Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 22

Private property owners, particular bathrooms / sex-segregated facilities, and discrimination laws - actual case law?

POV, just to get a hot issue out of the way: I think the "transgender bathroom laws" being proposed by some conservative politicians in the U.S. are idiotic, if not moronic. Not discriminatory, just pointless and stupid. LGBTI advocates, take my advice if you want to fight these laws: DO NOT cry "discrimination!". Instead, mock, mock, mock, you'll get a lot further! Note that my local jurisdiction has no explicit law prohibiting a man, openly dressed as a man, from using a womens' bathroom, or vice versa - never been a need for it. Of course if you do this on private property, you'll likely be asked to leave, but in a public bathroom, it would be no crime.

Anyways, rant over, here's the actual question: In those jurisdictions where "gender identity" is protected under anti-discrimination law. A transgender "man in a dress" (who genuinely identified and strives to live as a woman, but you can see is in fact biologically a man. Note only genuine gender identity is protected - transvestites are not, at least according to my local judge) comes into a pub, and asks to use the bathroom. The publican says "sorry, I can't have you using the womens, you'll make them uncomfortable - please use the unisex disabled cubicle instead". Or imagine he said "please use the mens", for that matter. The transgender individual is deeply offended, and brings a discrimination claim in court.

Now, note this: The publican has not refused the transgender individual what they have in one sense asked for - a place to empty their bowel and bladder. They have simply refused to treat them as a member of the gender with which they identify.

Bathrooms are not the only example. The same issue could arise in any area where we accept segregation of the sexes (something which is itself generally illegal under anti-discrimination law barring good reason) - change rooms, homeless shelters, hospitals in areas with sex-segregated wards, and probably others. Issue is, the transgender individual is still getting served on otherwise equal terms - just not as a member of their non-biological gender with which they identify. (And the property owner may have understandable reasons for this - a biological woman would feel understandably uncomfortable in seeing a penis in a change room, but the owner still understands the need to provide the transgender individual somewhere to change).

Is there any actual case law in any jurisdiction which addresses this specific question? I understand that laws can vary dramatically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so I won't take this as legal advice - just want to hear what the courts have actually said in ruling on such cases - and what rules they have laid down in interpreting their local anti-discrimination law. I assume in at least some cases, this issue has in fact come before the courts? Eliyohub (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you are only interested in cases related to private accommodations, rather than public facilities (e.g. GG v. Gloucester County School Board)? Dragons flight (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose this issue could arise in either - is the law different? I note in the article you linked that the DOJ requiring that individuals be "permit(ted) all students to participate in sex-segregated activities and use sex-segregated facilities (including bathrooms, locker rooms, and overnight accommodations) in accordance with their gender identity" is no doubt part of the backlash we are now seeing from the conservatives. My personal experience with actual transgender individuals is that they aren't so picky over the issue - they're more concerned with their human rights than "gender identification rights". It doesn't really matter which bathroom they're told to use, as long as they are treated with human dignity. Eliyohub (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, to confine my question, let's stick to privately owned facilities which are generally open to public clientele e.g. the example I gave was a pub, but there are countless others. Eliyohub (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

[1] has some discussion of the situation in the US and Australia regarding bathrooms. It notes the case mentioned above, but not any other case. If you look at the author's other postings, they seemed to be generally well versed in the case law of the developed anglosphere, which makes me think there's a fair chance there's no other significant case, although this obviously isn't definite evidence. (Notably if it was a minor case which no one appealed, it may not be well known.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

In the United States, federal law does not prevent public accommodations, such as a pub, from discriminating on the basis of sex, although state or local laws may outlaw such sex discrimination or even clarify that transgender discrimination is unlawful. Lists of such laws at the state level are available from the National Center for Transgender Equality and the Institute of Real Estate Management. Some specific case law is discussed by the Transgender Law and Policy Institute. The EEOC has a good discussion of case law under the federal law forbidding sex discrimination in employment. John M Baker (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Our articles Public toilet and Urinary segregation have references that may help. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

victimisation rate - domestic violence, and child molestation

I'm sort-of combining two questions in one, but I don't think it will be an issue in this case.

Which countries are believed to have the lowest victimisation rate (NOT "reported" or "prosecuted" crime rate) for the two crimes I am interested in - 1. Child Molestation, and 2. Domestic violence? In other words, in which country or countries is one least likely to fall victim to these crimes?

(police statistics are often useless in these two crimes, as in many countries, you wouldn't bother reporting them. I suspect domestic violence often goes unreported even in the most pro-feminist countries, albeit somewhat less so. And victims of child molestation, even in countries where this crime is taken very seriously, often cannot stomach the court process and the fallout in their own community, so never report the abuse, even after reaching adulthood).

Have there been any international Victim studies which have attempted to answer this question? Have any criminologists expressed educated guesses? Eliyohub (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It depends what qualifies as a country. Do micronations, like the Principality of Sealand, count? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

For the purposes of my question, no, as I doubt any criminologist of note has done a study on Sealand's victimisation rate. Stick to countries with a large enough sample size that you don't end up with statistical oddities for lack of survey candidates or potential victims. Eliyohub (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Does Vatican City qualify? They might not have any children with citizenship or residency, and it might've been so many decades or centuries since their last domestic violence incident that you could call it provisionally extinct. Wifebeating must be very rare among the typically celibate citizenry. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

None of this answers my actual question, obviously, where I clearly asked to exclude small non-representative nations with inadequate sample sizes.. Vatican City may not have much child molestation occurring on its territory, but I daresay its residents and affiliates are directly responsible over the decades (and perhaps centuries) for enabling the molestation of more children than almost any nation on earth. . Eliyohub (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find any high-quality international studies on domestic violence that are not mentioned at Epidemiology_of_domestic_violence#International_levels. It is probably quite difficult to get good data about this subject. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

One place to direct your enquiry is UN Women. Another might be an international charity such as Womankind. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Gänserndorf

Gänserndorf District says that "Towns (Städte) are indicated in boldface; market towns (Marktgemeinden) in italics". But there are no such designations in the following list of municipalities. Does this mean that there are no towns or market towns in the list, or is there an error? --Viennese Waltz 10:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The de:WP states that the district contains 4 townships (Stadt-Gemeinden) and 24 market-municipalities (Markt-Gemeinden). The rest are just smallish municipalities. It seems that the list in the en:WP is improperly formatted. from Cookatoo (sorry I forgot my password). --193.81.225.218 (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cookatoo, I posted on your userpage as well (which I guess you can see even without password). --Viennese Waltz 10:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Revolutions

What are some examples of revolutions by wide leftist coalitions, with a range of ideologies? Benjamin (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Define "wise". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, meant "wide". Benjamin (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You'd also have to define "leftist". μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

So what's a "wide" leftist? Someone built like Orson Welles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps read popular front? Neutrality^talk 03:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The Russian revolution contained the more moderate Mensheviks and the radical Bolsheviks. Unfortunately, the radicals wiped out the moderates. Also see Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks. StuRat (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Prolly not what the OP means, but the French revolution, too, was accomplished by a "wide left-wing" (pre-Marxist) coalition. btw, the sentence "France rapidly transformed into a democratic and secular society with freedom of religion, legalisation of divorce, decriminalisation of same-sex relationships, and civil rights for Jews and black people.[6]" (what, all 3 of them?) reads wildly America-centric and anachronistic. And that "democratic society" was nothing the SJW who wrote that would recognize as such (no suffrage, for example.) Asmrulz (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Asmrulz's post. The problem is that we are looking at republican versus monarchical revolutions in the French and Russian case which fairly quickly devolved from monarchism vs. republicanism to republicanism vs. dictatorship > authoritarianism. Most of the velvet revolution type developments in 1989 could easily be seen as the leftist overthrow of rightist regimes, depending on the definition of such terms. I think using such term as if they were universal laws of physics, rather than epitherts of convenience is a major fail epistemologically. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

China, ca. 1945-49.DOR (HK) (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

December 23

John White

I am trying to comprehend these obituaries: [2] and [3]. It mentions a man by the name of John or Jack White who served on the frigate Amelia in 1796 and fought with Vice Admiral Duncan. But the dates and names makes no sense when I check what Wikipedia has to say about Duncan and HMS Amelia (1796)).

1. . Was the Amelia (assuming it is HMS Amelia (1796)) under the command of Duncan's command?
2. . Was the Dutch engagement referring to the Battle of Camperdown?
3. . Did the Amelia take part in this engagement?
4. . Are there any records of John White in British naval service records?

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A list of ships that took part in the Battle of Camperdown can be found here and here (note that it says "Three more Frigates, names unknown" in the bottom-right corner). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Constable of the Tower?

A while back, maybe 6 months, I saw a documentary on the Tower of London or some such thing. It talked about a position that was held where the official person in some job had a smallish apartment in the building in which he worked. He basically had a number of stone steps to go up to this apartment and had to be inside the confines of the building before a certain time or they wouldn't open the gate for him or anyone else. Was that the Constable of the Tower that I'm thinking of? I'm certain that this was in England. Ring any bells with anyone? †dismas†|^(talk) 00:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The Yeomen Warders have a 10 PM curfew. See Ceremony of the Keys — which sounds a lot like what you might be referring to. Neutrality^talk 03:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

THat is more likely to be the Chief Warder (who leads the Yeoman Warders. The Constable is a senior figure, with an occasional ceremonial role, and does not normally live at the Tower. Wymspen (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That's what I was thinking of. †dismas†|^(talk) 13:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

This is a bit like Oxford undergraduates trying to get back into college after hours. If they can't climb the wall they have to ask the porter, who may or may not oblige. At the Tower of London there is a tiny gate which is opened at 10:05 pm to let out the members of the public who have been invited to view the ceremony, and may be opened later to admit residents who have been out on the town. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

What are really bouncy motel beds called?

Why are they so spingy? Are they cheaper or something? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt if there's a different name for them. Perhaps a thin mattress means the boxspring underneath has a more noticeable effect. The thin mattress will be cheaper than a proper, thick one, yes. StuRat (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Would be helpful if the OP could guesstimate the thickness of these bouncy mattress to an inch or two (i.e., are they noticeably thicker) . Some hotels, are very aware that the comfort of the mattress as all important. So they buy 'plush' (trade phrase) soft mattress. Not much good for home use as they need replacing every two years or so. Yet, for a hotel they are tax deductible under wear& tear. One can actually buy these mattress with a top layer of 'intelligent foam' but probably not in your local mall -as they cost more. But on vacation and paying $350 a night for a room, these mattresses pay for themselves during their short life (OK. So I'm a cheap-skate and rather have a sleeping bag in a tent for the whole vacation but -the wife !!! . Almost feel like asking a question about uxoricide but then I would have to cook my own breakfast and clean the house myself).--Aspro (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the bounciness comes from the boxspring, underneath. The mattress actually dampens the bounce, so a thin mattress means more bounce. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

For the typical "no-tell motel" the bounciness might be considered a benefit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Turning Point (charity) employment tribunal - what eventually happened?

I've recently expanded Turning Point (charity) with a number of things, including an employment tribunal decision and appeal that received a substantial amount of press attention. Putting the names of the people involved plus the name of the charity into Google, finds a number of reliable sources that cover the charitable sector -- and some tabloid material of course -- but the trail seems to go cold after this report on a preliminary appeal hearing in late October 2015. The appeal must presumably have concluded by now, but my searches don't find out what the actual result of the appeal was. My searches do include the dreaded line from Google that "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe." Can anyone who is better located, or better at using Google, find out what the result of the appeal was? Many thanks. MPS1992 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This from February says the case was still ongoing [4]. I can't find anything newer. It's likely that there has been a result to the preliminary hearing, but I wouldn't assume the appeal itself has a result when it's only been just over a year. Nil Einne (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

December 24

Hillary bloopers reels?

I am curious whether there are any ~10:00 videos of HRC "bloopers" videos that feature things like her "What difference, at this point, does it make?" and her "Why, you may ask, am I not 50 points ahead..." that one can get from youtube or elsewhere. Most of such videos are very time restricted. I am looking for a long-term bloopers real. Let me clarify that I understand that some Hillary supporters or anti-GOP/conservative members may find this to be "POV" material, but I suspect that Florida law allows such media as protected free speech. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 11:47 am, Today (UTC+8)

She lost, so what would be the point? Also, those comments don't really qualify as "bloopers" - they're just normal comments that you might disagree with or dislike. A "blooper" would be like when Dubya said something about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, illustrating each half of that phrase with the wrong hand. Or like when Perry forgot which agency he would abolish, or when Johnson was asked about Aleppo and said "What's a Leppo?" Or like when Chicago's original Mayor Daley said, "Da police are not dere to create disorder - dey're dere to preserve disorder!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

As crummy and overly optimistic a Democratic candidate as she was 10 minutes of those kinds of statements is a very long time. Of course the first Google Video result for Trump lying is Trump lying for 13 minutes straight, the first after clicking "long videos" is Donald Trump lying to the entirety of Mozart's Symphony No. 41, 2nd result for that is 2 hours of Trump lying and the 2nd result for "minutes of Donald" is 10 minutes of Donald Trump demeaning, objectifying, and insulting women. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Those might be interesting, but they aren't "bloopers" as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Is 16.5 minutes of Trump contradicting himself close enough? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Medeis if it qualifies. I wouldn't call it bloopers, but it might be what Medeis is looking for, for Hillary. I don't know that she's been anywhere near as self-contradictory as Trump tends to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ten minutes was meant as an upper limit, and I would have no problem with the "what's a leppo?" phrase and other funny ones being thrown in. As for Hillary having lost, well that's exactly why the "Why aren't I 50 points ahead" question is so ironic. That question has nothing to do with politics per se, it has to do with public announcements made during the campaign which have become funny, given the campaign's results. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

A "blooper" usually is when you say something different from what you intended. Like the old one where a radio host introduces President "Hoobert Heever". Spoonerisms make for good bloopers. Another can be when you say something that you don't think is being recorded. Like the apocryphal one about Uncle Don saying, "That should fix the little bastards" or whatever it was (not). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe gaffes is a better keyword? —Tamfang (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like Medeis to explain how the two initial examples qualify as "gaffes" even. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Sitting in the aisle

Aisle (political term) says that US Senators sit on the left of the aisle (if Republicans) and on the right (if Democrats). What about non-caucusing independents? I understand that Bernie Sanders caucused with the Democrats when he was an independent, so presumably he sat with them, but Independent politician#Congress lists an assortment of other independent federal senators holding office since the beginning of national parties, so I'm guessing that one or more of them caucused with neither of the major political parties of their eras. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The majority party's caucus generally controls the agenda of Congress, e.g. what bills are brought up for a vote and when, as well as controlling the appointment of committee chairs and the majority party's seats on committees. The minority party's caucus controls the assignment of committee seats allocated to the minority party. If a Congressman were to join neither major party caucus then he would be stuck with whatever committee roles were left over after both parties had already allocated their preferences, and he would have no say in setting the internal agenda of either party. Given those powerful incentives to pick a side, it seems likely to me that every independent politician would do so (at least since the two-party system became firmly established), though I don't have an historical references to prove that this is true. Dragons flight (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

What was the first public housing project in the United States? Techwood Homes or First Houses?

Wikipedia appears to give conflicting information.

"Techwood Homes was the first public housing project in the United States, opened just before the First Houses."

Techwood Homes

"Techwood Homes in Atlanta, first U.S. public housing project opened in 1936." "Public housing in the United States"

v

"First Houses is a public housing project in Manhattan in New York City and the first such in the United States." First Houses

Rexmcgregor (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bragging rights depend on how you define "oldest". If you go with date of dedication, then Techwood wins (dedicated in November 1935)... if you go with date of opening then First Houses wins (opening in December 1935) Blueboar (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Pfft, Queensbridge Houses has a much better size to age ratio (opened 1939, biggest projects in North America) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

If it is the largest (the claim is unsourced in the article), it is only because the larger ones have been torn down like the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago. Rmhermen (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

December 25

The Office of National Drug Control Policy reauthorisation act, and separation of powers

Apparently, a now deleted edit on We the People (petitioning system) to quote:

Gil Kerlikowske, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, was chosen to craft the administration's response.[24] The criticism stems from the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998, which states that the Director must oppose all attempts to legalize the use of illicit drugs in any form. See Office_of_National_Drug_Control_Policy#Anti-legalization_Policy

Now, my issue has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of cannabis legalization. It not about the choice of the director as the person to respond to the petition. It IS about the law itself, which binds the director. I just have a major problem with a law which requires a public servant to take a particular position on a Political question. Courts aren't allowed to - why should public servants (in this case attached to the Executive) be not just allowed to, but legally bound to take a particular position on what is clearly an issue for the legislature? The civil service can offer advice to the legislature on policy issues, but to oblige them to take a particular political position? Aren't there Separation of Powers issues here too? Dare I ask, is this law constitutional? And moreso, how would a legal scholar view the issues I raise with the law? What is the role of such a body in taking positions on political questions, and matters of political debate? Eliyohub (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Does the Act list a punishment for not doing so, such as removal from office ? If not, it would really just be a toothless "statement" by the legislature, which has no force of law behind it. If it did, it might well be challenged in the courts, should they ever attempt to enforce it. The way the legislature might be able to get away with it is by saying the punishment is to stop funding the Office, should it not do as they tell it. StuRat (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Even if there's no punishment for a disobedient director (I assume disobedience would result in a firing, nothing more - don't think he'd need to be impeached), isn't it problematic to order a public servant attached to the executive to get involved in political questions, and take a specific position on a political issue which is frankly the business of the legislature? Could pro-drug-legalization advocates challenge this law? Eliyohub (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Firing would constitute punishment. However, there's a problem with the way laws are challenged in the US, that to have standing, you must have been materially harmed, and if there's no punishment, there is no material harm. Thus, it would remain a silly law that goes unchallenged. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Verily. It is very odd that the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is both explicitly and implicitly denied the opportunity to have a worthwhile input into the National Drug Control Policy of which he is the head off. Think many editors here are only too aware of the fact that their grandchildren can't walk into a shop and by tobacco or alcohol products because the guy behind the counter knows they are too young.... but at the same time, they can be accosted in the street by the local dealer who points out that all their friends (?) smoke this or snort that and here-is- some-for-free – try it and come back if you want more. So the The National Drug Control Policy is ensuring that the black markets remains very profitable and a threat to all those young people who would not ever consider taking drugs unless a dealer beguiled them. The Non-governmental organization that (I think) has come out with the best sense on this, is detailed in their publication After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

StuRat, if an individual, or group of individuals, could argue that they have potentially been denied access to "illicit drugs" which could be beneficial to them due to this law, which requires someone on the public payroll to wage a political battle against their efforts to get the law changed, would they not have "standing" to challenge it? (As I said, the legal issues are Political question and separation of powers). Eliyohub (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

What distinguishes the UN from the League of Nations?

The League of Nations failed because Germany, Japan, Italy, and a few other countries withdrew from it and started war. What is the guarantee that a few nations will not withdraw from the UN, form an alliance, and declare war on the rest of the world? How is the UN prepared to prevent such an event? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Both had the same advantage of using the power of the big nations to force the small nations to behave, but also the same flaw that there is little they could do to control the large nations. However, knowing this, the rest of the world has it's own alliances that are more likely to work, like NATO, since they don't include the "bad actors", like Russia and China, which means they can't veto any actions against them.

How could a worldwide organization, by itself, control the large nations ? Well, the large nations would need to surrender sovereignity to a world government, which hardly seems likely, without a World War 3 to bring it about. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the League never included all of the major powers in the first place (see Member states of the League of Nations); the US was never a member, and the USSR didn't join until 1934 and was expelled just five years later, while the Soviet Union was part of the United Nations from the beginning, as was the United States. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the world has changed significantly since 1939. It is not primarily the UN that keeps countries from bombing each other, it is rather deterrance and economic interdependence. As per the differences between LoN and UN, the key difference lies in that the whole world is represented in the UN (with African, Asian and Latin American countries constituting a majority in the UN General Assembly) whilst the LoN was mainly a European club. --Soman (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Soman. as to keeping world peace, the answer, as I see it, is that the UN does not have this power. The Security Council has five permanent members, and given that they have a veto on any resolution, they can, as far as their UN situation is concerned, act with impunity. For example, Russia's recent actions in Ukraine. There'd be no way for the UN to stop them, as they could veto any resolution censuring them. The General Assembly could issue scathing resolutions, but they have no binding power. NATO would probably have far more power here. The Cold war was ugly at times, but did the UN play much in the way of any constructive containment of it? Or rather, the myriad proxy conflicts and superpower-sponsored brutal dictatorships it spawned? Perhaps in the realm of negotiation, it did something. But in terms of ordering the parties around? Toothless, by its very design. During the cold war, the world did come to the brink of world war 3, most notably in the Cuban missile crisis. Did the UN have any power to do anything to defuse this crisis which threatened the world? I'd think not, but correct me if I'm wrong.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyohub (talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes the UN played a role; see Korean War or United Nations Operation in the Congo for a couple of examples. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Demand and supply and currency

If smaller currency is cents, demand more than supply at x cents, supply more than demand at x-1 cents, what happens? What countries do to prevent this? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The value of the currency rises, like any case where demand outstrips supply. Or the central bank engages in Quantitative easing if it doesn't want this to happen. We have an article on Monetary policy which may be of interest. Eliyohub (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding, but I think you're asking if certain denomications of currency might be worth more, or less, than their printed value, relative to the other denominations, due to undersupply or oversupply of the various denominations. That doesn't seem likely, as people would be reluctant to pay more, or get less, than the printed value. What else would happen, then ? Well, if pennies were nowhere to be found, people could buy small items in bulk, so the price would add up to a larger denomination, or they could pay with credit cards, or they could pay with larger denominations and leave the balance "on account" for their next transaction. I understand that, in the US, prior to the introduction of the half cent, a penny was too large of a denomination for small purchases, so methods like this were required. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean if for certain cheap goods and services (like print paper) demand more than supply at x cents, supply more than demand at x-1 cents, cannot reach demand equal supply because no currency smaller than cents. What happen? Like StuRat say, no point for goverment to make even smaller currency that worth very little. --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean x+1 cents for the sale price? Special offer: 2 for 2x+1 cents. Dbfirs 18:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I think they are saying that the item costs less than the smallest unit of currency. That's actually quite common, for things like paper clips. They just don't sell them individually, but always in bulk. Here's some that cost about half a cent each, sold in a package of 100: [5]. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

In that case, there would be no need to mention x. Dbfirs 21:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the concept of determining the ideal price as a result of supply and demand seems out of place for this Q. Suffice it to say that the merchant has chosen a price, we don't need to know why, and it's less than the smallest unit of currency.

There's also a related problem that the price is too small to round to an appropriate unit of currency. Say it costs you 1.1 cents per item to make them, but you wouldn't be able to sell them at 2 cents each. Again, the answer is to sell in bulk, where you can set a price closer to your actual cost per unit.

Another version of selling in bulk is to sell at part of a kit. Take the little screws used to hold eyeglasses together. There wouldn't be much point in trying to sell 100 of those to anyone besides optometrists. But you can sell a few little screws, along with little screwdrivers, cloth for cleaning eyeglasses, etc., in a case, as a kit. StuRat (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about the eyeglasses example. A person who needs to fix their glasses may well be willing to pay more than the optometrist who buys in bulk, even though it's significantly more than the few screws he actually needs are worth, in order to get his glasses fixed so he can see properly again. So the merchant has some pricing power here. A box of 100 screws may only cost an optometrist $5, for example, but the person in need of one or two screws may very well be willing to pay 20c a screw, without any grudges. (I know I would). Hardware stores which sell such things often sell individual screws, nuts, and bolts at low prices, but which are still massively above the "bulk" cost a builder or carpenter would pay. It's not a big enough deal for the customer to get aggrieved and go searching for the cheapest option over a few cents. Or buy a "bulk" box of 100 screws or whatever that he has no use for (you can't easily find a buyer for such things on ebay, and even if you could, the shipping cost would outweigh the value of the screws). So he'll simply pay a higher price per unit to get only what he needs. Eliyohub (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It has often been pointed out that if you sum the prices of the parts that go to make up a car as listed in the spares catalogue the total is many times the price of the complete car. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

You missed the point of the Q, Eli. The assumption is that the item in question (eyeglass screws, in this case) costs less than the smallest denomination of currency, so selling them individually doesn't work. They could be sold in bulk, to bring the price back above the minimum currency denomination, but most people wouldn't want 100 eyeglass screws. So, they sell them bundled with other things, to make a kit which costs more than the smallest unit of currency. StuRat (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

As I and the IP said, in practice I don't agree that this is what happens. A person will simply pay more than the item is "worth", if he needs the item. If he doesn't need a kit, he'll simply pay more (sometimes far more) for the individual screws than they would cost if purchased in bulk. He'd certainly be willing to pay the minimum currency denomination. (maybe there would be an exception here for third-world countries, where literally every penny counts, and even the minimum denomination makes a real difference to the buyer's wallet. But in the west, people will just fork out a token price, albeit one far more than the bulk cost). As the IP explained, people pay far more for a spare part for their car than the part would contribute to the price of a whole car. Of course, this only holds true for items people often only need in ones or twos (e.g. eyeglasses screws). You wouldn't sell paperclips this way, as there'd be few people who'd only want to buy one paperclip. If I only need one paperclip, I'll scab it off someone, but I'll still happily offer them a nickel for it. The nickel is too small to my bottom line for me to care that I'm overpaying. Eliyohub (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's say you need one eyeglass screw and they cost 1/100th of the smallest currency unit. Would you buy the package of 100, for one currency unit, or buy 1, and pay the same amount, or buy the kit with a few screws, screwdrivers, and wipes in it, also for the same price ? Most people will buy the kit. Knowing this, the retailer may not offer anything but the kit. (Of course, not too many nations currently lack small denominations, but they did at one time. I recall in Little House on the Prairie where Laura got a penny for her birthday, and spent it on so much candy that she got sick.) StuRat (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That's an almost completely unrealistic scenario you're painting here, at least in most of the modern-day world's economies and monetary systems. I did mention that third-world countries are possibly an exception, but as you note, in most countries, the smallest denomination is not that big. Even if the United Sates phased out the penny and nickel (which has been canvassed, due to their negative seignorage), people would still likely pay a dime for a screw, rather than a dollar for a kit, unless they had some use for the kit - and even if a dime a screw was far above the bulk price. On the big side, we have the 500 euro note, but which modern-day country does not have very small denominations? Eliyohub (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if any do, but that's the assumption in the Q we were asked to use. And I consider how this problem was handled in historical periods in the US and elsewhere to be valid answers. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes Dbfirs I mean supply more than demand at x+1 cents. Sorry for the mistake. Yes StuRat I mean when "the price is too small to round to an appropriate unit of currency". Thanks for the answers. So for a good where supply equals demand at 2.5 cents then sellers will only sell in bulk or a package with other items? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and you could sell 2 items for 5 cents, in that case, which might work for something that doesn't need packaging, like pencils. But, if packaging and special handling is involved, like for eggs, you probably want to sell in large quantities, or else the cost of the packaging, handling, etc., would be far more than the eggs. Eggs are usually only sold by the dozen, but I have seen them sold by the half-dozen, although often at about the same price as the full 12. Also, eggs by the dozen often go on sale, but rarely does a half-dozen go on sale, so that the 12 can actually be cheaper than 6. StuRat (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Strategic lawsuit against public participation

Hi, in this section the use of anti-SLAPP laws by the government (!) is mentioned. But is this actually realistic? I mean, why should a petition or anything alike be a form of SLAPP the government could claim to oppose to? I don't quite see how that is supposed to work. Thus, I'be very grateful for any explanation! Best regards--Hubon (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hubon, no one here had an answer for you last week, or the week before. Asking the same question over and over again isn't going to get you any better results. Rojomoke (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

In addition the section you referred to has been gone since 17 December [6] Nil Einne (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

December 26

The Prince Father?

Should Elizabeth (God forbid) predecease her husband, would Prince Philip be referred to as the Prince Father in the mode of the Queen Mother? μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a good question. The Queen Mother isn't a peer whereas The Duke of Edinburgh is a peer. Therefore he would be styled the Duke of Edinburgh. Bloody Mary predeceased her husband King regnant Philip II the Prudent.
Sleigh (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose then I should look at Style_(manner_of_address)? The issue rarely comes up this side of the pond, although my mother had to call around to find out how to address a friend of the family who is a deputy of the Surgeon General. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

He could become the King's Father (or Grandfather), and I suspect he will be referred to as such informally if not formally: he will still be Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as that title will not die. I also believe that it will be up to the incoming monarch (whether it be his son or grandson) to decide on the official title he receives. So while it's not without precedent (see the Mary I reference above), it is unprecedented in recent history. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

There are big differences between the two. Before the accession of the current queen, her mother had been known as Queen Elizabeth (as the wife of King George VI). There was an obvious need to change this, to avoid the confusion likely to be caused by having two people, both active royals, known as Queen Elizabeth. It would not have been appropriate to take away the title of queen, so Queen Mother was a solution which maintained her status as a queen, while avoiding confusion with her daughter. Prince Philip is in a different position: if he lives longer than the queen he will still be Prince Philip and he will still be Duke of Edinburgh. Neither of those titles could be confused with that of King Charles, so there would be no reason to make any changes. Wymspen (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Good answer. By the way, it's often suggested that Charles might take the regnal name of George VII rather than Charles III - see Regnal_name#United_Kingdom. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, and it also avoided the more usual solution in that situation, titling the widowed queen the Queen Dowager. I gather that the Queen Mother didn't much like that term. For a brief time, Queen Mary, the Queen Mother, and Queen Elizabeth II were all alive, but it's because the Queen Mother hated being referred to as a dowager, rather than because of the ambiguity of two dowager queens, that the term Queen Mother was decided on. - Nunh-huh 17:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Or the regnal name Arthur.
Sleigh (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, she never went by Arthur! - Nunh-huh 22:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC) :)

• Two things. Isn't dowager specifically a feminine title, deriving from the same root as dowry? And isn't the term dowager usually associated with the regency, as in the Empress Dowager of China? Calling Philip the King's Father while he's still alive strikes me as implying his son's bastardy, although I suppose that problem wouldn't arise if Philip could abdicate. Perhaps he could be the Pop Emeritus?

But he will never cease being Charles's father, unlike Benedict XVI, who abdicated. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, JackofOz, dowager is a female title; but that's arguably not intrinsic to its meaning, but just because there are hardly any cases of a husband acquiring title or rank from his wife. The word's origin, like that of "dowry", is the same as "endow", which doesn't have anything specifically feminine about it. And in the UK the word is familiar enough in the peerage (certainly for anybody who reads historical novels) that the concept of "regency" not arise. --ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't my question, actually. The "two things" person didn't sign. I was just "butting" in. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Theory about clash between liberals and conservatives in the United States

I've been trying to search for an essay without any luck. It was about how the present day culture war between the liberal north and conservative south in United States could be traced back to the time of the American Civil War. Anyone know how I can find it?Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your premise is questionable. The divide is largely between urban areas which tend to be Democratic versus "small town" areas which are more conservative. Because large cities tend to be on the coasts (even Chicago is historically a port city) the most recognized dichotomy is between the coasts and "flyover country".

Even what is meant by liberal and conservative has changed of the years. Many people say JFK would have been a Republican were he in office today. The founding Republicans opposed slavery, favored high tariffs, and were sympathetic to prohibition, while Democrats favored free trade (traditionally a classical liberal position) while paradoxically supporting slavery, even though few southerners owned slaves. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The Republicans were not a party at the time of the founding of the US. They replaced the Whigs circa the 1850's. 2601:645:4300:A094:5524:F58F:7CA9:A84E (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a grain of truth somewhere to it, but it's certainly not as simple as that. For a long, long time, the South was a traditional Democratic stronghold, and wasn't all that "conservative" on a lot of issues - except for racial segregation. Otherwise, the South was hard-hit by the Depression (which led to an exodus of poor African-Americans heading north to large cities such as Chicago, Cleveland, New York, etc.) and was widely supportive of New Deal programs like the Tennessee Valley Authority and farm subsidies, as long as you didn't explicitly call them "socialism." It was only in the 1960s, when Democrats became broadly identified as the party of racial integration and equality, that Southerners abandoned it in droves. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Encouraged to do so by the Southern Strategy, which signalled quite clearly "racists aren't welcome in the Democratic party anymore; may as well join the GOP." --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Urban public transport before 18th century

Today, buses and rapid transit form the backbone of urban public transport. But I want to know what was the primary mode of urban public transport before the 18th century when there was no automobile, no railway. I do not have any knowledge on this topic. However, from a quick reading of Public_transport#History, what I can see is that the Stagecoach, drawn by four horses, was a popular mode of public transport before the advent of automobile and railway. But after reading the article Stagecoach, what can be seen is that the stagecoach was primarily used for long-distance inter-city travel. It does not shade any light on intra-city travel before the railway-era. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Urban public transit as we know it, with vehicles running on fixed routes in a city, was invented in Paris by Blaise Pascal, even though his English Wikipedia article omits to mention it. See fr:Carrosses à cinq sols, a name that refers to the fare of 5 sous. (Compare the etymology of our word jitney.) His system used 8-seat carriages drawn by four horses and operated from 1662, the same year he died, until 1677. One reason it was a failure was that it was only open to privileged classes of people and not the general public.

Urban public transit was not revived until the 1820s when fr:Stanislas Baudry introduced horse-drawn buses in the French city of Nantes (and gave us the name "omnibus" for them, which in turn became "bus"). This time they were quickly copied in Paris and London.

Until then, most people in cities got around on foot. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"An Ordinance for the Regulation of Hackney-Coachmen in London and the places adjacent" was issued by the UK parliament in 1654 - and shows that they were already in use by then, and were causing problems. A Hackney carriage corresponded to a modern taxi rather than a bus - and did tend to be used by the wealthy. The poor walked. Wymspen (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Do remember that many cities were smaller back then, so the only issue was often intercity travel. As to Hackney carriages, odd... wouldn't the wealthy own a carriage of their own? I could imagine the middle class having use for such a service, but the wealthy? Of course, once the railway arrived and shook up long-distance travel, the entire dynamic changed (people could visit towns and cities far away, and would not have their horse and carriage with them, thus necessitating local hire transport, or public transport), but that was a long time later. Eliyohub (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Do be careful about the multiple meanings of "public" transport - that which anyone can use, as long as they have the money; and that which is organised to some degree by the municipality. Also, think laterally: one form of transport that is easy to forget these days is water. London River Services have a long history; half a millennium ago the king awarded the London ferrymen an exclusive licence. Watermen across the United Kingdom had guilds from medieval times. As for land transport, city streets were narrow and congested, so large vehicles such as carriages would have a hard time making their way through. See for example the coach-builder George Shillibeer: this 1829 review concludes that his new "Omnibus is a handsome machine, in the shape of a van. The width the horses occupy will render the vehicle rather inconvenient to be turned or driven through some of the streets of London." Only the New Road, built to by-pass London, made the omnibus practical. Cities were, as said above, small in population and compact in size, limited to a certain extent by how far its residents could reasonably walk. See List of largest cities throughout history. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Was Hitler unaware of Soviet tank force before invading USSR?

I was reading Operation_Barbarossa#Soviet_preparations. It says Hitler later declared to some of his generals, "If I had known about the Russian tank strength in 1941 I would not have attacked". Does this mean Hitler was unaware of the number of Soviet tanks? How could German intelligence fail to provide such a vital information before a large invasion? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Not an answer to your question, but Hitler was personally stung by the withdrawal of Yugoslavia from the Tripartite Pact, and in his rage, ordered the Invasion of Yugoslavia (he saw it as politically vital that enemies of the Reich be taught a lesson), diverting precious resources which had been built up to launch Operation Barbarossa, and delaying the operation by six precious weeks. Meanwhile, the weather and seasons wait for no man, no mater how great he may think himself to be... and the infamous Russian winter, long-time thwarter of invasions, was approaching... and hit hard during Operation Barbarossa! It remains speculation, had Hitler had those extra six weeks to push in, would the outcome have been any different, at the critical points of Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad? Would the Germans have broken through? Eliyohub (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The Germans were aware that the Western allies had more and better tanks in 1940. That didn't stop them from invading France. Considering Hitler's view of Untermensch, I suspect he worried even less about Russian armor. Also, it wasn't the sheer number of tanks, but rather the excellence of the T-34 that came as a big shock to everyone. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I found this referenced article which has been reproduced in the Axis History Forum:

"...reports from the intelligence services had to pass through senior staff officers who were completely controlled by Hitler and only told him what they knew he wanted to hear. Hitler only wanted his own convictions confirmed and he was convinced that the Soviet Union was weak..."

"German intelligence on the Soviet Union prior to the attack was severely lacking... The Soviet Army radio security was poor and by the time of the attack in June the German intelligence services had a fairly complete order of battle of all the Soviet units in the frontier area. German communications intelligence, however, could not pick up the Soviet reserve units deep in the interior of the country. This led to a gross miscalculation of the Red Army’s strength. The Germans estimated Soviet strength at 200 divisions a month prior to the attack. In the first six weeks of the war, the Germans already encountered greater than 360 divisions".

"General Heinz Guderian, the foremost armored warfare expert in the German Army, had published a book in 1937, Achtung – Panzer! which estimated Soviet tank strength at 10,000, a figure he altered from intelligence reports of that time which gave the actual strength as 17,000. He even had difficulty using the more conservative figure in his book, as the then German Chief of Staff General Ludwig Beck thought it vastly exaggerated. General Beck was in complete agreement with Hitler in respect to the overall military ability of the Soviet Union. In 1938 he wrote that the Red Army was a disgrace as a military force and was not a factor to be reckoned with.

Hitler was obviously disdainful of both the numbers and the quality of Soviet tanks because he launched Operation Barbarossa with only 3,200 tanks, while yearly German production was only 1,000. In 1933, eight years prior to the attack, Guderian had visited a single tank factory in Russia that was producing 22 tanks per day".

The German intelligence system in the Second World War was not very intelligent. German efforts to insert spies into mainland Britain to prepare for Operation Sealion, the projected invasion, resulted in every single agent being captured, some of whom couldn't even speak English; a number of them were turned into successful double-agents in the Double-Cross System. See Operation Lena. Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this a graphic insight into how decision-making can go horribly wrong in dictatorships? Dictator-led Groupthink. The concept of Executive privilege is that people can advise the leader on matters of national importance with absolute candour and honesty. Otherwise, yes, things will go horribly wrong. Eliyohub (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Obama's list of pre-departure commutations and pardons - released yet? And if not, when?

Long-standing tradition is for a voted-out President to issue a batch off commutations and pardons before he leaves office. I presume Obama will be no exception. Has his list of these commutations and pardons been released yet? If yes, where can I find it? And where can I find sources analysing the names of those on the list, and their crimes?

If not, when is it expected to be released? Is there an unwritten convention on Presidential practice in the matter? Eliyohub (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Obama issued 78 pardons and 153 commutations about a week ago. I haven't seen a list. This article discusses his philosophy of who should be pardoned in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.60.210 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

See List of people granted executive clemency by Barack Obama or [7].--Wikimedes (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The economic illogic of racism in business - so why did it exist so widely?

A highly defamatory hoax once went round that Tommy Hilfiger said "If I had known that African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians would buy my clothes, I would not have made them so nice," and "I wish those people would not buy my clothes – they were made for upper-class whites"

Now to make it clear, this was a HOAX. But when someone who thought it was true mentioned it to me, I thought it strange, and was sceptical. Whatever feelings Tommy might have against blacks, why in heaven's name would he want to kill his own sales, if they make up a sizeable portion of his clientele?

Back in the 1930s, and probably much later, many businesses, particularly in the south, would not serve blacks, and if they would, would treat them horribly. Now, whatever the feelings of the business owner towards blacks, why would he want to turn away potential paying customers? That some isolated individuals might have such extreme prejudice that it overtakes their desire for money, that I can understand. (Henry Ford said "I'll take every factory down brick by brick before I let any of those Jew speculators get stock in the company" - and he may have been serious). But the phenomenon I'm describing was not isolated, from what I gather - it was widespread, at least in the South. So my question stands: what drove so many business owners to turn down business? (Religious belief, I could see being a different issue. People may be willing to pay financially for such beliefs. But did many people feel the same way when it came to their racist beliefs, however strongly held - "I'll pay the price to hold on to them"?) Eliyohub (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're in a prejudiced community, serving minorities can cause white customers to stay away. (I grew up in the American south, in earlier times.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm hard pressed to think of any sector in which it's logical to be racist. Racism doesn't exist because of logic based on fact; it's more usually an irrational position adopted on the basis of misinformation resulting in a bigotted world-view which fulfills someone's psychological needs at the moment. There's a recent news event that wasn't a hoax - the Barilla pasta boycott. Guido Barilla (an owner of the company) said in a radio interview "I would never do a commercial with a homosexual couple, not for lack of respect, but because we don't agree with them. Ours is a classic family where the woman plays a fundamental role. If gays don't like it, they can go eat another brand." Now, that last sentence is clearly not a wise business-logic based sentiment; it's based on Barilla's own prejudiced beliefs, which caused him to overlook the business implications. - Nunh-huh 18:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

SBHBoris had it right up there. I'll repeat it. If you live in a sufficiently racist community that people won't patronize your business because you're willing to serve the target of their racism, it's entirely logical to go along with the prevailing attitudes. It's not good or decent, but it's entirely logical. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not that archaic an attitude in the U.S. It's amazing how many folks are against Obamacare, and about to repeal it, because they didn't like feeling they were in a waiting room with a bunch of "free clinic patients". And bars and nightclubs in many cities still have to avoid drawing too black a crowd, lest people start pointing fingers and trying to get them shut down over some incident. Having rap performers can be ... problematic. Wnt (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that what didn't make sense yesterday makes sense today and vice versa because racism and the absence of racism varies with time. An institution like slavery sets up a highly discriminatory relationship between black people and white people in the United States and it takes time for it to "unwind", so-to-speak. Bus stop (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• In a large part segregation was forced on businesses that did not want it by the government. That is, for example, train carriers after the Civil War were forced to have all white crews on all white passenger trains, not because they wanted it, or that it made economic sense. ref μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure the word "segregation" is being used in that article the way we're used to; rather, it seems to be saying that the railroad industry and the railroad employees are segregated from the rest of the business community; "the general public has neither sympathy nor patience with either whenever a proposition concerning them is represented as adding to the general public cost." The article is primarily about "full crew laws". I'd be curious about sources for "in a large part" segregation was forced on businesses; I've heard that too, but I grew up in 1950's Virginia, and we heard a lot of Dixie apologia. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 06:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

    but wow, that's a fascinating magazine. It's the union organ of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (from 1914). Fun reading. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 06:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I don't think that magazine is talking about the racial sort of segregation, but I agree that at some level there was forcing — Jim Crow laws were mandatory, and even if a business owner *wanted* not to segregate, they'd face both the opprobrium of the dominant social forces and the full weight of state government regulation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

two things: 1) Italy is special, businesses there are most of them not public, even big ones. 2) the question only shows that business has more than just the economic dimension to it - precisely as Leftists generally want it anyway (corporate social responsibility, environmental responsibility etc), so I'm tempted to see the economic argument as a red herring. Asmrulz (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting thought, your second point. Leftists want business to be about more than money - rightists, racists and many others (not saying all rightists are racists!) may view it in the same light. Though many businessmen, I'd say, do not - for them, it is about money, regardless of their ideology. Eliyohub (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite get your first point, either. Most businesses in the US aren't public, either -- fewer than 1% are. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

December 27

Cultural structure of social media communities

Are there any sociological studies about the cultural structure of social media communities?

Dan Howell made a video about the Five Pillars of Tumblr, and it made me wonder if there's any validity to that idea.

Benjamin (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "cultural structure"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Subcultures, like the Five Pillars. Benjamin (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

A Judge recusing themselves sua sponte due to religious obligations

Recently, an orthodox Jewish judge was appointed to New York's civil court circuit. The question arose about certain situations where Jewish law may prohibit her from hearing a case. For example, if both litigants are Jewish. Jewish law generally requires that a Jew who has a civil dispute with another Jew take the matter to Beis din, not the secular court system. There may be exceptions, but that's the general rule.

So, assuming this judge found herself facing this situation, and her religious beliefs precluded her from hearing the case. The case has yet to begin, so there would be no prejudice or cost to the parties if she were to handball the case to another judge. Would there be anything legally prohibiting her from recusing herself Sua sponte (of her own initiative) from hearing the case? Or would she be forced to retire from the bench if she refused to hear it, under "duty to sit" rules?

I'm sure there are other situations where this issue has arisen. For example, a Catholic judge asked to rule on a question of abortion law may well truly feel that his or her religious beliefs precluded them from approving an abortion, even though the law might require them to rule that way. (Not all Catholics hold such beliefs, but some may truly feel this way) Can the Judge recuse themselves before the case begins? Or would the "duty to sit" mean they would be forced to either hear the case, or retire from the bench?

NOTE that the Judge is recusing themselves of their own initiative, not at the request of a party, so the issue of "Judge shopping" (a party finding a Judge they feel will be sympathetic to their case, by asking a judge they perceive as ideologically unsympathetic to recuse themselves) does not arise.

I'm talking about the lower courts here, where a substitute judge is not a problem. Obviously, such a judge would be unsuitable for appointment to the supreme court, as replacement judges are not an option there, and the court sitting without its full membership is really not ideal.

Are there any rules, laws, or case law on this question?

(There seems to be a LOT of discussion about requests by a party for a Judge to recuse themselves. Much less discussion on a Judge in such a situation where the Judge faces a personal dilemma (in this case a religious one) about hearing the case altogether, not an issue of bias as to the outcome, but the parties have no problem with the judge hearing their case, they trust the judge to rule fairly. Our articles on Judicial disqualification and Substitution (law) do not seem to offer any clear insight on this question).

NOTE: THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVICE. This question ONLY involves how a JUDGE may or may not act, UNRELATED to requests or applications by parties to a proceeding - and a Judge, by definition, knows the law, and will NOT be getting answers from wikipedia to any legal dilemmas they may face! (I think questions as to the legal obligations and roles of judges or lawyers can seldom, if ever, be deemed "legal advice", as such individuals are legally trained, and will NOT be taking advice from a Wikipedian, unless the law somehow allows it).Eliyohub (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to answer this, but your implication that Orthodox Jews are not accepted for Supreme Court appointment seems like an extraordinary claim - why would you think that to be true? The relevant article Judicial disqualification currently doesn't tell us anything about a "duty to sit", but in any case recusal doesn't seem to be that obtrusive when it happens, and it does happen even on the Supreme Court. Wnt (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not an issue of orthodox Jews "not being accepted" (there's no rule banning them!), it would be an issue as to the candidate's "ability to accept", given the Jewish law issues which may arise in requiring them to recuse themselves from certain matters. (I am not a Rabbi, can't say whether this would be an issue). And they would need to be fair and honest with the President and the Senate Judiciary Committee about the issue. And I would say that in the Supreme Court, recusal is significantly more obtrusive than in courts where a Justice can simply be substituted with another. Eliyohub (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

In fact, Jews not being allowed would violate the "religious test" clause in the Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely true, BUT, if their religious obligations caused practical problems in the functioning of the court, such as forcing them to regularly recuse themselves from cases, there'd be a limit as to how far one would need to go to accommodate them, and I wouldn't blame the Senate Judiciary Committee for rejecting such a candidate. (And I happen to be a Jew myself, for what it matters, though this issue is by no means limited to Jews). Any more than employment law requires "reasonable" accommodation of an employee or potential employee's religious obligations, whilst recognising that the employer still needs to run his business. Australian judges have ruled that "reasonable" accommodation "falls somewhere between convenience and necessity". One must accommodate even if it is inconvenient. One need not accommodate if it is totally impractical. (I don't know if American courts agree). By the same token, a someone seeking a position as a Supreme court judge poses a significantly higher burden if they need to regularly recuse than in the lower courts, where they can be substituted relatively easily. That's my thought anyways. Eliyohub (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to divert from my actual question, if anyone can answer it, and it does not relate to the supreme court: Can a Judge freely recuse themselves from particular cases based on the sort of issues I mentioned - be they Christian, Jewish, or whatever? Some people discussing this question on facebook seemed to suggest that some states have "duty to sit" rules which limit a judge's right to recuse. I think these rules were mostly based on dealing with recusal requests from a party, and didn't give much thought the the issue of self-recusal without either party requesting it. So how would reasons of the sort I have given fit with such rules? Can a Catholic Judge opt-out of hearing a case regarding abortion laws, if he (this particular catholic) held the belief that authorizing an abortion was against his religion, and the law might require him to do exactly that? Eliyohub (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of discussion here [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] mostly about Catholic judges. Note that a number of these sources talk both about disqualification and recusal but that appears to be because it's ultimately not always clear cut. E.g. the first one actually mentions how the terms are sometimes used distinctly but then goes on to say they will be using disqualification for both. In most cases if a judge doesn't voluntarily recuse when it's feared their religious beliefs may bias them in one direction, then there's a reasonable chance the lawyer for whoever is may lose out may ask for disqualification even if they may not get it (e.g. because of judge shopping concerns). But ultimately the answer of whether the judge should have been disqualified or should have voluntarily recursed is going to be the same so the sources generally addresses both of them.

BTW, as far as I can tell, there's no suggestion a judge shouldn't recurse if they feel they wouldn't be able to deliver an impartial verdict because of their religious beliefs. Actually it's generally agreed they should. The question is how the judge decides if their religious beliefs are going to mean their verdict isn't impartial. Although at least one source (the last one) does suggest that potentially the judge should step down in some cases.

I didn't see any examples where the issue wasn't an impartial verdict but simply a verdict, I assume because such a situation is so rare. (The stuff I did find about Jewish judges being asked to recuse are [15]). There is however the perhaps related issue where judges feel unable to perform same-sex marriages [16] [17] [18]. In that case, it definitely doesn't seem to be universally agreed that recusal (as opposed to either carrying out the marriages or stepping down) is an option.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The Mississippi law dealing with objections to performing same-sex marriages was very broad, and thus may just raise constitutional issues. As long as the State ensures that an alternative clerk or Judge is promptly available (and that may well mean not posting such clerks or judges to remote locations where they're the sole official), why should such officials not have right to pass such matters on? If there was no other judge or clerk available, the "rule of necessity" might kick in, and the official may be forced to do the job, but otherwise, why should recusal not be an option?

The issue that I described in my question, where impartiality was not questioned at all, simply the judge being prohibited under Jewish law from even hearing the case (since Jewish law forbids Jews in civil disputes with other Jews from going to secular court) would be a new one, I assume? Eliyohub (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You first need to prove that it's forbidden for her to judge the case. What is known is that it's forbidden for the parties to bring the case, but she is acting as an agent of the government. Is it also your opinion that a Jew may not be a policeman? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The answer to your latter question I'd say is "no" - crime is crime. Rabbis have been pretty unanimous that when dealing with serious crimes, such as child molestation, where people are in danger, a Jew may report a fellow Jew to the police. The former question, I'm not a rabbi, so I can't answer conclusively, but assume the answer is yes, for the purposes of this question - a civil case. I'm asking how secular law would view a decision to recuse. Eliyohub (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You're missing my point. According to basic rules of mesira, (let's exclude when it's allowed) a Jew can't snitch on another Jew. Does that mean a Jewish policeman can't arrest a Jew? No, of course not. So whether or not a Jew is allowed to take another Jew to court might be irrelevant to the Jewish judge, that judge is not a party to the case. She is not the first Orthodox Jewish judge, by the way. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I have returned my comment to its original indentation [19]. I'm not sure why it was changed but please don't do that. My original indentation is nearly always correct and intentional. In this case I started replying before Eliyohub's followup even existed (I started at about 14:10) and my comment was primarily (I did notice the followup later while composing my reply) directed at the original question not the followup. Nil Einne (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not dissimilar to our own ArbCom procedure. Judges recuse all the time - for example the judge listed to hear a case realises on reading the papers that he knows the defendant. Even if he's the sole judge for the area that's not a problem as a replacement can always be sent over from another circuit. It's not true that all the judges of SCOTUS have to hear cases together - as you can see from this link [20] more than one case may be being heard at any one time. 92.24.110.81 (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

London taxis and Oliver Cromwell

A follow-up question to an answer posted above, which has piqued my curiosity. The "Ordinance for the Regulation of Hackney-Coachmen in London" ([21]) was issued in June 1654. The Barebones Parliament was dissolved in December 1653, and the First Protectorate Parliament was convened on 3 September 1654. Which of Cromwell's executive bodies actually issued the ordinance? It doesn't seem as though either of the two parliaments in question were in existence in June 1654. Tevildo (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

See Instrument of Government (1653), which allowed Cromwell to govern by edicts which were ratified by the Council of State. Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I see, thanks. In our Hackney carriage article, would "issued by Oliver Cromwell's Council of State" or just "issued by Oliver Cromwell" be a suitable replacement for the (factually incorrect) "approved by Parliament"? Tevildo (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Forbidden marriage

Let's say that Alice and Bob (I'm using placeholder names here) were married, in both the legal and religious way. Eventually, their relation decays, and Alice starts a new relation with Charles. With the law, it's easy: she gets divorced, and then gets married with Charles. But, as the Church is concerned, she is still married to Bob: she said "Till Death Do Us Part", and that phrase means it. Which means that, unless Bob dies, Alice and Charles will never get married in a Church.

But what would happen if priest David says "What the hell, I don't care about the Church's rules, Alice and Charles love each other so much, so I will get them married anyway!"? Which would be the consequences for David, and for Alice and Charles? Cambalachero (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The answer depends very much on which church you are talking about. There are many denominations where remarriage is common after divorce, but others where David would be in trouble with a superior. We have some information in Christian views on divorce but perhaps someone can provide a better link or further information? Dbfirs 20:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as the Roman Catholic church is concerned, the second marriage would be considered null and void. Our articles on Annulment (Catholic Church) and on Ligamen may provide some background. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

December 28

Gillian Triggs and recent controversy

Hi all, in a recent edition of The Australian, the editorial cartoon featured Gillian Triggs and her Australian Human Rights Commission, and made fun of the (allegedly) minor offences they will seek redress for. This was, maybe, on December 24. I can find plenty of controversy surrounding Ms. Triggs, but can't find anything recent enough to account for the actual cartoon. Does anyone know? I could ask someone here, but when I do, I get all this corrosive criticism, when I just want the facts. Youse are much more peaceful, oddly enough IBE (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't assume there needs to be some fresh "controversy" for a paper of the ideological bent of The Australian to publish a cartoon attacking someone of the ideological bent of Gillian Triggs? Tip: check through both that day's edition of the paper, and the day prior. If they had a fresh saga to attack her over, there will almost certainly be an article about it in one of those two days' editions. (Cartoonists are sometimes "a day late", but seldom longer). Does this help? Eliyohub (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to those editions, although I could conceivably go to a library. Just a long task, in order to find there's nothing. I was assuming there would be one, and someone from Oz would know it offhand. But come to think of it, you might be right, it might be a general swipe at her. If she's in the crosshairs anyway, it would still be current enough, for a Christmas cartoon (the cartoon featured the AHRC taking complaints about getting the wrong present, or no penny in a pudding, etc). IBE (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Despite being an Aussie, I don't know anything fresh about her offhand. May indeed just be a "seasonal swipe". She is definitely not The Australian editorial staff's most favourite person (although if attacking her sells papers... not sure, they may ideologically despise her, yet see her as good for business). But if you're already a library member, you can often log into their website and access some "newspaper article database", and see if any new mentions of her come up in the last week or two. I assume you've tried Google news already? If she says or does anything controversial, it tends to be pretty public. The AHRC's website may be another useful resource as to her latest activities, speeches, and statements. Eliyohub (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

[22] was also published on the 24 but I can't say it's clearly related. Considering it seems The Australian has been at war with her since October (well I'm sure before, but it seemed to really heat up around then), I have to agree with others above there's a fair chance it's just a random swipe. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)