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 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)

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)

Courts don't generally accept such a long chain as evidence of standing. How would you quantify what harm was done to you under this argument ? The position of this particular gov agency isn't all that likely to have been the one factor which would have changed the law, after all. StuRat (talk) 05:14, 30 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)

• Eliyohub, you have to realize that laws are no more than prayers; expressions of a wish in the form of words. Second, illicit means illegal, so the law itself is meaningless. Once a drug is legalized, there is no requirement to prevent it from becoming licit. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Director must campaign against any attempt to make it legal, regardless of any public health or safety logic, that's the point. If his or her campaign fails and congress does ignore him (he's forced to take that position by law, that's the point), then yes, he no longer needs to fight against it. But the issues I raised about such an official being told to take a particular role in political debate stand. Eliyohub (talk) 17:17, 29 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: [1]. 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 [2] 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) :)

Arthur was Ringo's haircut. —Tamfang (talk) 02:04, 30 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?

μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

I didn't sign, but have fixed it. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Medeis. You will always remain "the two things person" to me.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:25, 29 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 premise is that an article exists. This cannot be questionable, merely accurate or not. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:45, 28 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)

Your answer to the origin of the culture war between liberal north and conservative south related to the Republican and Democratic parties can be found at Democratic Party (United States)#1828–1860. FactStraight (talk) 06:23, 30 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 [3].--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)
  • I think the assumption that for-profits' segregation in the American South was forced on them is revisionist history: it simply would not have occurred to most business owners to risk offending their predominant and wealthier customer base, Whites, by treating Blacks equally. While the bigger stores (I recall Sears & Roebuck) had "White" and "Colored" water fountains and bathrooms for their customers, most businesses did not undertake that doubled expense, so Blacks could not use those facilities in their establishments. My grandmother took us to these bigger stores because she had to take into consideration that the youngsters she cared for might need to use the facilities: if there was no "Colored" sign on the water fountain or bathroom door, we Blacks could not use it -- the presumption was discrimination. If I just had to "go" and we were not near a business that Grandmother knew would have Colored accommodations, she headed for the nearest government building like City Hall or a post office, because Plessy's "separate but equal" ruling meant these always had "Colored" facilities we knew we would be allowed to use, whereas most private proprietors did not not. Also (although this was not a consideration to pragmatic Grandmother) those accommodations would be equal to those available to White consumers, which was sometimes not the case in private facilities where, in a legitimate effort to serve potential Colored customers, they might install a fountain or toilet labelled "Colored", but saved money by making them inferior or less well kept up. Government had to keep them exactly alike. FactStraight (talk) 18:23, 28 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)

I think Asmrulz' point is that in Italy, even big companies like the Barilla Group, which sells huge amounts of pasta worldwide, are still often privately owned, whereas in the U.S., large companies of this sort are often (though not always) listed on a stock exchange. Your "fewer than 1%" would obviously be 100% accurate if you include every business, no matter how small. The difference between Italy and the U.S., I gather, is that in the U.S., companies with billion-dollar-plus Market capitalization (or potential market capitalization, if privately owned) are generally publicly owned, correct? (Facebook "going public" badly ruined the original ethos of the project, but money talks, even if many would see Mark Zuckerberg as some sort of traitor "defecting to capitalism"). Whereas in Italy, this is not necessarily the case? Eliyohub (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If you live in a prejudiced community, the best strategy to maximize profits (not to erase prejudice), may well be race-based market segmentation. For the example of the diner in the segregationist South, they may serve only whites at the counter, but still be willing to sell sandwiches to blacks out the back door. Presumably the whites wouldn't mind this, and the blacks might not be happy about it, but if that was their only choice they may pay up, too. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 30 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)

Which Five pillars are you referring to, if any - or is it all of them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong with trying to clarify a question? Why should the above be hatted? The person posting the original question is engaging in dialogue. Why not allow the dialogue to continue? Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with asking for clarifications on a Q, and the hatting, which I've now removed, was completely inappropriate. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. The hatting was done here,[4] by the ref desk troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InTZfnNyLIQ&t=12s

Benjamin (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Found at 6:45. Bus stop (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Bus stop. OK, at about 7:03 the commentator states that the 5 pillars of Tumbler are:

1) Aesthetics

2) Fandom

3) Social justice

4) Memes

5) Porn

I'm not sure if this has any wider acceptance than just this one guy's opinion, though. Benjamin, in the future, I suggest you give us all the info you have, and list items out, like I just did, rather than assume that everyone knows what you're asking about. Also, don't ask us to watch a 10 minute video to try to figure out what you already know but won't share with us. Now that I've listed them, maybe you will get an answer. StuRat (talk) 05:03, 30 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 [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 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 [12]). There is however the perhaps related issue where judges feel unable to perform same-sex marriages [13] [14] [15]. 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 [16]. 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 [17] more than one case may be being heard at any one time. 92.24.110.81 (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As you might expect, there is a lot of guidance and precedent on judicial recusals. At the federal level, the primary sources of guidance are the recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455, and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. There tend to be comparable statutes and codes at the state level. The American Bar Association has promulgated the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, and some states have adopted versions of it, while in other jurisdictions it may have persuasive value.

Canon 2 of the Model Code states that a judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently. "Impartially" and its cognates are defined as "absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues that may come before a judge." The former part of the definition is usually considered more important. For example, 28 U.S.C. § 455(b), which lists various situations under which recusal is required, focuses on personal bias or prejudice concerning particular parties or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. The mere fact that a judge has religious convictions are not usually taken to be disqualifying, unless they render him or her unable to follow controlling law. For example, some judges have recused themselves because they have strong views that abortion is wrong and they are unwilling to implement controlling Supreme Court precedent.

In the example given by the OP, a judge is unwilling to adjudicate a case because the litigants are Jewish, as is the judge, and the judge believes that the case instead should be handled by a beit din (a Jewish religious court, with various spellings). It is not clear to me that recusal is appropriate, as these facts do not necessarily imply bias or favoritism for one party over the other, particularly if both litigants are willing to be in civil court. I suppose an issue of partiality could arise if the judge felt a religious obligation to dismiss the case or to rule in favor of the litigant who sought to have the case handled by the beth din, although I think most lawyers and judges would consider this an unprofessional attitude on the judge's part. I am not aware of any cases where a judge has recused himself or herself when the litigants were both Jewish or the allegation was made in court that recusal was required, although there have been many cases involving Jewish litigants and a Jewish judge.

If a judge were to recuse himself or herself, I don't think the parties would be in any position to object, assuming there were other judges available. It is true that case law indicates that there is a "duty to sit," although that language was eliminated from 28 U.S.C. § 455 in 1974. However, litigants are entitled to an unbiased judge, not to a judge of their choosing. Szeto v. United States, 2010 WL 1279072 (D. Conn. Mar. 29, 2010). Thus, the judge's recusal would not ordinarily give either party a right to object. And an occasional recusal by no means justifies a judge's retirement. John M Baker (talk) 18:18, 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" ([18]) 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)

According to Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660, many of the enactments from that period were "subsequently confirmed and given the force of statutes by an Act of the Protector's Second Parliament in 1657". If this ordinance is one of them, then it is not inaccurate to say that it was (later) approved by Parliament. --165.225.80.115 (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It's probably inaccurate to say that it was approved by Parliament in 1654, so I think we should correct this, at least. Tracking down the legislative history in detail is proving tricky (and we probably don't need to include it in the article), but it would appear that the Court of Aldermen made by-laws to regulate hackney carriages in 1654 ([19]) following the Council of State's ordinance. The Hackney Carriage Driver's Company website ([20]) states that the ordinance was an Act of the First Protectorate Parliament, but this is contradicted by the Firth & Rait source you mention ([21]), and, according to our article, this parliament didn't in fact pass any acts. However, the Company's statement that "the Act was only to remain in force for three years" is consistent with later legislation by the Second Protectorate Parliament in 1657, although I've not been able to find a reference for this as yet. Perhaps "issued by Oliver Cromwell in 1654 and subsequently approved by Parliament" would be acceptable wording. Tevildo (talk) 13:50, 29 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)

Out of curiosity, if the hypothetical David was a Roman Catholic priest, and Alice and Charles were Roman Catholics too, what "punishment" would he (David the priest) likely face from the Church hierarchy for breaking this rule, and doing what the OP describes - marrying someone who's (according to the church) still married to someone else? And would Alice and Charles be either excommunicated or denied communion until they terminated what is (in the church's eyes!) an adulterous affair? Eliyohub (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Under a previous version of canon law (the 1917 version) Alice and Charles would be admonished, told to terminate their illicit cohabitation, and excommunicated only if they failed to do so. Under the 1983 version of canon law, Alice and Charles would similarly be told that their activity was adulterous, but would not be excommuniated. They would, however, be told that as unrepentant sinners they could not participate in communion. But they could remain as members of the church. - Nunh-huh 21:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks! And what would be the likely fate of the wayward priest? Eliyohub (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I really have no clue. So it's strictly guess work from here on. But he'd be in trouble with his superiors. What form would his discipline take? Possibly demotion to a less desirable position. Possibly removal from the ministry. It would be an extreme case - maybe repeated episodes of disobedience - that could lead to laicization - but I think that extremely unlikely. - Nunh-huh 07:56, 29 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)

Thanks, that one is behind a login screen, but no matter. Yes, if there's an acknowledged, ongoing war, then it is very likely just a response to that. I didn't know about the war, but it seems it began around October, as you say, with the QUT case ([23]). This makes the most sense. I don't follow the news, for reasons like this (too toxic), so I need WP to fill me in, sometimes. IBE (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I read the article Nil Einne linked to, by finding it through google news, which somehow bypasses the paywall. Nothing seems related to this cartoon that I can see. In my mind, the cartoon you describe sounds more like a general attack (alleging that Triggs gets too serious over petty complaints), than related to a specific recent incident. I am unaware of any recent controversy of this particular sort - an issue with Triggs involving a complaint decried by journalists as petty. So I agree with my previous statements, probably more related to Christmas than anything recent with Triggs. Searching the AHRC website showed nothing recent of note that I could see of this nature, nor did google news show anything similar. I was hoping to at least find a Christmas wishes message from Ms Triggs on the AHRC website which might include something perceived as controversial, but no such luck. Eliyohub (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou, Eliyohub (and Nil) IBE (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Royalists/Tories v Roundheads/Labour - and Brexit

Is there a map of Britain showing areas that were broadly on King Charles's side, versus those that backed Cromwell, and how those political choices aligned with 20th century voting patterns? I'm sure I read an essay about this, but it was a very long time ago. (My memory of the essay seems about as distant as the English Civil War.) And how does this compare to the Brexit vote? There are a million intervening factors, I know, not least the Industrial Revolution and urbanisation and the Scottish union, but still, if any historian or geographer has examined these parallels, I'd like to know more. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'm not highly versed in British political history, but from a political science standpoint I'd think it'd be unlikely to find any meaningful statistical correlation between the Royalist-Roundhead divide and voting 300 years later, controlling for other factors. Any similarities would probably be just as attributable to rural-urban and socioeconomic divides. Hopefully someone much more knowledgeable in this area than I will come along with an interesting analysis in hand, however. But that's my initial impression as someone who's done empirical voting analysis. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no correlation. See English Civil War support maps and 2010 General Election result map. The Civil War was as much a religious conflict as a political one; the heartland of Puritanism was East Anglia and London, the usual theory is that these areas had closer contacts with the Calvinists in the Low Countries. East Anglia is now strongly Conservative, with Lib Dem a distant second place. It's really only London which might be said to fit your hypothesis; however London only consisted of the Cities of London and Westminster and Southwark at that time, and guess what? the Cities of London and Westminster (UK Parliament constituency) has returned a Conservative at every general election since 1950. Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Governments

Why are governments around the world increasingly being run more like businesses? 2A02:C7D:B937:6300:B46E:5B0E:8B82:3412 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a broad question, and I'm not sure the observation is true as a blanket statement. But accepting the premise, business-like behavior is linked by some to "rational" economic decision making, i.e. maximizing profit (or GDP), and this has been the case for some time. But business-like management of government is a charged political question and some attribute business-like, profit-driven governance to corporate lobbying and its influence over policy makers. This article may be of interest: Corporatization. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

In the case of large, bureaucratic corporations, it might be the reverse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Because governments were convinced the disastrous Chicago school of economics was good idea, and abandoned sensible Keynesianism. As to why that happened? A lot of business interests prefer this style of government and money talks (corporatocracy). 86.28.195.109 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

When did governments ever adhere to "sensible Keynesianism", rather than behaving as if the economy is always in recession and therefore the time to stop deficit spending never comes? —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

In government, there are agencies which are supposed to make a profit, like the Internal Revenue Service, in the US. Running such agencies as a business may well make sense. For example, going after people for $1 owed in taxes isn't an efficient use of resources. For other profit-based agencies, like those that lease out federal land for lumber production, mining and oil drilling, running it like a business may also make sense, but only so long as that business had a very long-term concept of profit. That is, you have to preserve the resource for future production, not destroy it to make a quick buck. The same is true of agencies that regulate fishing and hunting quotas, farming, water use, etc. But, alas, corporate-owned businesses don't have a good record of looking to the long term, as they are run by CEOs and boards that may just take their quick profits and leave, before the shit hits the fan. The same can be true of political appointees running agencies during a particular administration (or "government", in the parliamentary system). Long-term career employees may tend to take the long view, similar to family-owned businesses.

Now we come to agencies which are designed to distribute benefits, rather than make a profit. For example; police, fire departments, schools, jails/prisons/penitentiaries, road/port/airport construction, health care, national parks, etc. Running those like a business may mean minimizing benefits to keep costs low. That may not be a good thing, depending on how low they cut those benefits. And the short-term problem can also come into play here, for example by stopping all major infrastructure repairs and just putting in patches, knowing that the system will completely collapse at some time in the future, as a result, but hopefully after you've left office. The Flint water crisis is an interesting example of where trying to do things "on the cheap" came back to bite them in the ass while they were still in office.

So, if you have long-term oriented career employees making decisions, then running government agencies like a business may be a good thing. If you have short-term political appointees in charge of the agency, then that's asking for trouble. StuRat (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

December 29

Is the nature of warfare changing?

Throughout the history of the world, there were large and small empires, monarchies and states that engaged in full-scale warfare involving their military and territorial incursion. From the Greco-Persian Wars, Mongol invasions and conquests, Crusades, Hundred Years' War, Thirty Years' War, Seven Years' War, to Napoleonic Wars till 18th century, all were fought with imperialist ambitions.

In the 20th century, the only large scale war fought with imperialistic ambition was the Second World War. Cold War-era proxy wars like the Korean War and Vietnam War, or post-Cold War Yugoslav Wars were small scale regional conflicts .

On the other hand, in the 21st century, the major wars Iraq War, Afghanistan War, Libyan war were aimed at regime change. Whatever the motive, the number of warfare is decreased in the 21st century compared to the previous centuries.

The second point is that West Europe, North America, and South America are no longer the theater of major wars. The only modern post-1945 war fought in the western world in the Falklands War. There is no war in West Europe in the 21st century. List of ongoing armed conflicts clearly shows today's large-scale wars are limited to Africa and Middle East.

An Europe without war was unimaginable in the 17th or 18th centuries, but war in West Europe today is unimaginable. Does this mean the theater of modern warfare is shifting from the West to Africa, Middles East, and Asia? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Aside from conflicts between or within undeveloped countries, modern warfare is shifting to be almost exclusively asymmetric warfare. The middle east finds itself the home of many of these wars (at least the ones involving world powers) because that's where the oil is. You might reasonably conclude that what's happening is that developed nations are averse to warfare amongst themselves, but not with undeveloped nations, and the undeveloped nations people care about the most are the ones that are home to valuable resources. The shift in theatre is thus logical. It's been argued strongly that mutual assured destruction has prevented open warfare between major world powers. You can imagine this should work even if the nations in question don't have nuclear weapons - basically every country that was home to major battles or bombings in World War II suffered devastating damage to its economy and sometimes population, and only one of those countries was actually nuked. There's no point going to war over some economic or territorial dispute if you are likely to wind up even worse off than before, even if you win. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Unimaginable"? You're at war right now, with extremists of various types. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Complete nonsense. We have a minor crime problem blown out of proportion by the press and populist politicians. What you claim is a "war" has orders of magnitude fewer direct victims than those caused by traffic accidents. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Keep telling yourself that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC) I know. Thats why I tell you ;-). More seriously, we had 3500 traffic death in Germany in 2015. We had about 650 cases of homicides (fewer than 300 are actual murders), nearly none of which are acts of terror, let alone war. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Whistling in the graveyard. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Germany's awesome. Detroit has 298 murders and 119 times less people. The most populous state has 1,699 murders and 39 million people. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Complete nonsense indeed. Don't drop by just to make inflammatory incorrect statements. That's the sort of thing extremists thrive on. Fgf10 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Sure, it's a well-known fact that bomb-throwers consider Wikipedia a primary source of inspiration. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Stop embarrassing yourself. You know full well that I meant such hysterical fearmongering creates a climate of us-vs-them which only encourages terrorism. Can someone else please hat this latest instance of BBs trolling? Fgf10 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Or better yet, delete your typical personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

During the Falklands War, the United Kingdom invaded mainland Argentina with the aim of directing aerial bombing on its military airbases from the ground. But a British helicopter crashed in bad weather and the troops withdrew to Chile on foot.
Sleigh (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that, Sleigh? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The plan was Operation Mikado. The helicopter crash incident was during a scouting mission. Though that wasn't about bombing, but about taking out the Argentinian air force, specifically their Excocet capacity. Fgf10 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Someguy1221, not sure about your "that's where the oil is" claim. Pakistan and Afghanistan have been pretty hard hit with assymetric warfare and massive terrorism (terrorist attacks in Pakistan seldom even make the western media, even though I think there are many more terrorism deaths in Pakistan than in all of Europe?), and neither country has significant oil or other significant natural resources that I know of. Afghanistan's main export by value is probably Opium, so do illicit drugs count, from the occupier's perspective? Yes, if you believe conspiracy theories of U.S. government involvement in the drug trade? But control of Opium production is a massive issue to the insurgents, as it allows them to fund their operations. Perhaps their biggest funding source? Eliyohub (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Afghanistan was invaded because that's where the group that caused America's biggest terrorist attack by an order of magnitude was. Then Osama snuck into a neighboring country hoping he'd be safer there and the asymmetrical warfare continued till 2016. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Iraq was invaded by Bush, not Osama. But Pakistan's issues are largely of its own making, nurturing Islamists for decades to use against India and dominate Afghanistan, than seeing these very Islamists turn against them. The invasion of Afghanistan may not have helped, but when since independence has Pakistan enjoyed true political stability, as in, healthy robust institutions of governance, not strongmen and their armies keeping a superficial lid on things?

To be fair, America did the same, backing extremist Mujihadeen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, only to see them and their successors turn against America in a horrifying way a decade or two later. Eliyohub (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

In this day and age, it takes maybe five seconds to look up the natural resources of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both countries have significant mineral and oil wealth. Please do the bare minimum before responding on the reference desk. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The other issue of possible relevance to the changing nature of warfare is robotics, be it ground, sea, and air. Drones are probably the most-high profile of these - and they are not limited by any means to the United States. China is building a drone fleet too, I gather (can anyone source this?). But many other robotics are taking over battlefields - like, experts are asking, why does a tank need a human crew on board, as opposed to remote control? And if Pakistan should block land access for US forces into Afghanistan, simply ship supplies to just off the Pakistani coast and have unmanned planes or cargo helicopters deliver through Pakistan or Iran by air (forcing through airspace is much easier for the U.S., both militarily and politically, than forcing their way overland. The Soviet Union did not attempt to shoot down supply deliveries during the Berlin Airlift, though they no doubt had this capability). Even infantry roles - traditionally the most "human" of the jobs - are seeing robots push their way in. And once robots replace humans, war becomes a cheaper proposition, as human losses on the part of the invader (and the political ramifications of them) are significantly reduced. Eliyohub (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Henry Owner

Please help me find more information about a man named Henry Owner, who served as an American commercial agent in the Society Islands, mainly additional biographical information, his lifespan (birth and death dates) and other events of his life beside his 1858 to annex Raiatea to the US.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

See our article National Archives and Records Administration, one of their facilities would be the place I'd look first for such info. Not familiar with their systems, but you can ask them for help with this sort of request. Whilst I highly doubt they'd do your research for you, they could point you in the right direction as to which of their facilities might have this info, and how to search the databases. Eliyohub (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Country Gentleman: Jan-Jul 1857 (p. 68) says "Henry Owner of California" (not much but at least we know where he comes from). The National Intelligenser: January 1, 1861 - June 30, 1863 says: " Info received from Mr Geo F Seward the US Cnsl at Shanghai, of the death on Apr 23 last at that place, of Henry Owner, formerly U S Cnsl at the Society Islands, once a resident of Wash City". It's only a "snippet view" so I can't tell which year, but it's on p. 385, quite a way through the book, so 1862 would be an intelligent guess. It's a difficult name to search, you get lots of "John W. Henry, owner of the Florida Marlins" and "Howard Henry, owner of Howard Tire & Auto"... Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

People who love human being what are they called?

People who love human being what are they called? I mean that I see sometimes people who hates human beings (as ridiculous it is...) but loves animals. Do they have some professional term which describe such people? 93.126.88.30 (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It isn't ridiculous, some people no doubt hate all of humanity with a passion, but they'd usually be deemed to have a psychological problem (not sure what diagnosis? Would think some personality disorder-type phenomenon?).

Rapists and partner-bashers motivated by a burning hatred of the entire female half of humanity are also not all that uncommon (not all rapists fit this definition by far, but some do. Peter Dupas definitely fit this category). Again, I'm not sure what the psychological term is, but such crimes are certainly Hate crimes.

On the other hand, people who don't hate humanity, but just don't want to be around their fellow humans would be deemed Hermits. These exist, but from my psychology studies, every society sees them as unusual, not at all the norm. But you wouldn't necessarily deem them to have a mental problem. Schizoid personality disorder might apply to some of these individuals, I'd say.

As to love of all humanity, the hippie stereotype sort? I'm sure there's a term for it, but I don't know what it is. Any psych students able to help? Eliyohub (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Humanist might be a good word. Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that Humanists (in the modern sense) have concern for others without reference to religion. However, all the adherents of the Abrahamic religions are required to love their neighbours by the Ten Commandments. Jesus argued that any person that you came into contact with was your neighbour (see the Parable of the Good Samaritan), so any Christian who doesn't at least try to love other humans isn't a very good one. The Buddhist principles of Karuṇā, "the desire to remove harm and suffering from others" and Mettā, "the desire to bring about the well-being and happiness of others", form part of the four immeasurables. Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Philanthropist if you want Greek. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And what about those who hate human beings? (I checked out the term Androphobia but it doesn't fit my question) what about animal lovers (not in meaning of sexuality) but just about people who love animals more than the average person.93.126.88.30 (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Check out Misanthropy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That it's exactly what I looked for! Thank you 93.126.88.30 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Journalists interviewing Trump re his positions on domestic American Jewry's concerns

Hope this question is not mistaken as trolling or anti-semitic, I ask in good faith.

I am Jewish myself. There was a lot of focus of Trump's likely political position towards Israel. Now, I do not consider that irrelevant, but it missed what was, for me, an equal issue.

Have any Jewish journalists had the opportunity at any point to ask Trump questions regarding his positions on the issues of importance to the Jews of America? I mean domestic ones, not foreign policy ones.

Some of these issues are not uniquely Jewish (e.g. healthcare policy), so a Jewish journalist would not bother asking the question, it will likely have already been canvassed. And with "two Jews equals three opinions", American Jewry will hardly be united in what it wants from the President.

But let me give an example of a "Jewish" issue, of huge importance to the American religious Jewish community: Government support for private religious schools. Religious Jews do not want to send their kids to public schools - they very firmly want a "Jewish education", and this is expensive, even for the middle class, particularly given that orthodox Jews tend to have large families. Lessening the tuition burden (e.g. making tuition tax-deductible) would be a huge issue for the Orthodox Jewish community. Probably not strictly the President's jurisdiction (it would fall to congress to make any changes to taxation or budget policy), but neither was Obamacare (not a Presidential powers area either), and the President's views clearly have influence. (The Catholic church may share this concern about government tuition relief, but American schooling is generally far more public-oriented than say, Australia's education system, meaning those who want private education are expected to generally more or less foot the whole expense themselves. In my country, Australia, private schools get generous government support, controversial though this policy may be).

There must be other similar issues of domestic policy where Jewish concerns are particularly concentrated. Can anyone point me to any interviews with Trump by a Journalist from the "Jewish" media (Newspaper, blog, magazine, whatever), which canvassed domestic American Jewish concerns, and was not dominated by "Israel policy"? Eliyohub (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I would avoid using the word "Jewry", as it has a history of being used in antisemitic rants. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Does Eliyohub ever post a question that doesn't start with a caveat? I am tempted to start an SPI. μηδείς (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sikh Singaporeans

In the 1960s, Singapore had a campaign against long hair. How did this affect Sikh Singaporeans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.100.136.48 (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Added header. Fgf10 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't know, but knowing what i know of the Singaporean mindset, they probably wouldn't have objected to hair hidden under a turban or the like. It was probably more a crackdown aimed at the then-emerging Hippie movement (and its politically subversive nature), I would think? Or general messiness, which used to cause people to be occasionally rejected when attempting to enter Singapore. But I have no source, can anyone clarify? Eliyohub (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Can women have long hair? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the ban was aimed at males with "hair covering the ears", "hair reaching below an ordinary shirt collar", and/or "hair falling across the forehead and touching the eyebrows". It was intended to discourage "anti-social" youth cultures from imitating the "decadent West" - see Long hair in Singapore. As Sikhs wear their hair concealed, the ban seems not to have applied to them, although I can't find a reference to support that. The minority group which did run foul of the ban was the Malay Singaporeans and migratory Malay workers, who have a tradition of wearing long hair, according to this 1976 newspaper article. Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC).

Has there ever been warfare in a modern city?

I was looking at pictures of skylines and thinking... has there ever been a battle in a big, modern, gleaming, vertical city? The world outside New York and Chicago wasn't really built upwards during World War 2, and all the wars since then have been in less developed countries. Aleppo, Baghdad, and Donetsk all have some taller buildings, but has there ever been any warfare at all in a city/metro area with a building taller than fifty floors? Other than terrorist incidents, of course. --Golbez (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Paris, Eiffel Tower, 300 metres, WWII (surrendered without fighting really). Paris, WWI, was bombed by the Paris gun, Eiffel Tower wasn't hit. We're getting closer. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Eiffel Tower isn't a building! It's a tower! With only 3 floors! :P --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I presume you mean ground urban warfare, not aerial bombing? If not, how built up was Belgrade at the time of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia? Eliyohub (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Any kind of warfare, and that's a good suggestion. I was also thinking maybe Kuwait City, but I'm pretty sure it didn't get vertical til well after the Gulf War. Looks like the tallest building in Belgrade at the time was 35 stories, which is pretty big. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Not warfare, but for several examples of genuine non-terrorism sky-high horror, see http://web.archive.org/web/20160101071544/http://www.skyscraper city.com/showthread.php?t=1801571 . Remove the space I inserted in the URL, I have zero idea why the site is on the blacklist! I had to use internet archive, as the images seem to be broken in the current version. We had such an incident here in Melbourne, Australia. Thankfully, sprinklers and fast evacuation meant zero deaths. But the same problem has caused true horror in places like Dubai. Any interest? Or am I way off track? Eliyohub (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, clarified blacklisting reason: "this site is extensively used in mainspace despite being a forum and thus not suitable as a source of information". [24] Should be Ok for the refdesk, though, shouldn't it? Not a "reliable source" in itself per se, but the photos are amazing, and the page in question does quote media reports. Eliyohub (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing for articles is stricter than for the ref desk. As an example, there are often questions for which the best answer is a youtube video, which are not considered reliable for articles, but can be "reliable enough" to answer a question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've submitted a request to get the blacklisting modified so it only applies to mainspace, but it may take a few days to get attended to. Eliyohub (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the answer to your request is going to be that it's not possible. The blacklist system is pretty simple and doesn't allow much flexibility. I don't think even the whitelist allows for limits by namespace. Obviously wait until you get a response from one of the people deeply familiar with the system, but I just don't think it's possible. Ravensfire (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Turin was bombed in WW2. Allied soldiers came to capture the city from the Nazis but found it already liberated by a revolt that started 5 days before Hitler killed himself. The Mole Antonelliana has only 5 floors but it's 550 feet tall and was a museum. I looked at every pre-1946 building over 149 meters extant or destroyed and this was the tallest outside America (I suppose the database could be incomplete, who knows if the Tower of Babel story wasn't inspired by a real say 50 floor building and a battle happened to happen nearby before some natural disaster prevented it's 50+ floor height from entering reliable history?). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Before the Lebanese Civil War, Beirut was known as the "Paris of the East" and was then largely destroyed. I don't know the architectural facts, but it was full of high-rises. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Beirut Trade Center was the tallest building in Beirut during the war. But not quite the OP's criteria. It's only 40 floors, doesn't have enough height to fit 50 floors (459 feet) and was never even finished. The BTC was almost done though (when war stopped work). It managed to survive the war with some bomb damage. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, SMW. Where do you get this?!?!? In any case, the "floor" criterion seems arbitrary, and Beirut certainly counts as a world-class city worthy of consideration. Larry Niven even considered it an example of high civilization in his magnum opus, Ringworld. μηδείς (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Websites similar to peoplesmart that work for addresses in Canada

Are there any websites similar to Peoplesmart that work for addresses in Canada? I'm trying to find names of previous residents of a certain address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Canada 411 sort of does that, although it won't tell you who is a former resident and who is a current resident. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there ability to be a lawyer in many countries by study in one institute?

Is there ability to be a lawyer in many countries by study in one institute -in one country, or it's necessary to study in any country in its own institute in order to know the specific laws? I'm looking for information about an option of to be international lawyer, if something like that exists. I believe that there is a basic infrastructure between all the law system in the modern world (excluding religious countries) 93.126.88.30 (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid your last point isn't true. Apart from religious law, there are two distinct "basic infrastructures" - Common law systems (basically, everywhere that was once part of the British Empire) and Civil law systems (most other countries). See List of national legal systems for details. Tevildo (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

And note that international law is distinct, too, involving lawsuits from one nation to another, the International Criminal Court, etc. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

December 30

End of war in the future

request for speculation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Will warfare ever completely come to and End? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 06:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC) See above: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate" --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:2931:7BD1:EE28:2B6E (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Will warfare ever completely come to and End? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 06:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Most, if not all of this "user"'s questions are able to be considered violations of the ref desk guidelines. Here, we are asked to speculate. It seems rather clear from the user's edit history that we've got a sock-abusing troll. μηδείς (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources which predict the eventual end of warfare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Is There an End to Warfare? - Clarity Magazine". Clarity Magazine. 1 April 2015. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:2931:7BD1:EE28:2B6E (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)