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

August 21

Leaders at China's 1949 Founding

Could someone help identify who the bearded leader in this photo is?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mao_proclaiming_the_establishment_of_the_PRC_in_1949.jpg

--Gary123 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I found a description in Painters and Politics in the People's Republic of China, 1949-1979 (p. 81) of the painting of that event: The Founding of the Nation (a clearer reproduction of the painting is here), which lists those present (in the painting at least):

"Behind Mao are ranged in a line directed at Qianmen, the six Vice-Chairmen of the Central People's Government. The row proceeds from General Zhu De at far left to General Gao Gang at far right. Other notables in the front row are the imposing figure of Liu Shaoqi; Madam Song Qingling, widow of Sun Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen); Li Jishen; and the bearded Zhang Lan. Zhou Enlai... is prominent in the second row. Beside him are Dong Biwu... a man whose face is obscured.. an unidentified bearded man... and Guo Moruo ...Lin Boqu.

I'll leave you to sort through that lot. The source above says that the artist probably worked from unpublished photographs, as the published ones only show close-ups of "small groups of men". Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Another description of the lineup in the painting is at The Art of Modern China (p. 144) by Julia F. Andrews and Kuiyi Shen.

I think I'm going to vote for Li Jishen, described as "elderly and slightly rumpled" in this account, but I can't find a photo of him that matches his appearance in your 1949 photograph. At least he has the glasses. Alansplodge (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Li Jishen is the man with the short beard visible in some photos from the day (but not the one above). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the one in your photo is Zhang Lan, who was one of the Vice-Chairman (Vice-Presidents). The other long-bearded gentleman often seen in photographs of the founding ceremony is Shen Junru, first Chief Justice, but I think the one in your photo is Zhang Lan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at a few more photos (and the painting cited above), Zhang Lan was wearing a robe whereas the bearded gentleman in Gary123's photo is wearing a Sun Yat-sen jacket, so I think it must have been Shen Junru. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the "unidentified bearded man" mentioned above"... Alansplodge (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Are DC laws subject to presidential pardons?

The question below was entered on August 15. Thanks DOR (HK) for your reply. Unfortunately, I never got an answer to my final inquiry about pardons so I'm submitting this whole question again so that you'll understand its background. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

District of Columbia Authority

Constitutionally, do the President and/or the Supreme Court have anything to do with the District of Columbia when its engaged in acts that normally would fall on the state's governor and/or the legislature?

I know that DC derives its authority from the US Constitution, Article I "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States", Section 8 "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District..." But does that mean that the President and the Supreme Court are totally cut out?

For example, if someone is about to be prosecuted for simple burglary in DC and the prosecutors office must make a decision on whether or not the case is worth prosecuting, would the prosecutor's authority to make that decision come directly from the Congress, passed down through Washington's mayor, similar to any of the 50 states? Like: Legislature => Governor => Prosecutor is similar to Congress => Mayor => Prosecutor. Wouldn't this allow Congress, if they wanted, to overrule DC's prosecutors in the case of a simple burglary?

Or does the authority flow through the executive branch, so that the President can overrule the prosecutors office? Like this: Congress => President => Mayor => Prosecutors Office. Does this mean that the President has the power to interfere in a non-federal crime? Does he also have the power, for instance, to interfere in DC's budget? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As per our Washington, D.C. article, the Attorney General is elected to a four-year term (while not stated in so many words, this implies “by the voting residents of the District”). And, “Congress typically provides additional grants for federal programs such as Medicaid and the operation of the local justice system…” The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 put in place legal system reforms. Adult felon prisoners are under the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The District also runs misdemeanor Detention and Correctional centers. Parole is handled by the United States Parole Commission. As DC is under the authority of Congress, the President would not be involved in any legal decisions. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Are Presidential pardons plenary? I believe the President can pardon, even prospectively, anyone in DC convicted of "Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" (USC II.2). See Plenary power#Presidential pardons. Can anyone confirm? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is the official stances of the Department of Justice on these matters. --Jayron32 11:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Pertinent to this question, the President can pardon DC offenses if they are "in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court." In other words, it doesn't cover minor violations. Those would never be in the name of the United States and never held in Superior Court. A similar question I had long ago was along the lines of: "Is peeing in the reflecting pool in Washington DC a federal offense?" No. It is not. It is a minor district offense. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Despite the above link from the DOJ, my understanding is a little different. My understanding based on e.g. [1] [2] (see in particularly these links [3] [4]) [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] is that the justice department and president does deal with all violations of the DC Code, felonies or not. It is only municipal or city code violations that the mayor can pardon. Some feel the mayoral powers are wider but the justice department disagrees and AFAICT so far no mayor has actually tried to directly challenge that interpretation by granting pardons the justice department says they can't. (The other possibility would be for someone to ask the mayor, and for the mayor to write back saying the justice department says we can't and for them to then hope they can bring a court case.) And even for those offences the justice department recognises the mayor can pardon, I'm not sure that the justice department is generally of the view that the president cannot pardon such offences, more that the mayor can and they're not going to bother so ask the mayor.

Since this isn't legal advice, I'm obviously nor commenting on the specifics of peeing in the reflecting pool and in particularly how such offences are normally prosecuted but I'd note that [10] § 22–1321. Disorderly conduct says "It is unlawful for a person to urinate or defecate in public, other than in a urinal or toilet."

Practically sources like the earlier ones and [11] [12] (yes not the best sources but they don't seem that bad in these instances) make me think that it's unlikely you'll receive clemency for minor offences although it has happened for "stealing a chicken, joy riding, petite larceny" before so I guess it's not impossible. (This is probably one of the reasons why Justice Department site says what it says above. Just because the president has the power doesn't mean it's exercised and since that site seems to be for people seeking clemency there's little point suggesting to them they should apply for something which is never going to be granted.)

Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

But forgetting minor violations and ignoring that the Mayor can also order pardons and disregarding that most pardons go through a thorough application procedure, can the President, acting alone without the US Justice Department or even a lawyer, on a whim, legally pardon a felon in DC? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• this source cites the relevant laws, and is rather unambiguous in asking the question about DC residents and the right of the President to pardon them. --Jayron32 19:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I linked to the source earlier but forgot to mention it seems to claim that whatever the mayor's theoretically authority, it's never been exercised at all. (I'm not sure how different this is from other places though. How common is it for someone to receive some sort of clemency for a municipal offence?) It also claims that there's only been on pardon for a DC Code violation since 1990 and no commutations. This seems to contradict with some other sources, at least one of which claims it's confusion arising from the DOJ's poor release of information. But I'm wondering if these sources are simply not differentating between DC Code violations, and convictions in the federal court in DC as the Restoration of Rights Project source does. (It would seem the others sources should too since the reason this generally comes up is because of arguments the current system is unfair to those living in DC since so few pardons or commutations are issued. But this only applies to DC Code violations since "ordinary" federal crimes i.e. crimes which would be federal crimes whatever state they're in aren't the issue since whatever problems exist there should apply to any state and even if they don't, I don't think anyone is suggesting the mayor or whoeever should be allowed to pardon such crimes. One of their key arguments is that local crimes should be handled locally.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's about the subtle differences (or sometimes not so subtle) between practical law and statutory law. I'm pretty sure that by statutory law, at least as I read it (if the President's pardon power in DC is absolute) the President is allowed to pardon parking tickets in DC. As a practical matter, no, he isn't going to. --Jayron32 11:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW one possible limitation on the president's powers to pardon may be to pardon himself. For obvious reasons this came up a lot recently and it's clear not all legal scholars agree it's possible [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. So I don't think there is a definite answer to the OP's question. Of course, it's hard to imagine any president, and I still mean that, getting into this kerfuffle over something that's solely a DC Code violation. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yin and Yang

Do the Chinese believe that within Yin is contained some Yang and that within Yang is contained some Yin? The wikipedia states that they're believed to be interdependent complimentary and interconnected. Also are there any similar concepts in Western philosophy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 23:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Chinese people believe a variety of things, including Taoism. People (Chinese or not) who believe in the Tao, Yin and Yang, and so on, believe that Yin and Yang mix, forming the Sixiang (four-phases), which include Taiyang (great yang), Shaoyin (lesser yang, yang with some yin), Shaoyin (lesser yin, yin with some yang), and Taiyin (yin with some yang).

Yin and Yang are usually used in explaining the relationship between the Monad and Dyad in Pythagoreanism (for example).

Western Alchemy, as far back as Geber (Jabir ibn Hayyan) viewed "cold yet hot" sulfur and "wet yet dry" mercury (more properly "philosopher's sulfer" and "philosopher's mercury," of which the earthly elements are spiritually corrupted copies) as the two fundamental forces from which the qualities (hot, wet, cold, dry) that form the Classical elements (hot and dry fire, hot and wet air, cold and wet water, and cold and dry earth). Paracelsus added the stabilizing and material Philosopher's salt to the schema, which appears to fit with the Pythagorean Triad and the Hegelian dialectic.

The Hegelian dialectic has been compared with the interaction of Yin and Yang.

Some forms of Zurvanism held that Ormazd and Ahriman were not so much good and evil but order and chaos, and that their struggle would remain balanced throughout eternity.

Freemasonry's use of the Biblical symbols Boaz and Jachin has drawn comparisons to Yin and Yang, though I must admit I see that comparison more often in sources that UGLE would facepalm at. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I should clarify that the alchemists believed that the elements had a spiritual element to them (which lead some psychoanalysts, particularly Carl Jung to interpret alchemy as psychological). A human being (body, mind, and soul) was considered a Microcosm or a miniature copy of the universe (the Macrocosm). So, Philosopher's Sulfur and Philosopher's Mercury were regarded by alchemists as universal forces, not scattered and dead chemical substances. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Brimstone and quicksilver.
Sleigh (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Dualism is in Western philosophy too, but doesn't emphasize the idea that the two opposites are contained within each other and define each other. For example, the Christian concepts of God and the Devil don't hold that God is partially evil and the Devil is partially good, nor that the two need each other. StuRat (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The way up is the way down per Heraclitus. His "dualism" is way more in line with Taoism's -- two halves of a whole. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's turtles all the way down. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Best read Tao Te Ching, the "Bible" of Taoism, chapter 2 for the chinese concept of dualism in its original description. Since its a very basic philosophical concept ofcourse you can find it everywhere in philosophy - nomatter culture or place - tho id say no other teaching comes near the description in taoism. So again, best read the original source or to be exact a very close translation of it (unless you are able to read the chinese "letters"). --Kharon (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

August 22

PARTINERSHIP

We are from Tanzania we what to know how we able to be you are partner,because we are in non government organization which operate in Tanzania mainland this is in level of National.From the day which we got registration we haven't found fund from any organization and we have many work in Tanzania community.our organization are known as Foundation fo equable development,this deals whith disabilities person and all person who live in difficult life such as children,HIV/AIDS,Elders,Youth act.--41.75.221.160 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome. It sounds like you need to contact the Wikimedia Foundation, the people who run Wikipedia. You can get their contact information on this page. All the best with your fundraising and your organization. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Canadian equivalent of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Is there a Canadian equivalent to this? I used to say to my wife" I plead the fifth" to which she replied "You are not American." 198.72.29.37 (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This site [18] says that it is understood as part of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states: "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." But that's not really explicit, and this article [19] from the Toronto Star is of interest: "Right to remain silent not a given, court says", citing a 2007 Supreme Court of Canada decision. So, it's not as clear cut in Canada as it is in the U.S. But I am not a constitutional lawyer. --Xuxl (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that the application of "pleading the fifth" in this circumstance is probably more closely related to Section 11(c): "Any person charged with an offence has the right...not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence". That is to say, you can't be compelled to testify against yourself. (Though there's an interesting twist in Section 13, which seems to indicate that you can be required to give self-incriminating testimony at someone else's trial—but if you do so, that testimony can't be directly used against you.)

That's my interpretation, anyway, with the caveat that I am most certainly not a Canadian lawyer (nor an American one). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, saying "I plead Section 11(c)" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Our article on this is at Right to silence#Canada. Other parts of the article give a helpful comparison of the position in the other major common law jurisdictions. If the situation arose in a domestic context as described, in Australia I would just say "Privilege!", short and snappy. I don't know if that would make sense in Canada. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I, for one, would have no idea what you meant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, I should have said, in a domestic context as described where the other participant in the conversation is familiar with Australian law... Cultural context obviously matters. If someone said to me, "I take the fifth", I would be a confused as I don't know US constitutional provisions by number. I would think, is it the guarantee of free speech, or the right to bear arms, or something else? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant where the other participant in the conversation "is a person familiar with technical legal phraseology", e.g. a lawyer. I am reasonably familiar with Australian law, as I am required to be as a citizen. Having worked for governments most of my life, I have a better than average understanding of the law-making process and the machinery of government. But I am not a lawyer, and your shouting "Privilege!" at me would elicit at best a blank stare. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, knowing whatever portion of the law is necessary for your work might be knowing "Australian law" in your work context, but I think being familiar with "Australian law" acontextually would suggest at least a passing familiariity with one of the basic principles of criminal law. But I appreciate we are looking at this from different perspectives here.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yesss...ish. Conversational context also matters. If you asked me if I ate all the cookies and I said, "I plead the Fifth!", I assume you'd know that it had nothing to do with free speech or bearing arms. Likewise if you were cross-examining me during trial. Being closer to the USians, most Canadians know at least some of the amendments by number, just from cultural assimilation. Matt Deres (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Lots of words enter the lexicon and become divorced from their cultural context, or are understood as idiom in contexts where such idiom doesn't make sense. People still tape shows using a digital video recorder. People still dial phone numbers (on phones with no dials). This website notes that the idiom "dime a dozen" is known outside of the U.S. despite the coin known as a dime not existing there. --Jayron32 12:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

It is infact a standard rule of law in western civilisations and as such it is commonly implemented simply as a written law, which a (US-)Constitution ofcourse basically is too, tho in a more fundamental form as declaration of state.

Therefor, the only thing special here its the unique american choice to implement this into its constitution instead of writing/implementing it into some "lower" law. I believe this counts for everyone as long as he is in the US, including "non-americans" ofcourse, so your wife was, lets put it diplomatic, simply "off topic" with her reply.

Its maybe a smart move to counter your wife with diplomacy next time by citing John F. Kennedys famous historic claim "Ich bin ein Berliner" and therfor simply claim for yourself "I am an American" in a similar sense next chance you see fit. --Kharon (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Only if your wife is a jelly doughnut. --Jayron32 13:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Ich_bin_ein_Berliner#.22I.27m_a_doughnut.22_urban_legend (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It isn't true. But it is funny. --Jayron32 10:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Choosing a Canadian, she is probably a democrat, so Kennedy might score well for your marriage status. --Kharon (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how. The New Democratic Party is a social democratic party, whereas the Democratic Party (United States) is a social liberal party. They come from very different economic philosophies. I'm not sure Kennedy would fit well in the NDP philosophy, and if his wife is part of the NDP, I'm not sure Kennedy's political philosophy fits either. Kennedy, were he Canadian, would be a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, given his political philosophy. --Jayron32 13:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Pleading the fifth" still works in Canada. Just explain that you've consumed a fifth of whiskey and are thus unable to form sentences. StuRat (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

StuRat that doesn't work as that's called a 26er. See #7. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

August 23

What is the name of the Sci-Fi book where Earth's continents are planets

Earth has been conquered millennia ago but the conquerors only wanted the planet, not the people so they moved the people to other planets and named them after the continents. These planets are near each other but after all this time the inhabitants don't know their origin. The story is about a hero trying to overthrow the empire (if I remember correctly). They have something like n-space where you can store things and retrieve them from anywhere else.

I read this years ago but can't remember the title, author, or even the publisher. Any help is appreciated!

Thanks. Boston Cowboy (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

This would fit better at the Entertainment desk (or at scifi.stackexchange.com). I hope you find an answer! —Tamfang (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

He already asked on stackexchange. No answer, though. No longer a penguin (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Politicians at Third GECF summit

I need your help identifying some politicians from the Gas Exporting Countries Forum. Since now only Evo Morales and Abdelmalek Sellal have been identified on this photo. The guy at the right could be Robert Mugabe?--Alexander Hug (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Does Third GECF summit help any? --Jayron32 18:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, but only to identify Teodoro Obiang.--Alexander Hug (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Not only. Abdelmalek Sellal is far left Gem fr (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gem fr: IMHO Morales is hugging Abdelmalek Sellal, and the man at the far left is Abdallah Salem el-Badri.--Cloned sheep (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

considering the hair and size of Abdelmalek Sellal (relative to Barack Obama), i agree with you about him.

The far left guy has different hair than the guy on the picture of Abdallah Salem el-Badri, so either it is not him, or the latter is old enough for him to have lost hair. Gem fr (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The man in the brown robes on the far right in the back is Mohammed Bin Saleh Al-Sada. hereuhhlive (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

any of them appear in Getty's set of images from the meeting? All are captioned. [20] 70.67.222.124 (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Were there things besides US road signs that switched to metric/"bilingual" then "regressed"?

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I seem to recall weather forecasts having both in the 1970's, then going back to just °F. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

There are still bilingual road signs in the U.S. In Northern New England and Northern New York State, for example, there are high concentrations of French speakers, and local road signs are often in French and English (and occasionally just French!). Signs welcoming people to New Hampshire say "Bienvenue Au New Hampshire" as far south as the Massachusetts Border: [21]. Here's an Exit/Sortie sign in Plattsburg, New York: [22]. Here's another advertising lodging (hebergement): [23]. From the other end of the country, here's a sign in French in Louisiana: [24]. Here is a Spanish language sign for a Snow Emergency Route in York, Pennsylvania. A warning sign in Los Angeles. Here are Chinese street signs in Manhattan. So, the thesis that bilingual signs in the U.S. don't exist anymore doesn't hold up. --Jayron32 11:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The two languages were metric and customary or imperial. In quotation marks because those aren't real languages. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

A number of major league baseball parks posted meters along with feet when there was somewhat of a push toward metric. Most of them have long since reverted, except Toronto, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• If you want to know more about the general topic of metrication in the United States, and its history, Wikipedia has an article titled Metrication in the United States which is a good starting point for your research. --Jayron32 12:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Have you heard the joke about the 12cm pianist? μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I owe you one LOL xD Gem fr (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

August 24

Key Art - please let me know

Please let me know. Did this style exist before now? Where? When? By Whom?

Rough definition of key art to me - 'key art' assumes there is a lock to the art and the artwork is meant to be hung up where others who do not know the key will view the artwork. (like code in view of all... cryptography test like I suppose - 'key art' is meant to be displayed in front of everyone, but the 'key art' works(the lock works) when before knowledge of the key the viewer can't get the level or levels the key reveals - 'key art' is at it's perfection when after the key is seen, the viewer is like 'why didn't I see that'). The ordering in some 'key art' is necessarily very precise. - invented in 2017 for fine arts, I guess... art show pic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.181.141 (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean esoteric artworks, with information canceled to the profane but that initiates can understand? Or do you mean major art, the kind of artwork that need the viewer to have knowledge and understanding of previous work and symbolic framework (eg: Piet Mondrian works post 1921), as opposed to minor art (readily sensible to laymen, eg: pop song)? Or something else? key art exists only as a redirect to "film poster", and i am not sure it is needed of its own.

Gem fr (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The OP seems to mean something analogous to a Roman à clef, but in visual form, not verbal... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure. I specifically mean that a story is locked inside the artwork which the key reveals. Also, I specifically mean an artwork that is designed for gallery display, not for private initiates. — Preceding

This painted art style I linked is like Esoteric Architecture... multiple pieces acting as a single piece, meant to be displayed publicly, but the full meaning is to a limited audience. Ahhh! Thank you. I really appreciate your help. Umm... so if it's like Esoteric Architecture, meant for a public display and not meant for private display like esoteric literature... what style is it called?

Roman à clef is right. Just looked at that. Exactly. What's in front is many things and though they might true and needed, what's inside is either what's important or, in a way, the real foundation of the piece.

Thank you one more time. Roman à clef, wow, who would have thought there was a name for it. I never saw what I did in art... and that was because it is done in writing. You all are amazing. Thank you so very much, and thank you AnonMoos.

unsigned comment added by 184.167.181.141 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Historical unemployed

The article unemployment could help from some expansion on the its history section. I'd like to find some sources about how societies dealt with 'people who don't work' (or whatever name they called it). Can't it be that the problem just started to exist in the 16th century England? Previous societies like Rom were pretty urbane, couldn't they have developed some sort of people who were looking for work? --Hofhof (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It depends on how you define concepts like "employment", "job", and of course, "unemployment". Clearly, people without the means to support themselves have existed as a problem for societies for thousands of years, this article briefly discusses unemployment in the context of Ancient Rome. However, the concept of Wage labor as the primary means of economic activity and organization of the workforce really didn't happen until the 16th century. Previously, people worked in trades that were organized by guilds, if they weren't involved in subsistence agriculture (which was sizable). Of course, any society has people who don't have adequate employment to support their own needs, but the modern concepts are based on the modern, urban, western, capitalist-socialist economy, and without such an economy, the concepts don't necessarily apply in the same way. --Jayron32 16:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of information about unemployment in Ancient Rome, e.g. this Prezi presentation: The Fall of Rome- Unemployment. It is noted here that slave labor on latifundia contributed to unemployment. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:DD82:ED86:1C17:11D2 (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Heated discussion about the voracity of the prezi.com source

slavery contributed to unemployment? LOL! I guess slaves willingly would had left their work to do to others if they had any choice ;-) slaves were considered some sort of machinery or beasts, so they do not really belong in work force, but rather in capital and machinery. If machines contributes to unemployment is matter of political (rather than economical) argument. Gem fr (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Slaves might not be considered part of the workforce, but they displaced unskilled workers, especially on farms. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:DD82:ED86:1C17:11D2 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC) So did horses and ox, tools, machines, roads, aqueducts etc. Did this caused unemployment? Besides, be aware that slaves were not unskilled, actually Gem fr (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Yes, slaves contributed to unemployment. Your incredulity doesn't make any difference. Please read the source material from people who study these things. --Jayron32 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) You obviously KNOW things, don't you? strange enough, because, if you had applied your own advice, you shouldn't be so sure. Xenophobes know that cheap labor (migrants or foreign low wage worker) cause unemployment, economists say otherwise. Gem fr (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC) What I know or don't is irrelevant to the operation of this page. This is not the "Tell people what I know" desk. This is the reference desk. The role of all people responding to questions is to provide references, sources, and reading material for the OP. --Jayron32 13:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Well, then, don't write slaves contributed to unemployment as if were the truth. The better you could say is some source says that slaves contributed to unemployment... which would only discredit the source, btw. You'll surely find some piece of ... paper that pretend that women's working created man's unemployment, that won't turn it into truth. Now, you have a point, i surely don't always provide ref when it would help. I tend to forget source more than information, i remember that slaves were not unskilled, but i would have a hard time remembering were i read that one. Should i refrain to tell this information? I don't think so. Gem fr (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC) A source that I had already provided above stated that. Also, several sources by other people also said that. You didn't seem to want to read those sources. So I summarized it for you. You continue to make assertions, but have not yet provided any reading material for the OP. --Jayron32 16:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Now that you point it, the fact is, there it just nothing worth reading in this whole part of thread, my contribution being limited "do need read this BS" -- which is much more useful that this old debunked thesis that horse, ox, machines, migrants or women's work create unemployment for free male worker, wether WASP or Roman Plebeian Citizen. Gem fr (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Whether slaves were seen as machinery or beast is indifferent to its effect on unemployment. They functioned like people and so displaced low skills workers. Its economic effect is comparable to people working below the minimum wage to people asking to work for a minimum wage. If you let companies get away with it, they'll pay less. Obviously, slaves would not be allowed to leave such a deal. B8-tome (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC) No they didn't functioned like free people. They were bought, then the owner incurred very low maintenance cost (bad shelter and food), that the very opposite of paying people for a job (no initial cost). And they were not interested in doing a good job, resented the owner for obvious reason, and worked accordingly (this was observed in pre-civil war USA, the border between a slaver and non slaver state literally showed in the field). Gem fr (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Jayron didn't say they functioned like free people. He said they functioned like people. By which I presume he means filled the same role as a paid worker would (rather than a different role, as a machine would), but at a lower cost. If you can force people to work for you for less than they would willingly, that is presumably going to reduce the job opportunities (or at least the expected wages) of the free population. Iapetus (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC) It was B8-tome, not Jayron, for what it matters. "presumably", indeed, you said it all. Just like you might have said that horses and ox, machines, tools, migrant etc. "presumably" reduce the job opportunities (or at least the expected wages) of the free population ... but there is little evidence of such effect. And, please, use your brain: if you can afford a paid worker for some work, you still can if some slave magically pop out of nothingness. Will you refrain from using the saved resource (the money you don't have to pay anymore), or will you make some good use of it, either paying the worker for some other or supplementary work or buying some stuff you couldn't afford previously (that a paid worker will have to do)? Not only the slave won't reduce your ability to pay a worker, it will increase it, thanks to the product of your exploitation of the slave. Moreover, be aware that you nowadays have mechanical slaves working for you (machines doing work like washing, cloth-making, heating, etc., that would had required people work in Roman time) ; if they disappeared, will you hire free people to do their work? no you won't, you couldn't afford Gem fr (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Let's say we have a cotton farmer. In a world where slavery was illegal, he'd have to hire many workers to harvest the cotton, as would all his competitors. However, where slavery was legal, that becomes the only practical way to farm cotton, as the increased per unit cost of harvesting cotton with paid workers would mean he would be unable to sell cotton at competitive prices (unless he could manage to sell it for more as "slave free" cotton, but this might cause his neighbors to attack him for threatening the institution of slavery). So, what would a cotton farmer who uses slaves do with excess money he had saved ? There are many possibilities, from saving it for a bad harvest year, buying more land, building a bigger house, to buying more slaves. But hiring free men to pick the cotton would not be among them, as this would still make the per-unit costs too high. StuRat (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC) all of the options you mentioned (more land, bigger house, more slave) involve giving the save money to free men in exchange for some work they did (well, slaving WAS a work, as unsavory as it was...). Think of it: slaves would had none of the money, it had, one way or the other, to go into free men hand for their work. For instance, Railroad were developed in the south because of cotton export. free people couldn't be in the cotton fields, they had to be railroad employees (not a much more qualified job), which they couldn't be if that had a job in the cotton field. Which was better for them? Gem fr (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Rather minimal free labor would be needed. Buying new land didn't even require a real-estate agent, if they just made an offer to their neighbor. The bigger house would no doubt involve major slave labor, in hauling materials, cutting lumber to length, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC) I didn't say anything on the matter. I directed people to read some references, from which they could perform research and arrive at their own conclusions. Anything I did say was to restate the source material, for those who didn't want to read it. --Jayron32 12:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC) My "incredulity"? I was simply responding to Gem fr (per sources -- yes, I did read them) Sanctimony is not helpful. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:DD82:ED86:1C17:11D2 (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC) I wasn't talking to you. I was speaking to a different person, as you can tell by the way I chose to indent my post. --Jayron32 01:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC) for the record, I don't care about your "sanctimony" ;-) However, i think (my 2 cents), that the reaction of 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:DD82:ED86:1C17:11D2 could teach you something Gem fr (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Your account was created 13 years ago, but you've only really been active on it since a couple of months ago. And if you continue down this path, your summer activity here is likely to end in a fall. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC) I have been active all along the whole period, actually, and even before. I may sometime not be a pleasant person, but that never went further than the occasional argument in talk page. Except for bullies. This account was created only to try and stop some people bulling another contributor, I didn't felt any need before. I don't like bullying and bullies don't like me, either, but so far they tried but didn't managed to hurt me, have my account banned or anything like that; some of them did got some sanctions (one of my favorite was, an administrator auto-banning himself for his bad deeds). So, fear not. Gem fr (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Here, it is you who looks like the bully. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Perhaps the rest of this conversation would be better conducted on your respective talk pages. Alansplodge (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC) I don't want him sullying my talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyhow, a reference for medieval European unemployment is at Life and Work in Medieval Europe by P. Boissonade. It's an ebook, so no page number; hopefully Google Books will let you see the link above, if not I'll try to pick out the bones for you (basically, unemployment meant that you had to go begging, maybe even in another country). Alansplodge (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Effectiveness of prostitution law in Sweden

Has the criminalization of buying sex instead of selling sex been effective at reducing prostitution, or have prostitution levels in Sweden stayed approximately the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Second question:What effect has the law had on crime rates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

First question: definitely yes. There's still some prostitution, and you can still even see some street prostitution . But there are no macro brothels like in Germany with 'fuck as much as you want for 100 euros' or half naked young girls in a row and a legal pimp pushing the clients to pick one.

Going to prostitutes is also stigmatized. If you buy it, better hide. You can still travel to Denmark or Germany, which is out of reach for many (so less demand). The same applies to pimps, who are not seen as business owners.

Contrary to Germany, you can't obviously see sexist advertisement of prostitution services, where women are called 'girls' gets compared to a 'sweet fruit' or 'obedient bitch'.

Second question: kind of tricky. Sweden has revamped how to measure and define sexual attacks. So there are more reports of sexual assault. If you are right wing, you can blame the immigrants. If you are pro-prostitution, you can blame the ban on buying sex. I assume it has remained constant though.

Notice that the Swedish model is not just the ban, but a whole concept for reducing human trafficking.

Comparison between the abolitionist Swedish model and the permissive German [25]:

--B8-tome (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

What about actual research studies investigating my two questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 00:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

So the Swedish model hasn't simply driven prostitution underground, it's actually been effective. Uncle dan is home (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it can't just drive prostitution underground since clients still have to find prostitutes. Detectives can follow the same path as clients to find prostituted people. Clients of prostitutes also expect to get 'fresh meat' so the pimps have to be dynamic and offer always new women (and girls and so on) and try to find new clients. That makes it difficult to hide.B8-tome (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• The problem with any sort of criminalization of victimless crimes, even if it is lopsided, is that it strips one party of legal recourse. The John can't call the cops and say the prostitute robbed him or the pimp beat her up. They have just switched whom the pimps will victimize, and incentivized the women to become thieves. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, the Nordic model generally makes pimping difficult because it too is illegal. This doesn't prevent it although it is different from an all criminal regime since it means that the sex worker can theoretically at least, report the pimp without fear of legal prosecution. (Whatever fear they may have of the pimp.) And so also theoretically at least, the john can anonymously report the pimp not for beating them up but for pimping without fear of the sex worker being prosecuted (assuming they care about such things), whether or not anything comes from it. I mention this because as I said below, one of the concerns with the Nordic model is because it makes pimping or providing any sort of service like a security for a sex worker risky, even people who may be provide useful services without exploiting the sex worker in any way are at risk. I'm fairly sure some would suggest this means exploitative pimps are more likely because they're the ones who will be willing to run the legal risk. Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Nordic model is not just about criminalizing the johns. It's a full fledged effort targeting human trafficking, offering exit strategies to prostitutes, stigmatizing the buying of sex, and not perpetuating gender stereotypes, etc. It leads to a lower demand eventually.

Although I believe that what happens between two consenting adults is no one else's business, that's not how prostitution as industry works. It basically incentivizes violence against woman. In its most common forms is far away of a victimless crime..B8-tome (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think B8-tome linked to what they intended to link to but we do have a Prostitution in Sweden article which is quite extensive including both criticism (e.g. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]) and support of the law there with references often based at least in part on research, some fairly significant depending on your POV (e.g. the UN). For more viewpoints specifically critical of the Nordic model for dealing with prostitution [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]/[36]. Of particular significant are perhaps [37]/[38] [39] (see a media report [40]) since one is The Conversation (and based at least in part on this research [41]) and the other based on Amnesty International report. I also include [42] which while not directly criticising the Nordic model does discusses perceptions of the law in New Zealand which has decriminalised prostitution. (Although it also mentions isolation as one factor which may have reduced trafficking and this isn't something easily replicated.)

To avoid arguments I won't say too much, but they often discuss issues such as re-enforcing paternalistic attitudes about women and their bodies as well as problems the laws either create or at least don't prevent for sex worker (mostly women) in their dealings with governmental bodies (including the police), landlords, security agencies, clients and others including some mention of specific problems for foreign sex workers. (I.E. This includes the problem sex workers have in finding places to live and work, as well as in hiring security.) And of course related to both of those factors, that the laws effectively don't allow women who wish to be sex workers to choose do so i.e. they don't have agency over their own bodies; and also the problem of how the laws are implemented. I'm not sure if these sources mention this in particular, but I've heard people bring up cases such as where an 18 year old son was charged because he was supported by his sex worker mother. (I wouldn't be surprised if you can find similar cases where e.g. a partner male or female temporarily supported by their sex worker partner while out of a job finds themselves in legal trouble remembering that even with a generous welfare system it isn't that uncommon for partners to support each other when needed.)

For these reasons and more, many of the sources note that sex workers themselves are often critics of the Nordic model, generally advocating for decriminalisation. (This of course gets back to the earlier point on paternalistic although I'd note that in a fairly egalitarian country like Sweden it's both men and women who are developing the laws.) The Conversation source, and possibly others, also takes aim at the claims of a reduction in sex work, suggesting the way the numbers have been derived are flawed. The Conversation source also suggests it's a myth that there's one singular Nordic model because the laws and implementation vary so much between the 3 Nordic countries that even have laws which could be considered the Nordic model. (Other Nordic countries didn't actually follow the Nordic model at the time of publication.) Various sources also question the claim that there are Nordic model, or even the particular example of Sweden really provides much of an exit strategy, or that it has improved gender stereotypes (the later gets back in part to the earlier point on paternalistic attitudes). And to be clear, this also means they challenge any suggestion it lead to a reduction in the stigmatising of sex workers (whatever effect it may or may no have had on the perception of buyers of sex).

I would mention that implementation is an issue whatever course a country chooses. For example one often cited example is that while sexual assault may be a crime and a sex worker can theoretically approach authorities without fear of prosecution to report one under a decriminalised regime, it doesn't mean that case will be taken seriously, i.e. there's still a risk the attitude that as a sex worker 'she's asking for it' or 'he paid for it so it's fine' will prevail.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

One final comment is that besides the direct effect on the ability of sex workers to go about their work, some of the sources claim that the laws have an indirect effect of suppressing wages for sex work and so can actually make exit strategies more difficult in yet another way. Some also note that human trafficking and worker exploitation isn't unique to prostitution even if it may be common there, so suggest more general measures are more effective or at least those problems aren't a reason to criminalise it when there isn't exploitation or the people involved took sufficient care to try and avoid exploitative situations. Here in NZ while exploitation of sex workers is a concern, the big areas of concern at the moment tend to be foreign students and migrant workers particularly in the horticultural and food service industry. (These people can't legally work in the sex industry.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

captain obvious told me that the law created a new crime out of a previously legal behavior, so the law increased crime rate in that respect. He added that, now the trade is underground, involved persons have to resolve their disputes extra-judiciary by threat or use of extra-legal force, which is probably also a crime ("probably" because i am not versed in Swedish law).

As for its effect on other crimes, it would need to answer the question "how crime would be without these laws?", which is just impossible. However, one of the reason cops want to have some control above prostitution (not ban it utterly, just have control, which is quite different) is that pimps are not good guys, and usually deal in other crimes (drugs, robbery, etc.).

Gem fr (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

not helping the OP find references to answer their question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you have any sources for that information, so I can read more about it? --Jayron32 10:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC) pimp Gem fr (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC) note that i just added the link to pimp in section above, it wasn't in the original state of the section Gem fr (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC) I'm afraid that article doesn't mention Sweden. Can you show us where you read your above information, so we can all read it ourselves? It's clear you didn't read it in the article you linked. --Jayron32 12:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC) It's clear you are just looking for some polemic, I won't play your fool game Gem fr (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC) I'm looking for the opposite of polemic. I'm looking for a reliable, scholarly source. What you've done, by posting a long, unreferenced, diatribe is polemic. I've just politely asked you to provide reliable sources for your information. If you can't do at least that bare minimum, there's no use for your contributions here. --Jayron32 13:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Now you admit why you are looking for polemic: you want me out of here. Fair enough, that's easy : i don't show up when i don't feel i can add something useful, so just make good answer and you won't see me. Pretending looking for reference, when you actually don't is the chief polemic tool, as you know very well, not the opposite of polemic as you pretend, and this kind of trick won't work. You didn't care for "reliable, scholarly source" when you brutally stated that "jewish lobby" was a creation of antisemitic people for the purpose of antisemitism, or that "slaves cause unemployment", or when you disregarded that pimp has an extended section beginning with A large percentage of pimps in the United States are also documented gang members etc. which is all the information i brought (the rest was only tautological stuff that i felt somehow forgotten, but useful nonetheless). Gem fr (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC) I'm not particularly interested in whether you stay or go. If you simply provide people with references and reading material, no one will bother you. --Jayron32 15:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC) can you provide a reliable source for both of your statements? Gem fr (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC) I had already provided both of those references. Just because it was inconvenient for you to read them, doesn't mean I didn't. Also, this has nothing to do with helping the OP answer their question. --Jayron32 16:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Yesterday I thought Gem fr (talk · contribs) had gotten up on the wrong side of the bed. Today too. Looks like a trend. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC) I don't like being flattered, but, thanks anyway Gem fr (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC) You might be confusing "flattered" and "flattened". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Our article does offer info on some who claim violence has increased as a result of the law (but there's a lot of dispute over this), but not whether this violence is because of attempts to resolve disputes. It also suggests the number of convictions is fairly low albeit with quite a lot of reports. So while I guess you could say the number of crimes in that specific area has gone up (since there were none before the law), I don't think it's possible to comment on the effects on the overall crime rate (and our article also suggests there's a lot of dispute over the effects) given that it may have affected the crime rate in other areas. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It can only work well if you first adopt a Nordic-style social system, see e.g. here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

heart health awareness and U.S. Olympic athletes

I saw quite a few U.S. Olympic athletes wearing red dresses for The Heart Truth. They included Kristi Yamaguchi, Nastia Liukin and Gabby Douglas. Were there any other American gymnasts and figure skaters involved in that type of thing?2604:2000:7113:9D00:A4BE:ACF:DAF0:3697 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

UK Transport industry complexity

In the U.K., are all the transport industries as complex as each other? Or are some more complex than others? How would you rank the main ones in complexity - highways, railways, aviation, maritime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.112.134 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to interpret the word 'complexity' here. Depending of this, it might be one or the other industry. Aviation for example might be technically more complex, but it needs less physical routes (like roads and rails) to operate. There are definitely more asphalted ways than rails, since all places connected by rail are also connected by roads (I believe), and there are streets on the top of it. --B8-tome (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Every developed Nation has a complex transport system and industry. For example our Article Canals of the United Kingdom will actually show you how very complex the transport industry in the UK once was. Compared to that today's transport systems and industries seem "simple". Additionally now most transport systems are international so you can not compare national systems anymore today. --Kharon (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not? You can for example compare the size of the railway network in the UK against the railway network in Bhutan quite easily. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The British railway system was the product of unrestricted capitalism in the 19th century, if there was a chance of making money somewhere, somebody would build a rail line there. In France and Gernmany, railways were considered to be part of the military infrastructure and routes were often planned by the government, profitable operation being a secondary consideration ("“Build no more fortresses, build railways,” said Helmuth von Moltke the Elder [43]). In the UK in the 1960s, there was a somewhat arbitrary attempt by the government to rationalise the system, the Beeching cuts, but it ended up pleasing nobody. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

When we're talking UK land transport, you can definitely compare it with that of other countries; the UK rail network established in the 19th century had no linkages at all with other networks until the 1990s, aside from cumbersome things like rail ferries. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Russia (and I believe some other countries) deliberately chose a different rail gauge to their neighbours, to prevent it being used by an enemy if there was an invasion. It came in handy in 1941. Alansplodge (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I think worldwide transport in general is a very complex industry. It is an industry with safety at its core, is heavily regulated, political and is a complex system of interdependencies. 82.132.230.178 (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

August 25

COIN/atrocity

Hello,

I'm looking for in-depth sources (books, journal articles, etc.) that deal with the interplay of counterinsurgency and atrocity/genocide. Thanks very much for your help, GAB^gab 15:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Finding out a reddit user's personal identity

How can one find out a reddit user's personal identity? I'm not asking because I want to do it, I'm just wondering. Uncle dan is home (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You can ask them. There are other ways, but I don't know if you can be trusted with that kind of information, and what you are going to use it for. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Abolishing slavery in the US

This morning, I went through each of the "slavery in [state]" articles for US states that were unambiguously considered free states in the lead-up to the Civil War, i.e. everything that didn't secede to form the Confederacy, minus the border states. I noted that New Jersey was the only one in which really-small-scale slavery continued until the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution ended it entirely. However, New Jersey was one of several states in which slavery was abolished gradually; the typical route seems to have been a law providing that all slave children born after a certain date were to be free from birth, and thus letting slavery literally die out as those born before this date aged and died. Rhode Island was typical of this route, prohibiting the enslavement of everyone born on 1 March 1784 or later; as a result, there were only five slaves remaining in 1840, and conceivably slavery would have been legal there until the 13th Amendment, had any one of these five lived to a great age.

Now for the question — in how many states did slavery get outlawed gradually (whether by the Rhode Island route or something similar) and eventually die off before the Civil War, but without a formal legal end to the institution before 1865? To qualify, obviously a state would have needed to have legal slavery in the first place (excluding Ohio, for example), it couldn't have had a specific end date (excluding Illinois, where slavery ended in 1825, for example), and it couldn't have had slavery "actively" going in the 1860s as in the Southeast. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that this is just one mechanism by which slavery could be phased out. Others include mandatory freeing of slaves when the master dies, "commuting" slavery to a limited term, as in indentured service, etc. Some combo of these methods could also be used. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course. I'm asking about any mechanism that didn't have a defined end date; if beginning in 1800 your slaves were automatically freed when you died or you sold/donated/etc. them, that's workable, since if a young master had young slaves in 1800, it would have been easy for slavery to have lasted long past 1865. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)