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

June 24

Identical twins with significantly different lifespans

Which identical twins had significantly different lifespans? So far, I could think of William Frankland. He is still alive right now at age 107 while his identical twin brother died in 1995 at the age of 83. That's a 24+ year lifespan difference between them in spite of the fact that they are identical twins and thus share the same DNA. Futurist110 (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

List of twins lists about 17 who died shortly after birth, for example, Liberace (twin died as an infant), Elvis Presley (twin brother died at birth), Ed Sullivan (twin brother died as an infant), William Randolph Hearst (twin died as an infant). I don't know which, if any, of those were identical. Their articles might say. I don't think DNA has much to do with it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

What about excluding those who died during infancy or childhood? Futurist110 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

same DNA won't prevent different exposure to accident, disease, etc.Gem fr (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This isn't uncommon. This study analyzed twin pairs in the US military (who had both survived the war), with dates of birth between 1917 and 1927. Even though fraternal twins did have greater variation in lifespan, both types of twins had gaps between death dates. If I'm reading it right, for pairs where only one twin had died by age 63-74, the gap was already on average 15 years. Here's another example that found an average 10-year difference in life expectancy for identical twins. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

One famous example is Norris McWhirter and Ross McWhirter, founders of the Guinness Book of Records. The book used to note that they "are not only identical twins, they have almost identical biographies"—until Ross was murdered at age 50. Norris lived to 78. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The McWhirters crossed my mind, but is the OP including death by something other than natural causes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

2026 Winter Olympic host city

What hour will it be (Eastern Time) when I hear the host city is known?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't get an answer in time. Links for completionists: 2026 Winter Olympics and Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A. H. Barrett

I have several original art works by A H Barrett and was wondering if anyone knows the value of these. A google search only finds others asking the same question. Any assistance would be deeply appreciated. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Best idea is to look for publicly listed auctions of his work, either in the news or in auctionhouse websites, and see if the sale price is given. If you can find auction houses or auction sites that have sold his work, but not the price, you can contact the curators to ask what his work sells for. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the "traditional" Anglo-French animosity?

A recent after-dinner conversation with some friends has divided us into two camps. Some maintain that the intermittent hostilities between English and French (which basically ended with the defeat of Napoleon) began with the Norman Conquest of 1066. The other side claims it is significantly older, starting soon after the Anglo-Saxons moved into the area and came into conflict with the Franks. Which side is closer to the truth? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Traditionally, the era when the two countries were enemies is considered as lasting from the Capetian–Plantagenet rivalry to the defeat of Napoleon. Before that, there were only sporadic clashes (and 1066 can be seen as an internal English affair, with a member of the extended family being brought into the conflict; France as a state was not involved). See Anglo-French Wars. Xuxl (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

To some degree it could be just due to geographical proximity (which can lead to friction in many ways) -- sometimes a phenomenon can be observed where nations dislike other nearby nations, but like nations which are one degree more distant. For example, there was enmity between France and England, but a long-standing alliance between France and Scotland. Traditionally, Poles dislike both Germany and Russia, but like the French. Also, for a long time Bulgarians looked up to Russia as a kind of "big sister", etc. AnonMoos (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

+1. Nations usually war with their neighbors, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It takes an even stronger common enemy to force neighbors to ally (Russia or Germany, in the Anglo-French case), and generations, that is, centuries, for old grudges to turn into joking material Gem fr (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"Traditionally, Poles dislike both Germany and Russia" I would suspect that this is a consequence of the 18th-century Partitions of Poland, when the Habsburg Monarchy, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the Russian Empire annexed the areas of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. There were also a number of wars between Polish and Russian states which took place between the 16th and the 20th centuries. The relationship with various states of the Holy Roman Empire was rather more complex. Dimadick (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You need a time traveling machine to explain Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War or Jagiellonian Poland fight against Muscovy this way Gem fr (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This article might provide some information, as well as an opportunity to improve it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The title of that article isn't really well-aligned with its contents, since the United Kingdom didn't exist until 1801 (not to mention that before 1603, Scottish relations with France were often very different from English relations with France). AnonMoos (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it should probably be split into pre-1801 and post-1801 articles. We also have Auld Alliance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"Anglo=French" is the usual term, which gets around all that 1801 stuff. The difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom is insignificant in comparison to the various French kingdoms, republics, consulates and empires over the same period. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The 1066 Norman Conquest can be seen as a late manifestation of Viking expansion. Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Dodger67, the animosity actually didn't end at the era of Waterloo. The French ironclad Gloire (the world's first real ironclad), built in 1859, directly prompted the construction of HMS Warrior, as the British knew that an ocean-going French ironclad was potentially a major threat. And this was after the cooperation of the Crimean War. War between the two powers was a possibility as late as 1899, when the Fashoda Incident led at least the British to mobilize for war. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

See also Palmerston Forts. DuncanHill (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Friend or foe? The French are both mentions the habit of Lord Raglan of referring to his Russian enemies as "the damned French", even in the presence of his French allies. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

June 25

What was the point of this statement by Representative John Farnsworth?

I have previously read this 1966 article by Alfred Avins in regards to the views of the draftsmen of the 14th Amendment in regards to anti-miscegenation laws:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524cc5a7e4b09484086dc046/t/552d54b3e4b07a7dd6a08bf5/1429034163395/Avins_Miscegenation+and+14th+Amend+Original+Intent+1966.pdf

On page 1231 of this article, Avins quotes Republican US Representative John F. Farnsworth as saying this:

"[Rep. Rogers] . . . refers to another bugbear with which to scare ignorant people, that of amalgamation. He recites the statutes of various States against the intermarriage of blacks and whites. Well, sir, while I regard that as altogether a matter of taste, and neither myself nor my friends require any restraining laws to prevent us from committing any error in that direction, still, if my friend from New Jersey and his friends are fearful that they will be betrayed into forming any connection of that sort, I will very cheerfully join with him in voting the restraining influence of a penal statute. I will vote to punish it by confinement in the State prison, or, if he pleases, by hanging-anything rather than they should be betrayed into or induced to form any such unnatural relations.25"

My question here is this--what was the point of Farnsworth's comment here? I mean, wouldn't any hypothetical attempt to impose the death penalty for miscegenation in Washington DC (which is where US Congressmen lived while Congress was in session) be struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional due to it violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments? If so, what was the point of having Farnsworth say that he would vote for something that would be declared unconstitutional by the courts?

I get the general point of Farnsworth's statement here--I just want to know why exactly he alluded to the death penalty for miscegenation if such a punishment for such an offense would have been declared unconstitutional by the courts.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I would not be so sure that the Supreme Court would have ruled that way, or that anyone would expect it to. The various states used to execute for far lesser offenses than we are used to today. The Supreme Court did not even begin to narrow the acceptable uses of capital punishment until relatively recently when they prohibited its use as a punishment for rape, though by then most states had voluntarily narrowed its use. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This was clear irony. I modern parlance, he was trolling Rogers Gem fr (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

But what would Farnsworth have done had a bill to ban miscegenation in Washington DC and to impose the death penalty for this actually reached the House floor? Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Futurist110 -- it's wrapped up in 19th-century rhetorical style, but the clear implication is that he's sarcastically saying that if Rogers is worried about being unable to control his cross-racial lusts, then he'll support a bill with disincentives to reinforce Rogers' wavering will-power... AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What would Farnsworth have done if such a bill would have actually reached the House floor, though? Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

They would have joined in opposing it as an impingement on states' rights to decide what should be criminalized. There was a time when there were next to no federal criminal statutes, for example, McKinley's assassin, Leon Czolgosz was tried and executed under state, not federal law.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I meant an anti-miscegenation statute that only covers Washington D.C.--over which the U.S. Congress has plenary power. Futurist110 (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This sort of rhetoric, saying that giving blacks civil rights did not mean giving them equal social rights, was common then. Lincoln made similar points in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, especially the ones held in Southern Illinois.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I was just wondering about the connection between the death penalty for miscegenation and the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution. Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That would have been a state law and the Supreme Court did not hold that the Eighth Amendment applied to the states until much later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

What about an anti-miscegenation statute that only covers Washington D.C. (over which the U.S. Congress has plenary power), though? Futurist110 (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point. Really not sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Costs of production

Imagine you're producing and publishing a document on a physical medium, e.g. as a book or on a CD. Your marginal cost is probably rather low, since CDs and paper don't cost a ton of money, and of course you have to account for overhead (business). But where does the cost of creating of the underlying work come in? For the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the publishing company created the document and owns the copyright, so we don't need to address royalties in particular. I'm just wanting to say "this book costs X, which is higher than marginal cost plus overhead, because of factor Y, which represents the company's cost of creating the document in the first place", but I don't know what to call factor Y. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You want to know how fixed cost are accounted for in the publishing business? I am afraid the specifics are out of our abilities (mine, for sure).Gem fr (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Cost of goods sold might help? 173.228.123.207 (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The author might be a staff member or someone who has submitted a manuscript. That's one such cost that might be either marginal or fixed depending. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

For example, open-source printed textbooks are becoming somewhat more popular now; partial or total copyright release makes them a good deal cheaper than traditional textbooks, since the charge for an open-source printed textbook is generally limited to the cost of running the company and producing and distributing the printed copy, while the traditional-textbook publisher needs to regain all those costs plus the cost of developing the textbook in the first place. I've basically wondered what we'd call the textbook-development cost. Nyttend (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

June 26

What's the difference? Questions about free speech after the Iancu v. Brunetti case

The case of Iancu v. Brunetti was recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a nutshell, it holds that immoral or scandalous trademarks cannot be denied, as that violates the First Amendment. So, how is it different when a state Department of Motor Vehicles denies someone a vanity license plate that contains objectionable words? I am pretty sure that I have read of cases in which plaintiffs objected (to license plates being denied); and the plaintiffs always lose such suits. The only distinction that I can see is that a vanity license plate is not "required"; rather, it is "optional". I assume a trademark is required – and not optional – when one wants to protect their intellectual property rights. Any thoughts or ideas? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I supposed provocative or inflammatory trademarks might be effective marketing, but license plates that get people riled up on the freeway might be a safety hazard. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Because a license plate is not your speech, it's the government's speech. Or maybe it's a non-public forum and therefore the first-amendment does not apply. Or maybe you don't have standing to sue, so go away. Or maybe, crap, you're right, it's free speech. The hell am I going on about? Well, circuit courts have been asked about this many times, and often come to contradictory conclusions. The Supreme Court weighed in for a 2015 case to say that the state can at least refuse to put the confederate flag on a plate. Read more here. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

good ref. Because a license plate is not your speech, it's the government's speech seems a key here. Gem fr (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

For a "regular" license plate, yes, that makes sense: it's the government's speech. But, it's hard to make that claim with a straight face, when a vanity license plate is involved. That's pretty clearly the speech of the car owner. Calling it the speech of the government is a legal fiction. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Speech is not always a single person's. It can be both the government's, and the car owner's. So the gov MAY put its motto on it, and the car owner MAY hide the motto, as has been ruled. Also, "legal fiction" seem pretty pleonastic to me. Gem fr (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

My point was that a vanity license plate is really the speech of the car driver, not of the government. What (actual) interest does the governmental have in a license plate that says "Eye Doctor" or "Yankees Fan" or "Bob + Sue" or what have you? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

In my experience, what's in it for the state is an additional fee for vanity plates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: consider this very website. Legally, what you write here is your speech. But this whole site is also, to an extent, the Wikimedia Foundation's speech. And the WMF has a legal right to stop speaking your words if it chooses. I see the difference between a trademark and a license plate in their purpose. A license plate is intended as a government designation of your car for identification purposes, but they are allowing you to have input on what that designation is. A trademark is a government-granted process to help you prevent confusion in the market place by registering the word/phrase/image you use to self-designate. The government has no part in creating the trademark, and is merely keeping a record of it. Now, that record is necessarily kept in a government database on government property, and will be retrievable by anyone searching a government website, but I think it makes more sense to consider that a service rather than speech. The purpose of a trademark is not getting the government to say something, but merely getting them to record how you advertise your self/company/product/services. The speech-like aspects the government must engage in are not the purpose of the trademark registration, but a necessary consequence of the right the government created. Going back to the license plate, no, it's not incidental that there is speech involved - the whole point is to have a big, obvious government-issued piece of metal on your car that reads your license plate number. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

At least in my state, the license plate is the property of the state, the driver is simply the user of it. The state is nice enough to offer the driver the option to choose the sequence on said plate, but (because of said ownership) the text is the "speech" of the government and they can thus refuse to allow certain sequences. --Khajidha (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The ruling was specifically about trademarks. Whether a word is "immoral" is a matter of personal opinion. A license plate is not a trademark. And there's no constitutional right to drive a car on a public road. The rules about who can drive and what's on the license plates are established by the individual states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there is a constitutional right to drive a car on a public road; this right may be regulated (you need a driving license), but not in a way that make it disappear because, say, you are black, or you said something offensive to the governor of the state, or are foreigner to the community. Gem fr (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to know where it says that in the Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Freedom of movement under United States lawGem fr (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. But it doesn't stop the individual states from setting their own rules of the road. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Correct. There is a right to movement, but not a right to a specific mode of transportation, and so the right to drive a car is, in fact, granted by the government, and is not fundamental. However, this does not mean the government can remove that right capriciously, and most importantly they may not remove that right based on membership of a protected class, or as punishment for exercising a civil right. It also may not be granted in a similarly discriminatory fashion. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And, I am pretty sure that the ruling was NOT specifically about trademarks: justices wording clearly make it applicable much more broadly than that, and basically forbid the government to engage in morality regulations (If I understand correctly).

But don't trust me on these, I am no lawyer Gem fr (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the degree of exposure is a factor, with license plates being akin to billboards. I wonder if FUCT (clothing) is allowed any degree of visual prominence that they please. Can they rent large billboard space? Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting question. Here's a related question. You cannot say "fucked" in a TV commercial or a radio commercial. Or even on a TV show or a radio show. (Right?) Now, can you say "FUCT" in a TV commercial or a radio commercial, if the FUCT Company decides to advertise its brand? Can you say "FUCT" on a TV show or a radio show, if you are doing a segment about the FUCT Company? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Compare the French Connection UK company founded in 1972 which from 1991 (a year after FUCT's founding) began using the branding fcuk or FCUK, not without controversy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You cannot say "fucked" in a TV commercial or a radio commercial, but not because government forbid it, only because some sort of Broadcast Standards and Practices self-imposed code. Some broadcasters might accept "FUCT" ad, while other wouldn't, just like some accept porn ad and others do not. Gem fr (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't all of that (not allowing obscene words on TV and radio) dictated by the FCC? And isn't the FCC a governmental body? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The FCC controls the public airwaves. But on pay cable, you can say pretty much anything, short of something that's illegal such as threatening to murder a public official. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Historically the FCC has declined to attempt regulating transmissions over non-public media on the understanding that broadcasters would self-regulate (note the FTC still has general regulatory authority over such things as false advertising). This was considered the best of both worlds, as naughty content would be minimized, and the government could avoid the appearance of a censor, or a supreme court ruling that it could not censor, which would have the effect of removing the proverbial ax the stations feared. This manifested as the Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters, which was later abandoned after charges of antitrust violations. See FCC v. Pacifica Foundation for the Supreme Court case that affirmed the FCC's power to regulate some "indecent" content on public airwaves. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

So, why are they not allowed to say swear words ("fuck", "shit", etc.) on regular TV (for example, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.)? Is not that due to the FCC? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That is often due to the FCC, but it's a lot easier for them to act there, constitutionally, because anything in the form of a radio broadcast is special, being part of the commons. That is, if you print your own books, your existence does not interfere with anyone else's right to speak, and so the government's ability to regulate your behavior is quite limited. However, if you are broadcasting a signal through the air that is strong enough for receivers to pick up, you are actually blocking anyone else from broadcasting with the same and nearby frequencies to those same receivers. In the interest of preserving the right to free speech in the public forum known as "the air", it was actually necessary for the government to regulate its use, as a bad actor might otherwise silence other citizens either for his own benefit or merely out of malice or stupidity. Anyway, as a result the FCC is assumed to have broad powers to regulate broadcasts over frequencies the government has deemed "public airwaves", and this includes penalizing obscene broadcasts. The major networks typically simulcast the same programs to cable and broadcast television, so they will be following FCC rules. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, so the FCC is a governmental body and, thus, implicates the First Amendment. So, TV personalities are not allowed to say "fucked" on TV (or radio). After the Brunetti case, are they allowed or not allowed to say "FUCT" on TV and/or radio? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Unclear. As mentioned, FCC v. Pacifica (1973) upheld the FCC's broad authority to police obscenity and indecency transmitted by broadcast, stating that the government had a legitimate interest in both "Shielding children from potentially offensive material" and "ensuring that unwanted speech does not intrude on the privacy of one's home." The Supreme Court has declined to make subsequent rulings on the real foundation of this subject. More recently they ruled in FCC v. Fox (2009) that the FCC is within its authority to change its standards for indecency, and in FCC v. Fox (2012) that those standards may be unenforceable if vague. In both cases, the Supreme Court avoided the question of whether the regulations themselves are compatible with the first amendment, i.e. whether the court affirms or denies the standard set by Pacifica. Ginsburg has written that the Pacifica decision "was wrong when it issued", and has wanted to revisit the issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The station and/or network still have the upper hand, because they decide whose advertising dollars they will accept. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe so for TV or radio commercials. But, what about a TV show proper or a radio show proper? If a host is interviewing the President of the FUCT company, or a host is doing a segment about this Supreme Court case, he would have to say "FUCT" at some point. It would be silly to leave out the valid name of a valid company that holds a valid trademark of that valid name. The (silly) alternative is for the TV/radio host to say "He is the President of some company, but we can't say the name of that company." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

We might have to wait until (or if) someone on radio or TV decides to interview this character. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Or, more likely, talk about this specific Supreme Court case. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The average radio or TV station probably wouldn't touch it. In contrast, I'm sure Howard Stern would be all over it. But that's subscription radio, so the public airwaves rules don't much matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Legitimate and respectable TV shows and radio shows (not of the Howard Stern ilk) often talk about Supreme Court cases. High-profile ones, much more so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

CNN.com and FoxNews.com have covered it. At least one is saying it's supposed to be spelled out rather than pronounced like a word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a "work-around" solution, in this particular situation. But, it doesn't really address the real problem or issue. Can a word that "sounds like" -- or even a word that actually is -- a swear word be said on TV/radio? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait till it happens, and then you'll find out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

How is that a helpful reply for a Reference Desk? "Wait until it happens, and then you will have your answer." And who is to say that it has not yet happened, by the way? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

What has your own research uncovered? Or do you expect someone else to do your work for you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• The license plate question is actually being litigated. On April 9, 2019, Pacific Legal Foundation filed suit on behalf of USC law professor Jon Kotler who was denied a California license plate "COYW" in reference to the Fulham F.C. slogan "Come On You Whites". The plate was denied on the grounds that "Come On You Whites" could have racial connotations. [1] The case is Kotler v. Webb and is before the Central District of California. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • And if the state loses the case, they can get around it by abolishing the vanity-plate program. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Yep, that's part of the point: If you permit people to express themselves using their license plates, any content-based restriction must meet strict scrutiny. But states aren't mandated to provide vanity plates.
      Interestingly, abolishing that program isn't as simple as it might sound. The State of California nets a lot of money a year from vanity plates and renewals of vanity plates. I can't find exact numbers, but it seems like a lot. In 2013 there was a controversy about undercharging for people with specialty and vanity license plates, where the state failed to collect up to $22 million from people with these types of plates. Sure it seems like it'd be a drop in the bucket to them, but a little bit of money here and there can make a huge problem with the budget. I remember playing city management sims when I was younger, and just how hard it was to get rid of toll booths once you'd had them for awhile, and closing them would instantly kill any budget surplus you had. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Taking away the state's right to regulate license plate content could lead to trouble. Like if someone counters that one with "KILWHITY". The solution to the problem of stopping vanity plates is to raise license tag fees to make up the difference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Another problem with abolishing vanity plates: License plates are just a random collection of letters (and numbers). For example, BB1CL7, or whatever. If they randomly "cycle through" all letters (and numbers), they will eventually come upon a vanity-type plate. For example, let's say that my vanity plate is "RED SOX FAN". Eventually, as they "cycle through" all of the letters of the alphabet, they will hit upon the letter combination of "RED SOX FAN". So, it's not OK to have those 9 letters as a vanity plate, but it is perfectly fine to have those 9 random letters as a "regular" license plate? Seems like more trouble. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In my experience and observations, states typically use combinations of letters and numbers, such as 3 letters + 3 numbers, or possibly intermixing them. And typically 7 or 8 characters at most. So it's unlikely RED SOX FAN would show up. They also typically have algorithms to weed out letter combinations that suggest obscenities or other inappropriate content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"Red Sox Fan" was just an example off the top of my head. And that was not the point of my posted comment. Let's use "CAT LUVR" instead. You get the idea. When they cycle through all random letters/numbers, yes, they can weed out obscene words. But they would not weed out "CAT LUVR" (as obscene). So, again, it's not OK to have those 7 letters as a vanity plate, but it is perfectly fine to have those 7 random letters as a "regular" license plate? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That's why they use random letters and numbers. Plate numbers of the type ABC 1234 are seldom going to result in recognizable full words. Plus, when you get your plate for your new car, you're not going to get a choice, they're just going to hand you the next one in the stack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You totally missed my point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

MY point is that those seven random letters aren't going to turn up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You randomly select every slot of the license plate character-slots ... every single letter/number combination will eventually come up. Every one. With 100% certainty. And that specific plate ("CAT LUVR") is not the point of my comment. It could be any vanity plate. Can you understand that concept? The vanity plate is "Joe 1234". Does that placate you? Sheesh, dude. Come on. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

JOE 1234 theoretically might turn up, but if the state doesn't do vanity plates, you don't get to choose it. And CAT LUVR will never turn up, unless you can figure out how to make 4 digits resemble LUVR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Item 1: Again, you miss my point. So, I will spell it all out, step-by-step, to, ummm, "accommodate" your misunderstandings. Step 1: I have a vanity license plate that says "JOE 1234". Step 2: The State discontinues the vanity plates and takes mine away from me. Because it's a vanity plate. Step 3: The State issues random-letter license plates to all drivers. Step 4: The next in line in the random order is "JOE 1234". Step 5: My next-door neighbor, who is next in line, gets the "random" plate of "JOE 1234". Step 6: The problem is that I cannot have that license plate, because it's a vanity plate. But, my next-door neighbor can have it because the computer randomly generated those 7 random characters. Step 7: The original point of discussion here was, (as I mentioned above) quote, "Another problem with abolishing vanity plates: License plates are just a random collection of letters (and numbers). For example, BB1CL7, or whatever. If they randomly "cycle through" all letters (and numbers), they will eventually come upon a vanity-type plate. For example, let's say that my vanity plate is "RED SOX FAN". Eventually, as they "cycle through" all of the letters of the alphabet, they will hit upon the letter combination of "RED SOX FAN". So, it's not OK to have those 9 letters as a vanity plate, but it is perfectly fine to have those 9 random letters as a "regular" license plate? Seems like more trouble." Do you now get my point or shall I explain more? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Item 2: "CAT LUVR" will eventually come up in a random character rotation. You -- for some reason -- are providing some license-plate restrictions that needn't be superimposed upon the problem/question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Most of your premise is incorrect. Look through United States license plate designs and serial formats and you will see that none of them use all-letters for plate numbers. So things like RED SOX FAN and CAT LUVR will never turn up. As to the JOE 1234, it's theoretically possible - but it's also possible the state's numbering algorithm weeds out recognizable words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

My premise is not incorrect. My state, for example, uses 6 (or maybe 7) characters -- any characters, letters or numbers. And I, myself, personally have all letters (no numbers) on my license plate. So, that Chart -- which I had already seen -- is incorrect for my state. And probably for several other states, also. And 95% of that Chart does not contain any sources. So, again, probably rife with erroneous information. So, whom should I believe? A Wikipedia Chart with no sources ... or my own lying eyes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If the article is incorrect, maybe you could do something about it. For starters, contact your secretary of state and pose your premise to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

And you, too -- as a Wikipedia editor -- can also fix the article, yes? You are the one who brought it up during discussion, presumably for its, ummmmm, accuracy ... no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I cited the article, and you've cited nothing. And it's fair to say you care a lot more about this than I do. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about and what do you want me to cite? I have my license plate, I have had it for decades, and I know what it says. As does anyone with vision. The local TV and local newspapers never did a story about my license plate, so I have no reliable sources to cite. What are you talking about and what do you want me to cite? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you care if anyone knows which state you reside in? If so, then this would necessarily be the end of this discussion. If not, then you could look for a website that would explain how plate numbers/letters are generated in your state, and link to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Nah ... This sub-discussion has already wandered too far afield of the original question I posed. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Tangentially, I think that Kramer on the Seinfeld TV show tried to get the license plate "Ass Man". No? I forget what happened in that episode. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's all very convoluted, and leads up to a joke. See The Fusilli Jerry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And if the state loses the case, they can get around it by just changing the vanity-plate program, so that the car owner do not ask/propose, instead, the state propose a collection of (acceptable) plate to choose from, some free (because, random meaningless), other for a fee (or even by auction), because, meaningful and maybe valuable. No way the justices will dictate that, to propose a FUCK-U (or whatever offensive) plate is a constitutional obligation of the state, just because some moron wants it (the said moron still can have it as a sticker, so his constitutional right to advertise his being a moron still stands). Gem fr (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Has any licensing authority ever attempted this degree of anonymisation? After all, most pronounceable combinations are recognisable words in some or other language. 92.31.143.72 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hullo VxFC!  :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, they can do that. And they can massively decrease their annual income from vanity plates. I don't know exactly how much California gets annually from vanity plates, but it's nothing to sneeze at. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

June 27

Using trademarks as domain names.

If you make a website where the domain name matches a trademark, can that company shut down your website, if your website is not at all about that trademark character? (Example: lesser-known character from a video game or cartoon). 67.175.224.138 (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

This is called cybersquatting. What the trademark owner can do depends on the country you are in. In the united states this is governed by Title 15 of the US Code §1125(d). In brief, maybe. Actually, it might be okay even if your website is about the character. The analysis is complicated, and depends largely on whether you are intending to profit off of confusion. There is also a whole other complicated section of law on whether you as the website registrant can sue the domain registrar for voluntarily handing your website over to the owner of the trademark. So the best answer to your question is, "maybe, maybe not, depends on the circumstances." This is the sort of question that gets argued in courts for years, so we certainly can't give a straight answer to it. I'm sure though, you could dig up court decisions on similar issues, as well as law review articles discussing the various factors involved. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to say, the trademark holder is not at all interested in buying the domain name, so there is no cyber-squatting. Example: there are over 800 pokemon, and their trademark holder is not interested in purchasing all the domains, and having them forward to a main domain name. Cybersquatting imo, is purchasing a domain before the trademark owner purchases it and then offering to sell it to them rather than giving it for free. But my question is now the trademark just simply wants to shut down the website without wanting the domain name itself. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

There is no requirement in law that the trademark-holder intends to use a specific website for the registrant to be considered an infringer. As for whether your intended website infringes on trademark or qualifies as cybersquatting in a particular scenario is a question that would be settled by a court, and you would need to get advice from actual lawyers, not random people on the internet. We very specifically do not give legal advice. You could also contact whoever owns the trademark and ask them directly. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that 1st sentence answers a question, if I understand it correctly, wants to shut down a trademark-website even if no intent of even having a website, yea? In that case, imo the law will almost always favor the trademark-holder. I suspect a lot of websites in a trademark name are up because the trademark-holder chooses to not shut it down. Obviously, if the trademark is a common word like apples and oranges, then they can't win in court. But as for trademarks that aren't common words, 1 example I can think of is there's a candle pokemon called Litwick. There's also a website of that name, which seems to be a legit candle-making company. I suspect the Nintendo company could shut it down, if it wanted to. And this would also be for cases if website name predates the trademark? Perhaps that candle-company had that website name before the trademark name even was patented, and they could still lose in court. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

A good general overview of IP law questions like these might be found in Roger Schechter and John Thomas, Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks (West Hornbook Series 2003). Sadly that appears to be the most recent Hornbook on the subject. More extensive treatises and practice guides would be Thomson Reuters' Trademark Practice and Forms (updated 2019), and McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (5th ed. updated 2019). You may be able to find these resources at a local law library, or get electronic excerpts from a law librarian. Respectfully, these questions are getting a little too close to a request for legal advice for my comfort, and I don't think we should answer anymore. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Short answer: It depends. In the U.S., see the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Bear in mind that this question comes close to a request for legal advice and so I am going to refrain from giving a thorough breakdown. I echo Someguy1221's recommendation that you check out some law review articles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't this be a bunch of contradictions? Especially across different jurisdictions in the U.S.? For example, suppose someone made an atheism website in a trademark cartoon characters name. Some lawyer could cite 1 case law where it a court-case won and favored, in 1 jurisdiction, and then, in anothr jurisdiction, someone can cite another case law where the court didn't favor the trademark. Wouldn't case laws be full of this? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

And what about for cases where the courts knew the law favored the trademark, but chose to not enforce it, so the trademark party loses. And the party appeals, still loses in court. Now can that false-case law even be case law? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

You should take a look at this general overview of how cybsersquatting cases are decided. That page includes links to other resources, including relevant case summaries. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding 67.175.224.138's comment on Litwick: at least in the USA, it depends. See Burger King (Mattoon, Illinois) for an example. Someone founded a restaurant in Mattoon and called it Burger King and filed a state trademark, and some years later the nationally recognized chain with a national trademark came into Illinois. Lanham Act litigation between the two resulted in the national company being able to use the trademark in Illinois, but since the Mattoon people had used the trademark first, they were considered to have "prior use". The result of this decision was that the Mattoon people could continue operating under that name (they were still running a few years ago when I ate there), and the national chain may not operate in the Mattoon area without permission from the local restaurant. Now, how the law would be applied in this particular case would require a lot of work by a lawyer, but the general principles have researchable history, and there are some situations in which you would be allowed to use a term if your use predated the trademark. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Weird how the small company sued the big company 1st, and did it in state court rather than federal. But yea, the big Burger King originated in Florida, opened it's 1st Illinois location after the small 1, but that's pretty interesting how the federal court allowed the small 1 just to restrict them from that small area. But I agree with the federal court that Burger King was a nation-wide trademark and not a Florida-wide trademark, so it seemed pointless for the smaller Burger King to file suit in a state court. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

It's a lot more complicated than that. First off, state court is way, way cheaper than federal court. Second, they're an Illinois business, they're going to prefer to sue an out-of-state corporation in Illinois courts. Third, there may have been weird jurisdictional issues suing in federal court at that time. And fourth, their lawyer might not have been able to handle federal litigation. What's interesting though is why they didn't bring the Lanham Act challenge in state court. I'm reasonably sure that's possible. Though to be fair BK probably would have removed those claims to federal court immediately. In fact, that may explain the split; the Hootses might have been able to defeat diversity jurisdiction somehow, and bringing the Lanham Act claims in state court would have made the whole case removable under supplemental jurisdiction. That said, it feels like res judicata would have barred Lanham Act claims if Hootses lost its state trademark claims. So I don't know. Complicated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

There is one more point that I don't think has been mentioned. A trademark generally only applies to a specific field of business: see Apple Corps v Apple Computer. So a domain not used for any topic relating to a company's trademark might be considered non-conflicting. However, big companies and organizations may take an expansive view of what fields their trademark relates to: see Olympic symbols#Intellectual property. So not only is this not legal advice, even if it was it might not be safe to follow. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Olympics are a very special case: They have an explicit statutory grant of use rights in federal law that probably supersedes all inconsistent state common law trademarks. See 36 U.S.C. § 220506. You could honestly call it a "supertrademark". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Although even there, prior use is protected. A person who actually used, or whose assignor actually used, the words or any combination of the words described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, or a trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia described in subsection (c)(4) of this section, for any lawful purpose before September 21, 1950, is not prohibited by this section from continuing the lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services. And companies in western Washington engaging in business unrelated to the Games can be named "Olympic"; see Olympic Mountains, Olympic National Forest, Olympia, Washington, etc. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Lancet's claim

The Lancet recently marked Taiwan as a province of People's Republic of China [Reference ] when it is not.

Although it wrote back to the readers soon with the provided explanation This paper follows the guidelines and protocols of the United Nations and World Health Organisation, which reference Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic of China. This makes the study consistent with other international health analyses. Unless and until such guidelines and protocols are changed, there are no plans to alter such references to Taiwan. The paper was written with the scientific rigor and thorough data analysis required by editors of The Lancet. A hierarchical analytical model was employed, utilising empirical data sources that include all available and relevant vital and civil registration, census information, scientific literature and other information. The Lancet stands behind this study and its robust estimates of health in China.

Do you think the Lancet's reason make sense? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Nanonic (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Up to now, Taiwan still do not claim being a separate country, but rather the true legitimate China. A Taiwan independence movement exists, but this is considered a danger, as PRC "stated, or implied" this move is a Casus Belli, and nobody wants war. Gem fr (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That suggests that the Taiwan viewpoint is that the PRC is a province of Taiwan rather than the other way around. So either way the Lancet's version doesn't sound like it would sit well with them. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

When you write "Taiwan viewpoint", you use a figure of speech (land=government) which make thing harder to understand. You should use ROC viewpoint. On both side of the strait, Taiwan is just a province of the whole China. In Taiwan the ROC rules, and still consider itself (not the PRC) the legitimate government of the whole China, which include Taiwan. And pretty much all other governments disagree with the ROC, starting when then recognized Mao's government and assigned the UN seat of China to PRC, turning Taiwan an official province of the PRC still under ROC control. It is not uncommon that 2 governments, each controlling part of the territory, claim to be legitimate on the whole. What is less common is for the situation to be 70 years old. Gem fr (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

One will find that the people of Taiwan believe themselves to be separate from the Chinese. I used to attend an ex-pat Chinese Community Club on a regular basis, and while there was a large Taiwanese community in town and were always invited they never attended, not one, and their explicitly stated reasoning was that they are a separate people from the mainland Chinese. They did attend the Club as access was granted to them but held their own meetings and functions and did not invite any of the local Chinese to any of these meetings. Further to this the South African Government had relations with Taiwan to run knitting factories in the 1990's. This indicates that there is a political divide in place allowing relations with one as being separate from the other although this may be very subtle. All of the people shipped in to run these factories were Taiwanese and not Chinese. There is an international divide as to whether or not Taiwan is separate from China. China claim they are one and Taiwan claim, though quietly, so as to ensure that they do not need to go to war with their much larger counterpart, that they are distinct. This is akin to the Myanmar / Burma question or the Kashmir question, and the Israel Palestine problem. Many different countries take different views on who the land belongs to etc. Ultimately, the people on the ground at grass roots level in Taiwan believe themselves to be a distinct people. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

see Taiwanese identity about this. Methink this would had been easier in 1949, bc UN rules of self-determination basically demands that, if a province wants to separate and turn into a new state, it must be so, and we would have had 2 states (pretty much as there were 2 Germany), and PRC would have had to recognize the independence. Much more complicated now. Gem fr (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Except that Taiwan/ROC didn't want to "separate and turn into a new state", it wanted the PRC government to go away and give them back the mainland territory. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Gem fr (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

If the lancet follows WHO protocols consistently, it makes sense. I means the paper can avoid getting caught making political decisions, and just use an other organisation's political decisions instead. As long as it is consistent, it works. Their job is not to decide where a border lies, but to report on health, and so they just need someone else's system, and use that someone else's border lines. --Lgriot (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Why are people talking like this is Lancet's decision? The above quote suggest it was probably primarily a decision made by the authors of the study. Sure The Lancet could have refused to publish the study in the form it's in, but I'm confused why people are treating this as a primarily something Lancet did. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume it's partly because The Lancet chose to publish the material in Facebook. It really should make little difference, but the perspective shifts a little bit. Someone reading The Lancet would see a paper where so-and-so claimed X (and attribute that choice to the author), whereas someone reading Facebook would see that The Lancet said X (and attribute that to the journal itself). Heck, I don't even see the author's names on the post, so how else would you attribute it? Matt Deres (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well someone at Lancet clearly choose to publish that statement. But the statement but it's just explaining what the paper does and why and how that interacts with Lancet's editorial decisions. The statement clearly says "this paper" etc. No where does it suggest the decision was made by the Lancet. It doesn't say anything like "we" or "the Lancet" etc except in references to stuff like "stand behind this study" which would seem to me to just be an indication they still feel that the study met their standard for publication not that they are the ones who decided how to carry out the study or whether Taiwan should be listed as a province of China. It would seem to me anyone with a basic understanding of scientific publishing should understand what is being said. (I mean I can understand why people on Facebook or in the general media may make the mistake but while I know this isn't the science RD, but I don't think research in the humanities is that different is it?) I have no idea why you would need to know names the authors of the paper to attribute something to them. It's not like you know who the editorial board of the Lancet is from that statement yet people are still attributing things to the Lancet. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

US Congress and counties

I was surprised to learn from Quillehuyte County, Washington that Congress prohibited the Washington territorial legislature from abolishing one of the territory's counties in 1865. Quoting the source:

"Eleven years later by act approved January 14, 1865, Skamania county, which by that time had been greatly reduced in size, was divided between Clark and Klickitat counties with provision that the Skamania county officers cease their functions on April 1, 1865. This act was disapproved by Congress in an amendment to the Organic Act on June 29, 1866, and Skamania county reappeared on the scene."

This phrase has a citation to "U.S. Congress, 3-1, Session Laws, 1865-66, p. 82".

Were there any other instances of Congress prohibiting the creation or abolition of a local government by a territorial legislature? Until reading this, the only county-creation-or-abolition acts of Congress were a complete prohibition on Alaska Territory having counties at all (but as far as I know, that was a general thing based on low population density, not something that overruled the legislature's action on a specific county) plus assorted acts related to DC government (e.g. Washington County, D.C.). And what about other local governments, e.g. forming or abolishing specific municipalities? Again, no idea except for organizing the cities of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria, D.C.

In case someone wonders, I'd like to put this into the Skamania County article, but I'd like to be able to say that it was a unique incident or that it was one of ___ incidents in US history. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that this was only legally possible because Washington was a territory and not a state at the time, the Federal Congress has no such authority when it comes to the organizing of state counties. The closest example I can think to your question is maybe Greer County, Texas, but that really isn't the same.--Jayron32 12:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure you're right that they have no authority to do that sort of thing to the states. Considering Reynolds v. Sims declared the apportionment of state senate seats by county to violate the Equal Protection Clause, were a state to insist that its counties be state senate districts, they would have to apply redistricting to them periodically as they do with their other congressional districts. If there were another Equal Protection reason to do so, I would think the feds could absolutely demand a state change the way its counties were structured. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

June 28

Jesus and Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn's Pudding

What is Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn's pudding, as served at Jesus on St David's Day? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A suet pudding with either marmalade or apricot jam. See [2], [3], and page 247 of [4]. Nanonic (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Fourth Ballot Box

In today's "On This Day" section there is an article relating to the Honduran Coup d'etat. I understand that this was the result of the proposed referendum for have a 4th ballot box at upcoming elections. Please can some one explain to me what the purpose of a 4th box is and how and why this has any form of significance. I am baffled. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's all in Honduran fourth ballot box referendum, which is admittedly not in the best shape. To summarize, the first three ballot boxes were to vote for president, congress, and mayor. The proposed 4th box was to vote on a non-binding resolution to gauge public support for a constitutional assembly. The coup wasn't really over the existence of a fourth box, it was over the idea of the president holding a constitutional assembly. There were widespread rumors that the president planned to use the constitutional assembly to stay in office beyond his term limit that may have fueled the flames. Regardless, the fourth box ultimately led to a constitutional crisis. The constitution at the time did not place any authority to change the consitution with the president, and the Supreme Court issued a ruling consistent with that. Congress also passed laws prohibiting the scheduled referendum from happening. The president was seen as greatly overstepping his powers when, ignoring these rulings, he fired the head of the military for refusing to assist with the referendum, triggering mass resignations. When congress began discussing impeachment, the president implied he did not recognize congress's authority to remove a president. And then you get the 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Fin. So that box was very very significant. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this very informative and helpful response. It is deeply appreciated. May I suggest that the featured article is amended to make this more clear? Also, as an aside, surely democracy states that a referendum can be called on almost any point and that it is the people who should decide. Anyway, Thanks again. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, I suspect a lot of the concern was that the constitution of Honduras contained provisions for changing of the constitution (which had indeed been amended many times), and many people were frightened by the president's intention to hold a constitutional convention under his direct control outside of that process. Now, there were a lot of people who supported him through the whole thing, and I'm no expert on the topic, so I think I'll just stop there. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Notably a clause had been introduced in the constitution a few years prior, which essentially states that anyone who suggests that the constitutionally mandated term limit for the presidency (only 1 term per prez) would be abolish is automatically disqualified from public office. Whilst Zelaya never spoke about abolishing the term limits on the presidency, his opponents frequently attacked him on the topic and this was the rationale for the coup (as stated above). The really, really weird thing is that Juan Orlando Hernandez ran for a second term in 2017 without modifying the constitution first. So whilst the constitution prohibits a second term, he was elected. --Soman (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The New Naturalist - A Journal of British Natural History

I have in my library a bound volume of The New Naturalist - A Journal of British Natural History. It is dated 1948, and contains four issues, Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter. From the editorial material these are the first four issues of what was intended to be an ongoing publication. The editor is James Fisher, the publisher Collins. It is very obviously related to the New Naturalist series of books, though not of that series. I would be interested to know if any further issues were published, and any other information about the journal, its demise, etc. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I find this copy at a British bookseller. DroneB (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mine doesn't have the dustjacket and I'd not seen it before. I found this page which says there were only 6 issues, the last two being Birth, Death and the Seasons, and East Anglia. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Duncan, a perfect place to go for this kind of thing is WorldCat; your title information alone was enough to find it really quickly. There are five separate WorldCat entries (four libraries did original cataloguing for their copies without noticing that another entry already existed): undated, 1948, 1948, 1948-, and [1949-1950?]. Interestingly, three of the five treated it as a monograph, not a serial — this is more evidence that it was really short-lived, because the whole history could be bound in a single volume. However, the item dated [1949-1950?] is No.6: East Anglia, the same as you found; I wonder if it were an unsuccessful revival? Finally, your best source about the journal might be an article in another journal:

Tutin, T.G., et al. "The New Naturalist, a Journal of British Natural History". J of Ecology 37.1 (1949), 181.

That link goes to the WorldCat entry for the article, not the article itself. I suspect it's just a review, but since it was published in July 1949, it would probably give the whole history of the journal. Unless "my library" is your personal library at home, go back to the library and ask the librarian about an interlibrary loan for the Journal of Ecology article. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I was able to find the Journal of Ecology review on JSTOR. It is of the volume I have - it says the first volume consists of four parts bound together, but that as soon as conditions permit it would be quarterly. That would fit with the link I gave above, one hardbound volume containing issues 1-4, and separate issues 5 & 6. The "conditions permitting" would be a reference to the shortage of paper at the time. I find the WorldCat results very hard to interpret - a few are obviously for the annual volume I have, I'm not seeing any described as a monograph, and there's at least one edition listed with a date of 1952, which must be one of the books (or could be one of the monographs), but is marked as a Journal, magazine : Series. DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I only just noticed what you said about "my library" - it is indeed my personal library, over 3,000 books to date :) DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I found two other reviews on JSTOR from 1949, again for the volume I have. DuncanHill (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

See, you should do like I do: create a catalogue of your personal library with OCLC numbers noted, and organize the bookshelves by Library of Congress call number. I'm a librarian professionally, and even my colleagues thought I was weird to be that librarianish :-) Here are the results I get from WorldCat, five relevant and four not:

• OCLC 483656286, undated, treats it as a serial. Held by two Danish libraries.
• OCLC 780527195, dated 1948, treats it as a monograph. Held by the Universities of Edinburgh and Southampton.
• OCLC 271599997, dated 1948, treats it as a monograph. Held by two Australian libraries.
• OCLC 181154516, dated 1948-, treats it as a serial. Held by the Universities of Cambridge and Manchester, the Natural History Museum, and two Canadian and one American universities.
• OCLC 1101206757, dated [1949-1950?], treats it as a monograph. Held by the University of East Anglia.
• OCLC 1101206757, the book review in the Journal of Ecology
• OCLC 5550280294, not sure why this even comes up
• OCLC 5154365967, not sure why this even comes up
• OCLC 4960297720, the book review in the Journal of Ecology (again)

My search string was <"new naturalist" "journal of British natural history"> with no limiters. WorldCat's "print book" classification equals a physical monograph, so we're looking at basically the same thing. By definition, a monograph is an isolated publication that isn't likely to be re-issued with different contents (if it were, it would be a serial), so it might not be unreasonable to catalogue a bound journal as a monograph if you knew (or had solid reason to believe) that no more volumes were forthcoming. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

this "not sure why this even comes up" is "A Central Journal of Natural History" a review of my volume (it's on JSTOR). It's really weird - the link you say "held by two Danish libraries" comes up for me with 6 libraries, none of them Danish. I can't see any Danish holdings on any of those links :/ I do need to sort my shelves better, but, for example, I have all my Lloyd George books together, sorted into biographies, studies, his own works, his family's works, etc. The problem comes when a book should be in two (or more) places at once. I have three studies of LlG and Churchill - they belong together, but one is by an LlG family member, so it belongs there too, and all three belong in my Churchill section. Or take Anthony Burgess - mainly fiction, so straightforward enough, but a work on philology, another on Joyce, a couple of volumes of autobiography, some poetry, and collected journalism. Do I keep him all together (yes, obviously), or does his poetry go with all my other poetry (obviously it should). I think the ideal solution is to construct an extension into l-space and find an orangutan. For now, I use LibraryThing. It does help me avoid duplicates! DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see monograph means a different thing to a librarian than it might to others. I was thinking of the sort of thing Sherlock Holmes used to write about tobacco ash. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Duncan, did you click the button saying "Show libraries holding just this edition"? It's on the right side at the top of the table of holding institutions. I reported the results that I get when I narrow it to the specific edition, since otherwise it will combine results from different editions. Most non-librarians don't care too much about the format, since they want the contents (and it doesn't normally matter much for librarians either), especially since separate records are supposed to be created for small differences (e.g. paper and cloth bindings need separate records), so it makes sense for the site to default toward showing holdings for multiple editions concurrently. I sympathized with you 100% until you got off onto 1-space; you've discovered the difference between classification (an object has to be put somewhere, and it can only go in one place, e.g. a computer file in a file structure, or a book on a shelf) and categorization (an object is assigned attributes, and you're free to assign more than one), which is always a problem with print books. If you've been around here long enough, you may remember it being an issue here; a major reason for the category system is that the previous subpage-based system had hierarchy problems, e.g. History of Algeria could reasonably be located at History/Algeria (the Algeria piece of general history) or Algeria/History (the history piece of all things Algeria), not to mention perhaps at History/Africa/Algeria and the like. That's why we employ LCSH in libraries as well as LCC. Have a good night :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I didn't click on "just this edition" as nobody told me to. I do appreciate your help here, please don't think I don't. The l-space diversion was me attempting to inject a little light relief into things, sorry if it lost you. But I do find Worldcat confusing and inaccurate. I also collect Laurie Lee, and I found this entry for a lecture about him. If I follow the link from that page to Brighton & Hove Libraries (my local library) I get this result which is a completely different work. Now, if I do the "only this edition" trick I do get libraries that hold that work, some of them treating it as a version of the biography, some as a different work. Anyway, to return to our sheep. There were 6 issues of "The New Naturalist", the first four issued in one volume (which I have), and the last two as individual issues. DuncanHill (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I know I didn't tell you to; I just thought maybe you would have tried it, to see what happened. No problem :-) Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

June 29

Walter Savage Landor's two Roses

Ah, what avails the sceptred race! We all know Landor's Rose Aylmer. He also drew inspiration from another Rose, Rose Paynter, later Mrs Charles Graves-Sawle. I have it somewhere in the back of my mind that the Paynters and the Aylmers were somehow related. Can anyone help? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a family tree:

Henry, 4th Lord Aylmer (c.1750-1785)___Catharine Whitworth (d.1805)__Howell Price (d.1801)
_____________________________________|________                     |                                                          
|                                            |                     |                                       
Matthew Whitworth Aylmer,   Rose Whitworth Aylmer   Sophia Catharine Price___David Runwa Paynter (1785-1864)   
5th Lord Aylmer (1775-1850) (d. 1800)                                      | 
                                                    _______________________|_____________________________                        
                                                    |                                                    |
                                                    James Aylmer Dorset Paynter  Sir Charles Graves-__Caroline Rose 
                                                    (d.1876)                     Sawle (1816-1903)    Paynter 
                                                                                                      (1818-1914)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23A8:830:A600:6530:85E1:1D75:CE0F (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC) 

Many thanks, that's very clear. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

desegregation busing conventional wisdom

This is about the Kamala Harris-Joe Biden dustup that I heard about from a couple nights ago (didn't watch it myself). Biden was apparently anti-busing and is now trying to backpedal it. The battles over busing were before my time and I'm not seeking debate or personal opinions about it here. Rather I'm asking what the CW is (regardless of whether the CW is correct). What I'd like to know:

• Whether it is still controversial today, at least in the centrist Democrat cohort (I guess that describes Harris and Biden). I.e, is it generally considered as having been a good thing, among people of that political persuasion?
• I'm presuming that conservatives still see it as having been bad, but maybe I'm wrong.
• What about the further left, i.e. the Bernie Sanders axis?
• If (and obviously that's a big if) one does think busing was good, is Biden's current take inherently ridiculous? That take afaict is that the federal mandate for busing bad, but leaving it to local districts was fine. If I understand Harris's criticism, it's that the local districts were segregationist and therefore would have not implemented any type of desegregation voluntarily, so it had to be imposed from outside if it was to happen at all.

Thanks 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has greatly limited the scope of busing with a number of decisions, most notably 1974's Milliken v. Bradley, which excludes most busing across school district boundaries. Within these constraints, it has turned out to be unfeasible to expect middle-class white parents to send their children to schools where they would be outnumbered by poor minority children -- when such a situation was set up, it quickly led to "white flight" to the suburbs, and pretty soon there weren't that many white children left in the city school system. In Boston, the situation was embittered when working-class whites came to the conclusion that upper-class whites (whose own children remained unaffected) were using their children as guinea pigs in a social-engineering experiment.

Nowadays most middle-class white parents don't mind a few middle-class black children or striving upwardly-mobile black children in the schools their children attend, but they would object just as strongly as ever to large numbers of poor black children being in those schools, and they generally have the political influence to prevent such a situation. However, see Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky) for one area that's achieved somewhat stable quasi-integration. AnonMoos (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This is entirely anecdotal, but my extremely left-leaning hometown was and still is stridently anti-busing. Actually, I'd say the community is just generally anti-interference when it comes to state and federal education programs. But with regards to busing, the stated concern is that the schools are expensive to fund, and parents don't want to share them with people who don't pay taxes in the school district. There have been serious suggestions in the face of anticipated state/federal action (from charter school programs and NCLB) to simply get rid of the public school system entirely, and let everyone send their kids to private school, or have an "official" private charter that gets town money. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

They might want to look up "segregation academies", and especially the case of the Prince Edward County, Virginia school system, which went all the way to the Supreme Court (Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County). AnonMoos (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

1. everything is controversial today. This is the media (specially social media) current business model (I am not implying this was better/different anytime). a quote attributed to Churchill is why I mention media: there is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion
2. pretty sure {opposing social engineering} (such like busing) is the very definition of conservatism. So I think you are right, conservatives oppose busing.
3. further left, seems to me that busing stops to be a question, because the state choose where the children go to school, not the parents (unless they are the nomenklatura). And the schools are equally the best, so they say (you cannot complain, anyway).
4. depends on your definition of ridiculous. For a politician, to speak so that voters may understand that they can have it both way (eg : support busing while being able to control it so that their children are in good schools) and don't feel hypocrites at all, is a skill, a feature, not a bug.

Gem fr (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

In contemporary United States politics, some conservative ideologues rant at length about the eeevils of big-government forced busing (conveniently ignoring the fact that there has been very little federally-ordered mandatory busing over the past few decades). The majority of center and center-left white middle class parents don't talk much about the subject, since they largely have the education of their children arranged to their satisfaction, and have no real reason to complain (not to mention that speaking out against busing could make them seem to be "sore winners" and/or call unnecessary attention to arrangements that benefit themselves at the expense of others). Many blacks and people on the left are unhappy about the fact that school segregation has been on the rise in recent decades (since a low point in the 1980s), but probably very few of them are gung-ho about long-distance busing as the solution. So there's no significant pro-busing current of public opinion in the U.S. now, but if you were too vehemently anti-busing in the 1970s, this can be a problem in internal Democratic party politics... AnonMoos (talk)

June 30

Indian Muslims/US Census question

Between 1920 and 1940, the US Census Bureau had a Hindoo category as one of its race categories. My question is this--were Indian Muslims likewise classified by the US Census Bureau as Hindoos during this time? I know that Sikhs such as Bhagat Singh Thind were classified by the US Census Bureau as Hindoo in spite of the fact that they were not literal Hindus. Thus, I'm curious whether the same was also true in regards to Indian Muslims who were in the US at the time of the 1920, 1930, and/or 1940 US Censuses. Futurist110 (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

One 1940 census item I just looked up on Ancestry.com (a pay site) has a dropdown that shows these possibilities under "Color or race": White (W), Negro (Neg), Indian (In) [presumably American Indian], Chinese (Chi), Japanese (Jp), Filipino (Fil), Hindu (Hin), Korean (Kor); "Other races, spell out in full." Can you think of any prominent Muslim Indians who would have been US residents in 1940? If so, I could look them up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

A rather high percentage of Muslims in the United States in 1940 were Ahmadiyya or members of the "Moorish Science Temple" and its various offshoots. The Ahmadiyya in the United States article lists a number of individuals who traveled back and forth between British India and the United States, but it's hard to tell which ones were in the United Stats in 1940... AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

He was not Muslim, but Bhicaji Balsara might serve as an example, as he was Parsi, not Hindu. He was "...notable for being amongst the first Indians to become naturalized U.S. citizens" (in 1909). Maybe there are others in Indian_Americans#Timeline worth pursuing, but I didn't see any spelled out as being Muslim. According to this, about 10% of Indian-Americans are Muslim, but there's not much more in the article about that. I've got to think that some kind of intersecting of categories would help narrow this down. Matt Deres (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

In the 1940 census (per Ancestry.com) it originally had "W" for race, which was crossed out and "Parsi" was written in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

British International Typewriting Team

In the course of reading up on A. J. Sylvester, Lloyd George's private secretary for many years, I discovered this in the ODNB article on him - "he became a member, in 1911 and 1912, of the British international typewriting team, which competed (unsuccessfully) with the Americans". I have been unable to find out anything more about this team, its members, or the competitions in which it took part. I would be grateful for any help. DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The Mascots of 1911: The Year God Met the Devil in the World Series by Bob Schroeder (p. 101): "The Day of the Game Thursday, October 26, 1911 New York City. Besides game six of the World Series being played, there was another world championship competition held that day. The sixth annual, World Typewriter Speed and Accuracy Championship was held in New York at Madison Square Gardens. Typing for one hour from unfamiliar text, after five words were deducted for each and every error, H. O. Blaisdell won with a score of 112 words per minute... Her prize was a trophy and one thousand dollars". Alansplodge (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

With the caveat that the citation is taken from a work of fiction which clearly warns upfront that certain events portrayed therein did take place but others are fictitious. However, this particular tidbit was likely taken from contemporary newspapers that Schroeder must have consulted in researching his novel, but no sourcing is given. Xuxl (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

July 1

UN Regulations

In a question above one of our esteemed associates has commented: "...1949, bc UN rules of self-determination basically demands that, if a province wants to separate and turn into a new state, it must be so, and we would have had 2 states.." This has opened a range of questions for me to ponder. Kindly assist. This ruling seems to have been flouted many times, see Basque region in Spain. Also Spain's recent crackdown on the Catalonian's who wanted to separate. I am sure we could list numerous others. Question 1. Am I missing something or has this rule been ignored over and over again by many countries. Secondly I would like to draw our attention back to the Rwanda Genocide and how the UN appeared to be completely useless. I recall many people on the ground at the time and just after discussing in quiet setting about how the UN is useless and should be disbanded as it is only a platform for the top nations to veto and tell smaller nations what to do. Without an army it is a toothless tiger. Question 2. Has there been any official talk of disbanding the UN because it has proven to be fairly useless. Example, resolving the Israel Palestine problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Answering question 1: Enforcement in international law has always been a huge problem, and of all the enforcement questions that international law has found difficult to answer have been those questions which deal with the territorial integrity and internal sovereignty of another nation. That said, there have been significant successes. Border disputes between two nations, for example, are subject to fairly settled international law and are themselves quite easy to handle (except, of course, where one of the nations refuses to settle it amicably). As to relatively internal conflicts, you're quite right that these rarely have ended with the split into two states.
As to Question 2, I would dispute the premises of your question: Why do those specific examples make the UN useless? One of its first serious tests, in the wake of World War II and in the early days of the Cold War, dealt with the Corfu Channel incident and the connected World Court case, which were resolved quite satisfactorily despite Albania's long refusal to pay its reparations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I find myself at odd with my own previous writing (as I originated the comment). I was referring to a case of a province already de facto separated, with enough UN support. This obviously do not apply to Basque or Catalonia regions in Spain, as they are not de facto separated. This did apply to East Pakistan, but required a war. Somaliland is another example of a de facto separated province, seeking international recognition as a state, were the UN currently fails to apply its own rule of self determination. Gem fr (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As for the second question, any country can walk out of the UN. None ever did, even when very critical of the UN, or under UN fire. This is proof enough that all countries find it useful. Besides, remember that just doing nothing is a legit course of action, sometime the best. You may have higher expectation, but you should consider that what is wrong may be your too high level of expectation, not what is effectively done. Gem fr (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

How about a reference? Criticism of the United Nations seems fairly comprehensive. --Viennese Waltz 09:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Gem_fr -- USSR was boycotting UN sessions in 1950, when United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 83 were passed... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

indeed: jan-aug so called Chinese boycott. But USSR however did not withdraw, the way many countries walked away from League of Nations. Even during this pretty hot phase of the cold war, even when USSR was the underdog in UN, it still considered being a member was better than being out. This means something. Gem fr (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

We have an article on Self-determination#The_UN_Charter_and_resolutions, which discusses some of the complications. In particular, note that there is also a UN-supported right for a state to defend its territorial integrity, which potentially contradicts the right of a people to self-determination. (Also, I think the principle of self-determination was primarily intended to be about overseas colonies gaining independence or self-government, while territorial integrity was primarily intended to be about not conquering or annexing other countries, so depending on the situation, one, none, or both may apply). Also note that (based on a very brief skim of the article), "self-determination" is about a people's right, not a province, so in situations when only a slim majority (or plurality) supports independence, that might not be enough to justify breaking away. Iapetus (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

81.131.40.58 -- The United Nations actually played an overall fairly useful role in the Arab-Israeli conflict from 1947 until at least the early 1960s. It couldn't arrange a formal peace when some parties conspicuously rejected the very idea of peace, but it performed a number of small constructive tasks in sweeping up around the edges of the huge mess which the British had left behind. The 1947 Partition Plan made the choice between peace and war very clear, and that the Arabs were the ones who chose war. Unfortunately, in May 1967, secretary-general U Thant abruptly withdrew UNEF from the Egypt-Israel border and Sharm el-Sheikh without any broader diplomatic consultation, and in violation of assurances which the United Nations had given the Israeli government in 1957. The manner in which UNEF was withdrawn caused regional destabilization, and played a significant role in precipitating the June 1967 6-day war, at a time when the United Nations should have been trying to prevent a war. And of course with the rise of third-worldism in the 1970s (also known as the alliance of petty despots and tin-pot tyrants against democracies), Israel became the ritualistic United Nations whipping-boy and scapegoat, subjected to Two Minutes Hate style denunciations of which United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 is the most infamous and notorious... AnonMoos (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. We don't have a Wikipedia article on "toothless tiger", but we do have one on "paper tiger". However, in the eyes of some this phrase represents Mao Zedong's careless insouciance about the prospect of China fighting a nuclear war... AnonMoos (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

In 1888, Belgian bank notes were changed to be bilingual, and this fact is mentioned in Dutch Wikipedia. Could you help me find a source?

A dutch friend mentioned this while we discussed the 4th of July. It'ss mentioned here, but there's no source for that statement since it is an outline of things that happened that day. Could someone help me? Thanks! User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 21:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, in this Wikipedia, Belgian franc#Language says the date was 1887, and cites a former National Bank of Belgium web page as the source. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)