it if required. Various other elements, such as body language or physical looks (muscles, shaved heads) were also described as often expected for entry into bouncing—being part of the symbolic 'narratives of intimidation' that set bouncers apart in their work environment.

Training on the job was described as very limited, with the new bouncers being 'thrown into the deep end'—the fact that they had been accepted for the job in the first place including the assessment that they should know what they are doing (though informal observation of a beginner's behaviour was commonplace). In the case of the British research project, the legally required licensing as a bouncer was also found to be expected by employers before applicants started the job (and as licensing generally excluded people with criminal convictions, this kept out some of the more unstable violent personalities).

Roles
Bouncers monitor a club or venue to "detect, report and correct any condition inside/outside the club" which could lead to injuries of patrons or staff or to damage of the club or its equipment. A key role for bouncers is communicating information within a club to the venue employees who need to know (e.g., regarding injuries, size of crowd outside, capacity of venue, incidents, etc.). Bouncers answer questions about club policies and procedures while controlling crowds (by asking people not to block entrances, exits, stairwells, and other high-traffic areas). Bouncers lead "injury and emergency procedures" if a patron is injured and requires first aid. In a large nightclub, the bouncers may be part of a security team that includes friskers (who check for weapons and drugs), surveillance staff, a doorman, and floor men, with all of these security staff reporting to a chief of security, who in turn, reports to the general manager. In countries like the UK, or where the venue may be smaller in the US, all security personnel are considered bouncers/door supervisors and usually undertake all of the above roles at the same time. This can also include CCTV operation and sweeps/patrols of the venue.

Character and personality

Although a common stereotype of bouncers is that of the thuggish brute, a good club security staff member requires more than just physical qualities such as strength and size: "The best bouncers don’t "bounce" anyone... they talk to people" (and remind them of the venue rules). Lee Vineyard states that the "tough guy" mentality and look of some bouncers, in which they have their sleeves rolled up to show off their biceps and they have their arms crossed, can actually create more potential for fights than a bouncer who greets patrons with a "hello", and is thus approachable.

An ability to judge and communicate well with people will reduce the need for physical intervention, while a steady personality will prevent the bouncer from being easily provoked by customers. Bouncers need to be able to detect the early warning signs of a potential confrontation with a patron, by observing crowds and individuals and spotting the signs of a "heated" interaction that could become a fight.

Bouncers also profit from good written communication skills, because they are often required to document assaults in an incident log or using an incident form. Well-kept incident logs can protect the employee from any potential criminal charges or lawsuits that later arise from an incident. Bouncers need to be polite when answering questions or controlling crowds. In larger clubs, bouncers need to be able to work with a team of bouncers, which may require the use of radios to stay in contact and communicate (particularly between the inside and outside of a club). In bouncer teams, the bouncers must be aware of the location of the other bouncers, and ensure that when one bouncer relocates (e.g., to go to the bathroom), a gap is not left in the venue security.

However, UK research from the 1990s also indicates that a major part of both the group identity and the job satisfaction of bouncers is related to their self image as a strongly masculine person who is capable of dealing with – and dealing out – violence; their employment income plays a lesser role in their job satisfaction. Bouncer subculture is strongly influenced by perceptions of honour and shame, a typical characteristic of groups that are in the public eye. Factors in enjoying work as a bouncer were also found in the general prestige and respect that was accorded to bouncers, sometimes bordering on hero worship. The camaraderie between bouncers (even of different clubs), as well as the ability to work "in the moment" and outside of the drudgery of typical jobs were also often cited.

The same research has also indicated that the decisions made by bouncers, while seeming haphazard to an outsider, often have a basis in rational logic. The decision to turn certain customers away at the door because of too casual clothing (face control) is for example often based on the perception that the person will be more willing to fight (compared to someone dressed in expensive attire). Many similar decisions taken by a bouncer during the course of a night are also being described as based on experience rather than just personality.

Use of force
Movies often depict bouncers physically throwing patrons out of clubs and restraining drunk customers with headlocks, which has led to a popular misconception that bouncers have (or reserve) the right to use physical force freely. However, in many countries bouncers have no legal authority to use physical force more freely than any other civilian—meaning they are restricted to reasonable levels of force used in self defense, to eject drunk or aggressive patrons refusing to leave a venue, or when restraining a patron who has committed an offence until police arrive. Lawsuits are possible if injuries occur, even if the patron was drunk or using aggressive language.

In The United Kingdom, the definition of an assault is very particularly defined. Door supervisors may have to use physical force in the course of their duties. Such force must be no more than is reasonable and necessary (the minimum force necessary). If deemed otherwise they may be liable for assault charges, otherwise, if it is deemed reasonable proportionate and necessary to the threat faced - the door supervisor will not face any charges.

With civil liability and court costs related to the use of force as "the highest preventable loss found within the industry..." (US) and bars being "sued more often for using unnecessary or excessive force than for any other reason" (Canada), substantial costs may be incurred by indiscriminate violence against patrons—though this depends heavily on the laws and customs of the country. In Australia, the number of complaints and lawsuits against venues due to the behaviour of their bouncers has been credited with turning many establishments to using former police officers to head their in-house security, instead of hiring private firms. In 2007, a bouncer firm in Toronto stated that a major issue for his bouncers is the risk of being charged with assault if a patron is injured because bouncers are dealing with a fight. The concerns about being charged by police may make bouncers reticent to call the police after they break up a bar fight. Lee Vineyard states that judges tend to be prejudiced against bouncers if there are injuries to patrons after bouncers break up a bar fight; as such, he recommends restraint in all bouncer actions, even if the bouncer is defending him or herself from a patron.

According to statistical research in Canada, bouncers are as likely to face physical violence in their work as urban-area police officers. The research also found that the likelihood of such encounters increased (with statistical significance) with the number of years the bouncer had worked in his occupation. Despite popular misconceptions, bouncers in Western countries are normally unarmed. Some bouncers may carry weapons such as expandable batons for personal protection, but they may not have a legal right to carry a weapon even if they would prefer to do so. An article from 2007 about bouncers in Toronto (Canada) stated that a major security firm instructs its bouncers to buy bulletproof vests, as they have to deal with armed patrons on a nightly basis. Bouncers also face patrons armed with brass knuckles, screwdrivers, and improvised weapons such as broken bottles.

Lee Vineyard recommends that bouncers be provided with uniforms by the club, so that patrons can identify the bouncers. During a fight in a bar, if the bouncers are un-uniformed as they approach the altercation, the fighting patrons may believe that the bouncers who are intervening are other fighting patrons, rather than security staff.

Other approaches
Use of force training programs teach bouncers ways to avoid using force and explain what types of force are considered allowable by the courts. Some bars have gone so far as to institute policies barring physical contact, where bouncers are instructed to ask a drunk or disorderly patron to leave—if the patron refuses, the bouncers call police. However, if the police are called too frequently, it can reflect badly on the venue upon renewal of its liquor licence.

Another strategy used in some bars is to hire smaller, less threatening or female bouncers, because they may be better able to defuse conflicts than large, intimidating bouncers. The more 'impressive' bouncers, in the often tense environments they are supposed to supervise, are also often challenged by aggressive males wanting to prove their machismo. Large and intimidating bouncers, whilst providing an appearance of strong security, may also drive customers away in cases where a more relaxed environment is desired. In addition, female security staff, apart from having fewer problems searching female patrons for drugs or weapons and entering women's washrooms to check for illegal activities, are also considered as better able to deal with drunk or aggressive women.

In Australia, for example, women comprise almost 20% of the security industry and increasingly work the door as well, using "a smile, chat and a friendly but firm demeanor" to resolve tense situations. Nearly one in nine of Britain's nightclub bouncers are also women, with the UK's 2003 Licensing Act giving the authorities "discretionary power to withhold a venue's licence if it does not employ female door staff". This is credited with having "opened the door for women to enter the profession". However, female bouncers are still a rarity in many countries, such as in India, where two women who became media celebrities in 2008 for being "Punjab's first female bouncers" were soon sacked again after accusations of unbecoming behaviour.

The Victoria Event Center has hired a sexual health educator/intimacy coach who acts as a type of bouncer called a "consent captain". The consent captain monitors bar patrons to stop sexual harassment and sexual assault at social activities at venues and bars. The consent captain intervenes if she sees people who are getting stared at, harassed, or touched without sexual consent. She talks to the person who is feeling uncomfortable and then, if the first person agrees, speaks to the individual whose conduct is unwanted. Like a regular bouncer, the consent captain warns the person engaging in unwanted behavior that those acts are not tolerated in the venue; if the unwanted acts continue, she may "eventually ask them to leave". The consent captain also checks on people who are intoxicated, to prevent people from taking advantage of their impaired state. Since the consent captain is, in this case, a sexual health educator, she is better able to notice risk situations regarding consent and harassment that regular bouncers might not notice.

Regulation and training
In many countries, a bouncer must be licensed and lacking a criminal record to gain employment within the security/crowd control sector. In some countries or regions, bouncers may be required to have extra skills or special licenses and certification for first aid, alcohol distribution, crowd control, or fire safety.

United Kingdom
In the UK, "door supervisors"—as they are termed—must hold a door supervisor licence from the Security Industry Authority. The training for a door supervisor licence takes 52 hours since the current changes were implemented on 1 December 2022, — Thus having the most rigorous training regime for the private security industry in the world, without being granted any special police powers like other countries with slightly lesser, but still rigorous training. The training includes subjects such as:

 * The Private Security Industry
 * Relevant Legislation
 * Health and safety in the workplace
 * The principles of fire safety
 * Non-fire-related workplace emergencies
 * The principles of effective communication and customer care in the private security industry
 * The principles of conflict management
 * All you need to know about risk
 * Communication and the de-escalation of conflict
 * Problem solving strategies
 * After the conflict is over
 * The role of a Security Officer within the Private Industry
 * Patrolling
 * Access and Egress Control
 * Searching people and their property
 * Monitoring Systems
 * The Law
 * The importance of reporting and record keeping
 * First Aid training
 * Action Counters Terrorism Security
 * Action Counters Terrorism Awareness
 * Addins: Fire Marshal Training, Mental Health Awareness Training, Introduction to Risk Assessments Training, Workplace Health and Safety Training, Mechanical Restraint Training, CCTV training, Handcuff training, and more…

Licenses must be renewed every three years, and as of 2023, additional license-linked training must be taken.

Licensed door supervisors must wear the licence (often worn on the upper arm) whilst on duty. This led to the common misconception that door supervisors are legally obliged to show their ID to members of the public upon request; in reality, in order to protect their identities from aggressive clients they only have to present ID to police and licensing authorities. The 2010 UK quango reforms includes the SIA amongst many other quangos the coalition government intended to be disbanded, ostensibly on the overall grounds of cost, despite the SIA being essentially self-funding via licence payments.

Australia
In Australia, bouncers are required to be legally licensed as crowd controllers. Licensing varies across the states and territories, and a crowd controller needs to apply under the Mutual Recognition Scheme to work in another state, having their license formally recognised by the state they wish to work in. In Queensland, these licenses require the undertaking of a security provider course, which teaches the licensee techniques in physical restraints, use of force, conflict negotiation and deescalation, first-aid and CPR, and details the legal requirements and obligations of the crowd controller.

Canada
In Canada, bouncers have the right to use reasonable force to expel intoxicated or aggressive patrons. First, the patron must be asked to leave the premises. If the patron refuses to leave, the bouncer can use reasonable force to expel the patron. This guideline has been upheld in a number of court cases. Under the definition of 'reasonable force', "it is perfectly acceptable [for the bouncer] to grab a patron’s arm to remove the patron from the premises". However, "Only in situations where employees reasonably believe that the conduct of the patron puts them in danger can they inflict harm on a patron and then only to the extent that such force is necessary for self defence".

In the Newfoundland and Labrador capital of Saint John's, certification of doormen is voluntary. Some establishments require a "doorman's certificate", provided by the St. Johns Fire Department, that deals with Fire Code. This process requires answering test questions that apply to fire code for the most part, and a basic understanding of the criminal code as it applies to drug use and the use of force. Unfortunately it does not cover the Use of Force Model for all Canadian citizens. including law enforcement, which states that an assault is considered a crime covered by "citizens arrest" under Canadian law. Other municipalities in the province have no training. Municipal or provincial governance does not exist at the time of this publishing.

In British Columbia, door staff security (bouncers) are required to become certified under the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Office. The course called BST (Basic Security Training) is a 40-hour program that covers law, customer service, and other issue related to security operation.

In Alberta, bar and nightclub security staff will have to take a new, government-run training course on correct bouncer behaviour and skills before the end of 2008. The six-hour 'ProTect' course will, among other subjects, teach staff to identify conflicts before they become violent, and how to defuse situations without resorting to force.

In Ontario, courts have ruled that "a tavern owes a twofold duty of care to its patrons. It must ensure that it does not serve alcohol which would apparently intoxicate or increase the patron's intoxication. Further, it must take positive steps to protect patrons and others from the dangers of intoxication". Regarding the second requirement of protecting patrons, the law holds that "customers cannot be ejected from your premises if doing so would put them in danger [e.g., due to the patron's intoxication]. Bars can be held liable for ejecting a customer who they know, or should know, is at risk of injury by being ejected."

In Ontario, bartenders and servers must complete the Smart Serve Training Program, which teaches them to recognise the signs of intoxication. The Smart Serve program is also recommended for other staff in bars who have contact with potentially intoxicated patrons, such as bouncers, coat check staff, and valets. The Smart Serve certification program encourages bars to keep Incident Reporting Logs, to use as evidence if an incident goes to court. With the August 2007 Private Security and Investigative Services Act, Ontario law also requires security industry workers, including bouncers, to be licensed.

Nova Scotia passed a law in 2010 requiring bouncers to be trained and licensed, but the province has never adopted detailed regulations and proclaimed the legislation into effect.

Germany
In Germany, doormen may – like any other citizen – defend themselves in self-defense situations using physical force, but they must not interfere with the police work. Their responsibility is limited locally by the property boundaries and content by the personal rights of the guests. Specifically, this means that they can not enforce a person control or search for people. Such on-the-spot checks are always voluntary, but a criterion for entry. Bouncers own like every other the right to detain under § 127 StPO. In addition, the guards are usually also "possessor" of the security object, which led to many racism-related issues regarding the entry of foreign customers.

However, bouncers at discotheques, who work for a security company or are self-employed, have to take a so-called (Sachkundeprüfung) with the responsible Chamber of Commerce and Industry. This is prescribed in § 34 (a) of the Industrial Code. The certificate issued by the Chamber of Industry and Commerce after passing the exam is colloquially called "bouncer certificate" or simply "certificate" or "34 a". The exam consists of a written part with multiple-choice questions and an oral part. The latter can be repeated at a reduced price if it does not exist. Currently, the number of retry attempts is not limited. The costs for the examination depending on IHK location between 150 and 190 euros.

Italy
In Italy, the law defines bouncers as "security subsidiary unarmed operator" and they must have specific requisites:
 * at least 18 years of age
 * no alcohol or drugs in preventive clinical analysis
 * mental and physical suitability
 * have not been convicted for any intentional crimes
 * at least lower high school diploma
 * follow a training course

Bouncers must not have ownership of any type of firearm during their service even if they have a valid firearms license.

The Netherlands
In the Netherlands doormen (portiers) and bouncers (uitsmijters) are 2 different specialties. Doormen are mostly seen as concierges and have primary tasks involving hospitality, such as greeting customers, providing services, supporting customer needs and some security tasks. However, bouncers are required, since 1999 by law (Beveiliging en bewaking WPBR) to be in possession of a specialized diploma (SVH Diploma Horecaportier). The course contains both theoretical and practical training and exams and can only be entered if the subject does not have a criminal record, which will be checked by a screening by Police departments in the region where the company is located. Also, this background check is repeated every 3 years, after which a renewed Security ID will be handed to the subject. With this ID, the subject is allowed to work as a bouncer. In case he/she doesn't have this ID on his/her person at work, he/she will be liable for a fine, which will be written by a department of the Police, called Bijzondere Wetten. Not only will the bouncer be charged, but also the company. Because of the relatively strong bar-, club- and catering industry in the Netherlands, bouncers are necessary to act as host, problem solver and mediator. They are mainly tasked with preventive searches and checks, supervision of customers, keeping out drugs and weapons and maintaining a safe atmosphere in the premises.

New Zealand
In New Zealand, as of 2011, bouncers are required to have a COA (Certificate of approval). Like other security work, the person who has the COA has been vetted by the police and cleared through security checks, as well as the courts, to show the person is suitable for the job, and knows New Zealand law to prevent Security Officers going to court for using excessive force and assault on patrons.

Republic of Ireland
In the Republic of Ireland all potential doormen (bouncers) must complete a QQI level 4 course in Door Security Procedures. This allows them to apply for a PSA license (Private Security Authority). The PSA vet all applicants before issuing a license. Some past convictions will disqualify an applicant from working in the security industry. The license issued by the PSA entitles the holder of the license to work on pubs, clubs and event security. The PSA now requires a person to have a license to work in Event Security.

Singapore
Singapore requires all bouncers to undergo a background check and attend a 5-day 'National Skills Recognition System' course for security staff. However, many of the more professional security companies (and larger venues with their own dedicated security staff) have noted that the course is insufficient for the specific requirements of a bouncer and provide their own additional training.

Sweden
In Sweden, there are special security officers referred to as Ordningsvakt with limited policing duties who share the use of force monopoly with the police, thus having more or less the same obligations as the police to report crime and intervene when on duty. They are trained and ordained by the Swedish Police Authority to maintain and enforce public order at venues or areas where the police cannot permanently divert resources to enforce public order themselves. These security officers have powers of citizen's arrest and to verbally dismiss, physically remove, or detain those who disturb or pose an immediate threat to public order or safety, by using a reasonable amount of force. They can also detain or otherwise take into custody those who are drunk and disorderly and turn them over to police custody as soon as possible. An Ordningsvakt is recruited by the police and must go through a battery of physical tests, a language test, and an interview board before going through a two-week training program which teaches behaviour, conflict management, criminal law, physical intervention, the use of telescopic batons and handcuffs, first aid, equal opportunities and discrimination, and arrest procedures. He or she must then be re-certified every three years. At the end of each shift, a written shift report must always be submitted to the police.

An Ordningsvakt is either employed by a private security company, such as Securitas AB or G4S, where they commonly work at shopping malls, hospitals, public transportation, or as privateers employed by bar or nightclub owners. But despite employment, their first and foremost loyalty lies with the police, who manage and supervise them in the field. They can also be used to augment the police at football matches and high-risk football derbies (after receiving special training). An Ordningsvakt is required to wear a special uniform, which is similar to that of a police officer, but made out of a brighter blue colour and with slightly different emblems so they are easily identified as an Ordningsvakt but also make their connection to the police as obvious as possible. Some security officers are allowed to carry firearms, but this is rare. While on duty, an Ordningsvakt, just like a police officer, is regarded as a public servant, and an assault or threats against one will be punished more harshly. A lawful order given by an Ordningsvakt must be obeyed; otherwise, physical force may be used to enforce that order. Resisting at this point is illegal and punishable by prison.

United States
Requirements for bouncers vary from state to state, with some examples being:

California
In California, Senate Bill 194 requires any bouncer or security guard to be registered with the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. These guards must also complete a criminal background check, including submitting their fingerprints to the California Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Californians must undertake the "Skills Training Course for Security Guards" before receiving a security licence. Further courses allow for qualified security personnel to carry batons upon completion of training. Exempted from the Act are peace officers in specified circumstances and guards employed exclusively and regularly by any employer who does not provide contract security services (known as proprietary guards), provided they do not carry or use any deadly weapon in the performance of their duties.

New York
In New York State, it is illegal for a bar owner to knowingly hire a felon for a bouncer position. Under Article 7 General Business Law, bars and nightclubs are not allowed to hire bouncers without a proper license. Under New York state law only a Private Investigator or watch, guard and patrol agency can supply security guards/bouncers to bars.

Notable examples
The list of notable bouncers includes celebrities and historical figures who worked as bouncers, often before coming to fame in another field or profession. A number of these bouncers were wrestlers (e.g., Dave Bautista, Road Warrior Animal, Rob Terry, Giant Haystacks and Rick Rude). Some, including Bautista, are also actors (e.g., Mr. T, Vin Diesel and Marcus Hauz). Pope Francis worked as a nightclub bouncer in Buenos Aires while a university student.

Ants
Some types of ant species have evolved a sub-specialisation that has been called a "bouncer", and performs a similar function (throwing intruders outside) for its fellows. The majors of the Australian Dacetine Orectognathus versicolor ants have massive blunt mandible jaws which are of little use to the prey-capture techniques this trap jaw species normally engages in. Instead, they spend much of their time guarding the nest opening, their jaws cocked. When foreign ants venture close, the force of the mandibles is sufficient to throw back the intruder for a significant distance, a defense behaviour which is thought to also protect the guard against physical or chemical injury that it might sustain in more direct battle.

title: Bouncer