Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

July 21

Self Verification of the Third Estate during the early days of the French Revolution

When Louis XVI called the Estates General in 1789, it set off a litany of events that would culminate in the French Revolution. My question pertains to this early period, just as the Third Estate refashions itself into the National Constituent Assembly. What did "verification" mean as it pertained to the delegates of the Estates-General and what did it mean that members of the Third Estate began to "self-verify" their delegates? My hunch is that it has to do with some sort of legitimizing process but I honestly have no idea. Any discussion on the topic would be greatly appreciated. Thank you folks in advance for your help. 2601:583:8302:1900:94E7:EE58:933B:B6BD (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first orders of business for the Estates General was to "verify" the credentials of the participants, i.e. to ensure that the persons present were actually entitled representatives of their respective estate (the Clergy; the Aristocracy; and the Third Estate - everyone else). Traditionally each of the three estates proceeded separately with the verification of its members. The caveat is that this body had not met since 1614, so it was hardly a well-oiled functional institution. And this time, the Third Estate wished to upend things by changing the procedure to a general verification. This was based on a larger strategy, to ensure that every deputy had equal status in the assembly, and that any vote taken would be individual, and not by estate. In the latter case, the Aristocracy and the Clergy could band together and outvote the Third Estate 2-1 every time, whereas if the vote was general, the Third Estate had a slight majority and could actually influence decisions. So the debate over verification was in fact over the fundamental issue of how the whole Estates General would function. The dispute was never resolved, as the Third Estate eventually broke off and proclaimed itself a "National Assembly" while inviting dissident members from the other two estates to join them. A few did, and that was the end of the Estates General, as the National Assembly became a constitutional assembly and the Revolution began. Here's an article in French [1]. The article Estates General of 1789 is also pretty complete. Xuxl (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Example nations with civil law systems without constitution

Are there any examples of civil law systems with no constitution? Clover345 (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to article uncodified constitution, San Marino and Sweden have no one single document which can be called the constitution of those countries... AnonMoos (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the United Kingdom has no single document that can be defined as its constitution. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the OP is looking for civil law systems, which would exclude the UK (except Scotland). DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland is a common law country, although influenced by the continental legal system (e.g. in the office of procurator fiscal). See auld alliance for a possible reason. One spin-off is that shortly after the Gregorian calendar became widespread on the continent the Scots (in 1600) moved the start of the year to the same date (1 January) but not the same day (it was a while yet before the Protestants accepted the new Catholic calendar). 77.101.226.208 (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Us code

What is the difference between acts of congress and US code? Clover345 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC) And also executive orders. Clover345 (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read United States Code and executive order?--Khajidha (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the legally binding laws of Congress are collected in a digest known as the United States Statutes at Large. That is a raw, chronological digest of the direct text of all laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. The United States Code is a subset of those laws which are general and permanent. "General" meaning "applies to the entire U.S." (i.e. not a private bill) and "permanent" meaning "standing indefinitely", (i.e. does not expire like a budget or something like that). Furthermore, the USC is organized topically into "Titles" to make searching and finding easier, whereas the USSaL is simply chronological. For most purposes, the USC is what is used to reference in legal disputes and in enforcement of the laws themselves, however technically only the text of the USSaL is legally binding in cases where the USSaL and the USC are in conflict, which is exceedingly rare. The concept of an executive order is that while the President does not have the constitutional power to make law, he does have the power to enforce laws already passed by Congress, and executive orders are a form of secondary legislation, which is how most laws work. Congress defines the general idea or limit of what it wants the executive branch to do through a law, and the President (or their designee) then decides how best to put that law into effect. So, for example, Congress may pass a law that grants the EPA authority to set limits on how much CO2 a particular power plant may put into the atmosphere, but they grant the EPA authority to set those limits based on the best available science at any given time. The EPA has the authority to set the limits, and that authority is "secondary legislation". Broadly speaking, an executive order is the highest level of secondary legislation; within the limits set by Congress and the Constitution, an executive order is a legally binding directive by the President regarding the manner in which some law is to be enforced. For example, Congress and the Constitution give the President broad authority over the military, and within the limits of that power (i.e. without violating, say, the Posse Comitatus Act), the President can decide to use the resources (money, materiel, and personnel) of the U.S. in rather broad ways; such as disaster relief or border security. Executive orders are the way the President will do that, ordering (for example) the Pentagon to re-allocate funding to construct a border wall, or direct troops to a disaster-struck area to help with the logistics of distributing food and water to needy people. --Jayron 32 13:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Code is the codification—the arrangement into a code of laws—of statutes passed by the U.S. Congress. For most laws, the Code itself is the law, whereas for some laws (especially those passed before codification but also for those that have not been the subject of a comprehensive rewrite and reenactment) the Code is the collection of statutes that have been editorially arranged in a convenient manner. This distinction is significant, though there are some that make it sound more significant than it really is (tax protestors who claim that the U.S. Code isn't "real" law and therefore doesn't have to be obeyed); basically the U.S. Code is presumptively the law, though if you can demonstrate an error in codification, you just use the bills as passed by Congress directly. Thus, by comparison, an Act of Congress is a bill passed by Congress that either enacts, amends, or repeals some statutory law.

Executive orders are, as the name indicates, orders made by the executive branch of the U.S. Government rather than laws passed by the legislative branch. While they are not law in the strict sense, they generally can only function where there is a constitutionally-viable delegation of authority (see the J.W. Hampton case) which the order or regulation is carrying out. This may include, for example, emergency powers acts, which have been of great interest in recent months; while an executive order pursuant to such an act isn't really law, it carries the force of law because it is authorized by law. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So in simple terms, is USC just a way of organising the acts? A bit like organising a library of books? Or is there more to it than that? Clover345 (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. It provides a uniform method of citation and knowing the statute you’re citing is reasonably up-to-date. And for those statutes that directly enact or amend titles or sections of the Code, it is the law. And even for those laws that are technically independent of the Code, I can’t even begin to tell you how awful it is to find and cite laws when there’s no codification. It is truly, truly time-consuming. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The US Code is the integrated version of the effective text of the laws as of right now. A particular law may have been passed in 1817, and then had a portion removed in 1876, and another portion added in 1895, and its limitations expanded in 1924. Each of those changes would usually be of the format "the text <blabbity blah> in law number whatever is stricken" or "the phrase "blabbity blah" is inserted into law number whatever at such and such a point" or the word "foo" is replaced with the word "bar", they would rarely (if ever) present the full text. So, if in 2020 I want to know what law number whatever actually covers, I would have to find each of those individual laws and apply each of the changes. Hoping that I didn't miss any. OR I could look it up in the US Code where this has already been done and checked by professionals. --Khajidha (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All this was explained 48 minutes after the question was asked!

Executive order is an order made by Donald Trump (in the present administration). "US Code" is an indexed book of laws. An "Act of Congress" is a piece of legislation. One would be needed to amend the Code. In this country there is also delegated legislation (regulations are made under an enabling statute and have the force of law). This is not unusual.

- 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:4B6:FE3C:395C:BF95 09:54, 21 July 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.35.118.67 (talk)

Lily of the Valley

In the name of this flower, where or what does the word 'valley' refer to? Thanks. Omidinist (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the flower is a reference to the Song of Songs.--Khajidha (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys.

2. As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.

3. As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

Song of Solomon 2:1-3 Alansplodge (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I spent many hours to find that. Omidinist (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could have looked at the Wiktionary entry. The scientific name Convallaria majalis also refers to valleys: Latin convallis means "valley", and the translation of the first line of the Hebrew text as found in the Vulgate is Ego flos campi, et lilium convallium. Only the last part is literally translated. --Lambiam 15:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also mentioned in Lily of the Valley, though only rather obscurely, in the Christian_traditions section. The article should perhaps mention that it's not (at least botanically) a lily. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not lily; it's muguet. Omidinist (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between corporate and public policy

What are the main differences between corporate policy and public or government policy in terms of substance and what is contained within each document? I know in high level terms one is the position or guiding set of principles for a private company and the other for a public organisation or Government. But what do those differences look like on paper? Is one based on the broad research and views of society and it’s organisations Whilst the corporate one is more based on company values and shareholder wishes? Clover345 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This question is virtually unanswerable. In general, different organizations (whether public or private) will have different objectives and are subject to different constraints on how they may endeavour to achieve these objectives. These differences may be stark. They will be reflected in differences in their policies. Whether an organization is for profit or not may be more important than whether it is public or private. Another important policy issue is to what extent they are accountable for their actions, and if so to whom. --Lambiam 21:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any specific "documents" that comprise either general public policy or corporate policy within specific corporations. There may be documents or sources to which policymakers refer, but there's certainly no canon of government policy. The policy is set by lawmakers. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

Vital dates for H. Price Collier

All I know of Rev. Hiram Price Collier is that he published a book with the intriguing title Doubtful Experiments in Rhyme in 1888, and he married his best friend's widow.

I'd like to know when he was born and died. My searches have turned up nothing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This site says:

Birthdate: May 25, 1860

Birthplace: Davenport, Scott County, Iowa, United States

Death: November 03, 1913 (53), Funen, Denmark

Place of Burial: Copenhagen, København, Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks very much, CEZM. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Role reversal of the USA Republican and Democrat parties

Hello, role reversal in the USA binary political system has been published so much that there could (should) be a Wikipedia article on it. Is there? Is there any material available inexpensively for someone interested in a deeper study of that aspect? A simple web search pulls stuff out of a hat, but it is about as revealing as saying, these guys were left, and these guys were right.. and then they weren't... And it generally covers a narrow time period, i.e., it's usually an article about something else particular, not about role reversal itself. Any leads on that score? ~ R.T.G 10:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In its first years in the 1850s and 1860s, the Republican party was defined by anti-slavery, but fairly soon after the Civil War it started being the party of big business, and it's still the party of big business today, so there has been no reversal in that aspect. The GOP overwhelmingly attracted black political support until the early 1930s, when disgust with Herbert Hoover for reneging on a deal he made with black leaders after the 1927 floods, combined with FDR's New Deal, started changing things, but blacks did not become overwhelmingly affiliated with the Democratic party until the 1970s. Conservative Southern whites started shifting to the Republicans with the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964, but this process took 30 years to be fully carried through... AnonMoos (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure that the Republicans are the party of "Big Business" anymore. They seem more focused on small business. "Main Street" more than "Wall Street" (and definitely not "Silicon Valley"). Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017 Trump/GOP tax cut ("Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017") overwhelmingly favored large corporations and financial speculation type businesss (hedge funds, etc) over typical small businesses or "main-street" businesses. AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, but sometimes there is a discrepancy between what politicians say and what they do. --Lambiam 14:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! You mean you actually check? What's the point in that, of course... ~ R.T.G 20:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Nixon and his Southern strategy. Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 16:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Realigning election is somewhat relevant to this issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've read a little about the southern strategy elsewhere before, but this is definitely more depth. For the sake of discussion, this side of the pond there was New Labour and Blue Labour maybe 25 years ago, so it may be a relevant topic in general, thanks. ~ R.T.G 20:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open–closed political spectrum (as opposed to left–right political spectrum) might be of interest as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Party System and Sixth Party System may be of interest. (Links to the articles on all 6 Party Systems are listed in Political eras of the United States. --Wikimedes (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone determine the age of this illustration?

I have noticed that the art style of this illustration is not even remotely similar to other medieval art: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dame_guiraude_supplice.jpg

The foreshortening and other aspects of the artwork make it seem to be more like modern fantasy art than anything else. I don't speak French, but the text seems to be modern French. I know next to nothing about paleography, but even the handwriting seems to be modern.

But, the file itself is classified as being in the common domain due to age. I very much doubt it. BirdValiant (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not medieval... I would guess 19th century at the earliest, and probably 20th. You are right to question it. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Agreed, the faces and the depiction of flames seem to be modern too. This is the original source I believe, but no clues there. A reverse image search was found nothing older than 2008 and no attribution. Alansplodge (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's an illustration at a museum somewhere. That'd be my guess. BirdValiant (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information page at Wikimedia Commons has: "Quintilla y Cardona, Histoire du catharism". Google searches show references to several publications with Quintilla Y Cardona as the publisher, based in Barcelona (one as early as 1940), and in the 50s and 60s also a gramophone label.^[2] I suspect that Histoire du catharism is a book title, and that the illustration was made specifically for the book. --Lambiam 15:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Thanks for your effort. My main concern is that if the illustration is from a modern book, then we might not have the right permission to use it on Wikipedia. At the very least, it wouldn't be right to say that it's in the common domain, if it's not. BirdValiant (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a magazine: Histoire du Catharisme (Centre d'études cathares René nelli), le magasine des hérésies et des dissedences. Alansplodge (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the image for deletion at [3] because it seems like it's the right thing to do. If we're not sure we can legally use the image, and the signs are pointing to us not being able to, then it should be taken down. BirdValiant (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Alansplodge (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The French text, by the way, says: In the year 1211, the town of Lavaur having been besieged by Simon de Montfort and his crusaders, very high Lady Geralde, in repayment for her fine resistance, was thrown alive in a very deep well, was then covered with heavy stones; all this was done by the order of the cruel baron. —Tamfang (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

What are the names of the two strongly blue German districts in the middle of the Russian Empire in 1897?

What are the names of the two strongly blue German districts in the middle of the Russian Empire (on or near the Volga River) in 1897--on the map on the right? Futurist110 (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamyshinsky Uyezd in the west and Novouzensky Uyezd in the east. StellarHalo (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! So, they were close to being German-plurality in 1897, but weren't quite there. Futurist110 (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was George Floyd a landlord?

So, according to George Floyd's info on Wikidata along with other sources, George Floyd was also known as "Floyd the Landlord". Was he actually a landlord or landowner, owning multiple houses and renting some of them out? StellarHalo (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google Search easily confirms that the name comes from a role he played in some very low-budget adult films. "Floyd the Landlord" is a character he played acting in at least one adult film. He was not a landlord, but he played one on TV. --Jayron 32 15:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between Number of Orders, Number of Receipts and payments and General Ledger?

I wasn't sure if it is best to publish this in RD:Humanities/Math;

Before I start to do bookkeeping maximally myself, I try to learn on some fundamental accounting terminology; I have become confused about the following terms:

Number of Orders (ספר הזמנות)
Number of Receipts and payments (ספר תקבולים ותשלומים)
General Ledger (ספר חשבונות)

If one describes orders made to its accounting entity in a Number of orders and if one describes receipts given from its accounting entity in a Number of receipts and payments than I personally misunderstand why a general ledger is needed.
I would theorize that a general ledger includes documentation of these and other documents (such as invoices) but I might be wrong.

What is the difference between Number of Orders, Number of Receipts and payments and General Ledger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.230.96.79 (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just going off my experience in retail for a large company and having shopped in a lot of small businesses (and not knowing the meaning or any nuance I'm missing from the Hebrew):

An order is a request for goods or services to be exchanged for currency. A receipt is a note that payment for the order occurred. Ideally, these should have a one-to-one ratio but there will be times where they won't line up. For example, if an order was made, recorded, and then cancelled without payment (perhaps due to lack of payment), the number of orders would exceed the number of receipts. In certain businesses (say, a distributor selling goods directly from unrelated companies in exchange for an overhead), a customer might also make (what is to them) a single order for many goods and the business might process it as multiple orders but still only charge the customer one time for all items (resulting in many orders and one receipt). A customer might even place multiple orders at the same time only for the business to process them as a complex transaction, resulting in one order with many receipts. Even in a business where orders and receipts would have a one-to-one ratio, there could still be a gap in time between the two: for barbershops and some restaurants, asking for payment before receiving the service is generally taken as a sign that the business is scared of (justifiable) refunds due to bad service. (Fast-food gets by on the assumption that they're putting out a mechanized product rather than rendering a culinary service). Computerized point-of-sale systems can make the gap between order and receipt even smaller (sometimes impossible to perceive), perhaps refusing to acknowledge that an order has occurred until it also registers a receipt.

A modern ledger should (at a minimum) keep track of how much money is going in and coming out, which are not the same as orders and receipts (even if they might ideally have a one-to-one ratio and even if more complete ledgers would also track those). A customer buying something for $20 might pay with a $15 gift card and a $10 bill, resulting in a $15 credit from the card, a $10 credit from the bill, and a $5 debit for the customer's change (and let's just ignore the initial cost to the business of whatever it was the customer was buying, paying for store upkeep, employees...). Combine that with the earlier example where a business breaks a customer's single order into multiple orders (say, two $7 orders and two $3 orders just to make the question of what money goes where even messier), and it becomes pretty obvious why almost any businesses that bothers with any accounting beyond "end the day with more cash than we started with" uses computerized point-of-sale and accounting systems. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer was very helpful for me Ian; I found it very didactic and now the differences between these three "accounting books" are much clearer for me. Thank you. 49.230.96.79 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, while I'm sure Ian understood your intentions, "didactic" is not usually complimentary. It has undertones of being patronizing and/or regimented to an excessive degree. A better choice might have been "educational" (and I agree it was a good answer). Matt Deres (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I have reread your answer; I was sure I understood it enough, but I misunderstand the critical following:

A customer buying something for $20 might pay with a $15 gift card and a $10 bill, resulting in a $15 credit from the card, a $10 credit from the bill, and a $5 debit for the customer's change (and let's just ignore the initial cost to the business of whatever it was the customer was buying, paying for store upkeep, employees...). Combine that with the earlier example where a business breaks a customer's single order into multiple orders (say, two $7 orders and two $3 orders just to make the question of what money goes where even messier), and it becomes pretty obvious why almost any businesses that bothers with any accounting beyond "end the day with more cash than we started with" uses computerized point-of-sale and accounting systems.
— User:Ian.thomson

About "Combine that"; currently I don't know how to do that combination; how would you do it?... 49.230.11.175 (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

182.232.198.247 (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US Code titles known as "acts"

Titles 13 and 17 of the United States Code are referred to in many sources (not least Department of Commerce v. New York and Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. respectively) as the "Census Act" and the "Copyright Act" respectively despite being titles of the US Code that have been enacted into positive law (so the terminology is not technically incorrect). Are there any other titles that are referred to as "acts"?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laws by the Congress are often called the whatever-Act. The Affordable Care Act, for one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All text is the U.S.C. were acts of Congress before their enumeration in the Code. The code is a sort of indexing system (basically a database) of the general and permanent laws passed by Congress. It is not itself U.S. law, but it is a convenient way to reference laws. When the courts cite a part of the code, it is done to allow others to find the relevant text for reference purposes, but the act of Congress that put that text there is still the actual relevant law. The two ways to refer to a law (by an act name and by a relevant code reference) are not mutually exclusive, and there's nothing wrong with using one, the other, or both. In this case, the Census Act referred to by the Court is NOT the merely Title 13 of the United States Code dealing with the census, instead The Census Act is a reference to Public Law 740 which is the law that put the text into that part of the Code. Again, the Title is not being referred to as "an Act". The Title is how one finds the relevant text of the Act, the Act itself was an honest-to-god bill passed by Congress in 1954 called "The Census Act". --Jayron 32 15:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would this help? Table of Popular Names in the US Code (It’s an external link from United_States_Code, which helpfully links to all the titles that are law, but unhelpfully, Wikipedia doesn’t always say if there is a popular name when you look at the individual title articles.) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

source for Ben Franklin's Jackass

On 2020-07-04 I asked a question on wikiquote:Talk:Benjamin Franklin about wikiquote:Talk:Benjamin Franklin:Franklin's Jackass?

A review of [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96943486 Michael Waldman (2016) The Fight To Vote includes the following attributed to Ben Franklin:

"Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers -- but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?"

If this is accurate, I think it belongs in the Wikiquote article on "Benjamin Franklin". Sadly, I don't have easy access to this book.

What do you think? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can preview Waldman’s book online [4]; the footnote for the anecdote says it is from The Casket, or Flowers of Literature, Wit and Sentiment (1828), quoted in Keyssar, The Right to Vote, 3.

(Keyssar refers to Alexander Keyssar, The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, rev. ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2009). Here is the quote in its preview: [5])

The Casket 1828 is here: [6]. None of my keyword searches are bringing up this quote within it, though. Can anyone else spot it? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you're trying to get the direct text of a book you don't have access too, you might try WP:REX to see if someone who frequents that noticeboard can help. --Jayron 32 15:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have Alexander Keyssar (2000). The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02969-8. Wikidata Q97621556., and I found the quote on p. 3. This book by Keyssar is ~500 pages, including 60 pages of notes. I assume that should be good enough for Wikiquote. If not, I can try WP:REX, as you suggest. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! It just worries me that the quote doesn’t seem to be where Keyssar says it is. Took a quick look through google scholar for people using the quote with a non-Keyssar attribution and saw another book mentioning the quote (The Franchise and Politics in British North America 1755-1867 by John Garner) [7] and this one attributes it to the Colonial Advocate Dec 27, 1827. That brings up [8] where you indeed find the quote in the middle of the front page. So Garner might be a more reliable source for you. Haven’t had any luck finding the original from Franklin’s lifetime, which would be best of all. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have Alexander Keyssar (2000). The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02969-8. Wikidata Q97621556.. It's an epigraph preface to ch. 1 on his (unnumbered) p. 3.

On the other hand, I so far have been unable to see it in the the middle of the front page of Colonial Advocate Dec 27, 1827, where you say you saw it.

The Garner version is shorter than Keyssar's, leaving out the comment that, "The man in the meantime has become more experience ... ."

I'm inclined to put it in Benjamin Franklin#Attributed, cite Alexander Keyssar (2000). The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02969-8. Wikidata Q97621556., p. 3, and leave it at that, especially since we've found it in two different places. The shorter is from 1827 but includes "...", while the longer version is from 1828 and plausibly includes the part indicated in the 1827 version by "...". Since Franklin died in 1790, both could have been quoting some earlier source that misattributed the quote to Franklin. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That all seems fair. I promise it's there in the Advocate - zoom in to the middle of the third column, under "warning to drunkards" :) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of these attributions identifies when or where Franklin is supposed to have said this. Was it an overheard conversation at the barbershop? It is tempting to provide an anonymous witticism with legitimacy by attributing it to Franklin/Twain/Shaw/Berra/Einstein/.... --Lambiam 08:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pokrowski University

Hi Folks. Anybody know what Pokrowski University is, or even if that is correct name. Based in the Soviet Union and referenced in the Leopold Trepper articles. I don't have a scoobie do what it is. I must search for about 8 times over the last three months and every time I come up blunt. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 21:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an informal name for the Institute of Red Professors, of which M. N. Pokrovsky was the first rector. --Lambiam 22:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a mention of "Pokrowski University" from a quick look through the documents used for the reference. They do mention Kums University and "Intelligence training schools". DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam:. Thanks. @DuncanHill: I'll check it. scope_creep^Talk 00:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ref seems correct. I think that is right university. scope_creep^Talk 00:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope sreep:Which page of the two pdfs from the National Archives mentions it? Certainly not page 52 as the reference claims. DuncanHill (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks. Quick result. scope_creep^Talk 01:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not mentioned on page 52 of either of the two pdfs from National Archives as used in the ref. DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maps: Who oversees "official" maps?

Oftentimes, on Wikipedia -- and elsewhere -- we see "old maps" (countries with borders different than today; countries that no longer exist; new countries; etc.) In fact, there is one (above) on this Reference Help Desk. (This question, above: What are the names of the two strongly blue German districts in the middle of the Russian Empire in 1897?) This got me to thinking. So, the map "changes" all the time. Is there some official body that is "in charge" and keeps a current illustration of the ever-changing map? Who is "in charge" / responsible for this type of thing? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikimedia Commons it's handled mainly by adding categories such as Category:Maps needing South Sudan political boundaries to image description pages... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wikipedia option, if you notice a map that is wrong/outdated, is that you can request an update to be drawn at Commons:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop as long as you provide accurate sourcing for the changes. They did one for me last year. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking there's no official body that says what the correct map is. Virtually everything's ad hoc and by local consensus and, where illustration updates are needed, one of the methods mentioned above are an option. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My question was not at all geared to Wikipedia. I meant, "out in the real world". Who oversees this sort of thing? Does the USA, for example, have some "official" map and/or "official" mapmaker? Of the country? Of the world? Etc. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard of that sort of authority existing in democratic countries. There are authorities like the United States Geological Survey and the British Ordnance Survey that generally produce the detailed maps that try to show cover the whole country and provide the best information, but nobody would say that a mapping feature on a Rand McNally or A-Z or Google Maps map must be wrong just because the place appeared differently on a USGS or OS map.

Authoritarian governments might take the point of view that everything they publish is definitively correct and any conflicting information is wrong, though. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official designation of countries' borders. When a body like the UN publishes a map, they are always careful to include a disclaimer stating that "the designations employed and the presentation of the material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries". --Viennese Waltz 07:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International borders are usually determined by bilateral treaties or mutual consent between the two nations who share the border. The authority in that case is the two nations that share the mutual border. Subnational borders are determined by the internal political processes of the nation in question, and the authority that nation itself. Wikipedia has some articles for you to use as starting points for your research. You can find them at border and Boundary delimitation and perhaps even Territorial dispute for when things break down. --Jayron 32 11:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The official map of Portugal included the town of Olivença, which is still occupied by Spain although it was ordered to hand it back in 1815. (It probably still does). The Estado da Índia was still marked on official maps of Portugal long after it was annexed by the Indian army in 1961. That was the grouse of the people - these places were officially described as ultramar when they were in fact colónias. How to portray disputed/undefined borders is a perennial headache for cartographers. 77.101.226.208 (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So, somewhere -- is not there some "official map" of the USA? Detailing all the states, state borders, cities, national borders, etc.? I assume there must be something, somewhere. Who oversees all that? Who is in charge of all that? When there are issues / questions / concerns ... I doubt that the President or the Governors or the Mayors just say "let's open up some random atlas and see what's there". No? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not any single "map", like behind glass somewhere. There are various legal documents that define state borders, often the acts of Congress that delimits the state when it was admitted to the union. In the cases of disputes, these legal documents are used by the courts to determine things like jurisdictions and the like. The most recent example of such an event is the North Carolina/South Carolina Border Commission, which made some adjustments to the border in 2013 to make it more accurately align to the enacting legislation that created it originally (i.e. the defined lines in the laws did not match the lines as drawn in the dirt). These sorts of things are generally left up to the states and such to adjudicate themselves, though the courts do get involved when there are disputes that cannot be resolved among the parties. An example of such a dispute which is still ongoing is the Tennessee-Georgia water dispute. Insofar as there is any sort of Federal Government-level maps in the U.S., they would be maintained by the United States Geologic Survey, however these are physical maps and not political maps. They do have political boundaries on them, but they are not legal documents, and the purpose is to create accurate and reliable physical maps of U.S. lands. --Jayron 32 16:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of what can be done see cadastral divisions of Western Australia. 2A00:23C1:E101:D700:34A6:251C:F895:A8E8 (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the United Kingdom, the mapping authority is the Ordnance Survey, which was founded in 1747.

Linked to that article is National mapping agency. Alansplodge (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

Why do so many religions have negative views towards sex?

Many religions- or at least the more conservative/traditional denominations of religions- tend to attribute sinfulness and guilt to sex and other sexual acts. This is puzzling especially since sex is necessary for life. I would like to obtain resources on the sociological/anthropological (not necessarily the theological/ethical) origin of the sinfulness of sex. Thank you! 2600:1700:FBA0:3B80:2591:C7A7:5092:605A (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles asceticism and antisexualism. As a historical explanation, the influence of Gnosticism was very important -- Gnosticism actually occurred in both "antinomian" (indulgent) and "ascetic" forms, but the ascetic forms of Gnosticism were a very important influence on Mediterranean civilization in the early centuries A.D. Gnosticism had no real influence on mainstream Christianity in theological doctrines, but it did have an influence in attitudes to sexuality... AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which religions? Christianity was very anti-sex from very early times, but the reasons were cultural rather than strictly theological. Judaism isn't anti-sex so far as I know, and I've read in various places that this is so (no doctrine of original sin, for example - but note that Christianity had no such doctrine either until it was defined by Augustine of Hippo). Of non-Western religions I know a little about Buddhism, and it certainly isn't anti-sex (Theravadin monks don't have sex, but they don't regard sex as evil). I think you might be approaching this from a Christian standpoint. Achar Sva (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Successful religions generally don't argue against a broader society's ethics but at least pay lip service to the idea of trying to equal or exceed them. Even in a world without religion, agriculture is going to result in a surplus of goods that someone is going to be jealous of, animal husbandry is going to result in a more detailed knowledge of where babies come from, and these combined can easily result in men attempting to monopolize sex with their wives. This isn't a universal trend, as many African groups formed the Matrilineal belt (though it does note that many of those groups become patrilineal with a rise in pastoralism). Polyandry in Tibet could be suggested as another counter-example, but I'm pretty sure the brothers would get angry if their wife ran off with another man/men. Throw in a (historical) lack of safe and effective birth control or treatments for STDs, along with awareness that childbirth is dangerous (if less so now than in the past), that more children means less food, and that sex makes some people do stupid things; and it doesn't take religion to make people have complex (and not entirely positive) views on sex.
...Also... child sexual abuse was actually the norm for much of the world throughout history, and the Church Fathers complaints about sexual immorality make a bit more sense in that light. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be a disclaimer that this book is taking its ideas from psychohistory which has some controversies. 93.136.116.73 (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A useful book, thanks :). I have a pretty strong familiarity with one non-Western culture, and it brings to my mind the extent to which we assume so much behaviour as normal, simply because it's ours. Achar Sva (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Achar Sva, your last sentence is is a profound and important observation, and the World would be a better place if more people were mindful of it more often. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.211.254 (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I initiated Draft:Sexual politics, requesting proactive contributions to expand the article, if you / those who, feel interested in the topic, Thanks Bookku (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to distinguish between the very minority fringe groups that thought all sex was bad and should always be avoided (e.g. Shakers), and the far more common attitude that sex was something to be regulated and controlled. (Plus intermediate attitudes such as "sex distracts people from God, so priests/monks/nuns/etc should be celibate, but obviously the laity need to keep reproducing"). Iapetus (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Law enforcement and criminal justice system of Japan

I have some questions regarding the law enforcement/police and the criminal justice system of Japan:

I have once heard someone claiming that one of the major reasons the crime rate in Japan is notably so low is because the police tends to prematurely close a lot of murder cases as suicides when they should not have according to the evidences. Is there any evidence supporting this notion?
Is it true that Japanese prosecutors only ever prosecute anyone if they are 99%-100% sure to secure a conviction?
Due to recent events in the United States and similar events before them, a significant amount of people have unfortunately been projecting their views of police and criminal justice system in general onto the main conflict of an ongoing highly popular shonen manga. What is the reputation of the Japanese police and criminal justice system among the general public in Japan?

StellarHalo (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With its excessive reliance on confessions by suspects, and its almost 100% conviction rate, the Japanese system is quite odd compared to what is found in other countries in the world. In the notorious case of Carlos Ghosn, a CEO of a multinational corporation offended some in Japan by being compensated excessively lavishly by Japanese standards. Despite the fact that he had not clearly and obviously broken any significant law, he was placed into the Japanese legal system, with lengthy pretrial detention and endless prosecutorial browbeating, and it did not end well... AnonMoos (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the second question, that argument is a common counter to the claim that the Japanese criminal justice system is anything but fair to the accused. One counterpoint I've heard is that the difference in conviction rates between Japan and the United States comes down more to the fact that Japanese judges who acquit criminal defendants do not remain judges for terribly long. Whether there's much truth to that, I don't know; I suspect it's as provable as the claim that Japanese prosecutorial discretion is far more conservative than in the United States. My gut instinct is that the reason for the distinction comes down to two major factors: (1) the relative ease of invoking exclusionary remedies for unlawfully-obtained evidence in the United States; and (2) the availability of the criminal jury, which is highly unpredictable by nature. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

Help identifying WWII uniform patch

I was hoping someone could help identify these U.S. Army uniform items. A quick search on my own found nothing useful. The patch is a bell shape with an silver eagle on a blue background with red lines. The other shoulder had a patch (black hourglass on a red circle) for the 7th U.S. Infantry. The blue label pin seems to have a silver cross? on top, a wavy silver bar in middle and a silver outline of a pentagon on the bottom. Rmhermen (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see it in Armies. Corps. Divisions, and Separate Brigades by John B. Wilson. Try reposting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history where there are experts who are happy to help. Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bell-shaped patch was worn by the Korean Military Advisory Group. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That makes sense. Rmhermen (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the blue-and white lapel pin with cross and pentagon: I think I've google-image-searched just about every relevant (and far-fetched) search term combo I could come up with, finding not a sausage. It's annoying me now, and I've asked for help at the WP Military History Project. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this comes up on a day when I need to get to sleep cause I have work this evening :) Anyway...Its a pity more of the uniform isn't shown, I'd have a better idea if the award was inherited or specific to a time period. A preliminary look at the above information tells us the aforementioned Korean Army group came under the US Army's 8th Army after hostilities erupted on the peninsula, which suggests that the pin could be a unit acting with or on behalf of the 8th during the offensive. The closest I was able to do was the patch for the 17th Infantry Regiment (United States), although I can tell that's not it. Smart money says if we dig into the article Korean War order of battle we'd find the unit, but I couldn't tell you how long that would take. A better, more detailed list can be found here, but again, who knows how long it'd take to actually find the pin. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, TomStar81! With that help I found two pictures of this distinctive insignia (DI). Here (WorthPoint) and here (Flying Tiger Antiques). Both sites describe it as belonging to the 17th Infantry Regiment, manufactured by N.S. Meyer Hallmark, from the 1950s. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

inspirations by American visual art

I saw these videos [9] and [10] on YouTube. The former features Mary Kom unveiling a version of Charging Bull and of Fearless Girl. The latter features two different versions of a South African Fearless Girl. Who sculpted the statues in the former?2604:2000:1281:4B3:806F:57D6:B8B1:5437 (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related question also at the Entertainment desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the late 1920s A- and B-class British destroyers built?

See the title. Thanks in advance, User:Thatone~~weird~~wikier | Conversations and Contributions 15:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you mean that because there were a lot of First World War destroyers left over, why build any new ones? A few points:

1) If you want to maintain a large fleet (the Royal Navy had 144 destroyers in 1930),[11] then you can't let them all reach the end of their life at once, so replacements are needed at regular intervals.

2) Wartime experience had shown that the destroyer needed to be a multi-role vessel, capable not only of torpedo attack but also anti-submarine warfare and mine clearance, which required a larger vessel. [12]

3) Because Germany was unlikely to be a competitor anytime soon because the Versailles Treaty had virtually disarmed their navy, it was likely that any future conflict might be further away, possibly with Japan. The war had shown the need for capital ships to have a destroyer escort, therefore longer range destroyers were required, again needing a larger hull.

4) The Japanese, having had the number of their capital ships and cruisers restricted by the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, decided "to build large numbers of other types of ships not restricted by the treaty, with the most powerful weaponry possible" resulting in the Fubuki-class destroyers. These were 1,750 tons compared to 1,200 tons of the latest British V and W-class destroyers. The 1930 London Naval Treaty put a temporary stop to this arms race by restricting the total tonnage of each destroyer fleet. [13]

Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the in-depth answer! User:Thatone~~weird~~wikier | Conversations and Contributions 20:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Informal fallacies

Our article Red herring says: ″As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies." I'm a newbie to informal logic and seem not to be able to identify any other group of fallacies within this 'broad' class that is not red herrings. Can anybody help, ideally with a source? Thanks, --Stilfehler (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Relevance fallacies. Section 3.2 of the book A Concise Introduction to Logic by Patrick J. Hurley is dedicated to fallacies of relevance. --Lambiam 23:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is very helpful, thank you! --Stilfehler (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is any way of wikilinking "relevance fallacies"? The lead at Category:Relevance fallacies points to Irrelevant conclusion, but that says that "It falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies". Any ideas? Alansplodge (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have List of fallacies#Relevance fallacies. Although the organization of that section is IMO a bit confusing, it is a plausible new redirect target for Relevance fallacy. The redirect ought to be labelled {{R with possibilities}}. Other terms that should likewise be redirected or re-redirected are Relevance fallacies, Fallacy of relevance and Fallacies of relevance. --Lambiam 19:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

Would this system of organ "sales" be economically feasible?

I am not sure if I am allowed to ask this type of question here. If not, I apologize. I need an expert in economics to test the feasibility of the following premise:

There is a regulated system of legal financial compensations for organ donors in place where the compensation would be provided by a third party (government, charity, or insurance) with public oversight. Bidding and private buying would not be permitted and available organs would be distributed to the next in line on a first-come-first-serve basis. Donors would be screened for physical and psychological problems and they would be guaranteed any follow-up care for any complications. Instead of a lump sum cash payments, in-kind rewards such as down-payment on a house, contribution to retirement fund, and lifetime health insurance would be provided as compensation.

Would the above scenario be economically viable, at least in the United States?

StellarHalo (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Economists are very good in explaining retrospectively why some scheme was not economically viable. Here the question is prospective. Usually "economically viable" is interpreted as profitability in the accounting sense. I assume that the institution in charge of the operation would, however, be a nonprofit organization, and that the measure of success is the reduction or elimination of the waiting list. It seems to have worked for kidney transplants in Iran,^[14] to the extent that some are proposing its extension to other organs.^[15] As to the US, the law would need to be changed, but even then there will be considerable cultural pushback, which may cause the program to fail; see Organ donation#Other financial incentives and the following section on Bioethical issues. --Lambiam 10:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the laws are changed and there is no cultural pushback with the rate of donation not dropping as a result, do you think there would be a hard ceiling in terms of possible financial compensations to the donors if only a third party could legally pay the donors rather than having the recipients pay out of their own pockets? StellarHalo (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StellarHalo -- some potential organ donors are not so much seeking cash for themselves (or for their families after their death) as that they have become very very cynical about the fact that everybody else involved in organ donating and transplanting is making good profits, while only the donor is expected to be selflessly altruistic. Such people would respond more to a good faith gesture that they're not being singled out for receiving no money, while everybody else is handsomely compensated... AnonMoos (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being wholly illegal, (see National Organ Transplant Act of 1984; similar laws apply in most developed nations.), it's a system ripe for abuse. Fortunately, economists do not necessarily care about abuse; if the system distributes scarce resources (organs, in this case) more usefully (have fun defining that!), then there are economists who will be quite happy to throw off to one side any ethical consideration. Compulsory donations, perhaps with an opt-out provision, are far, far more sensible. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. How would the donors be selected? Randomly, like jury duty? Only residents, or could they also select visiting tourists? How many people do you think would "dodge the donation" and move to Canada or elsewhere? --Lambiam 19:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you to consider whether or not a hypothetical scenario would be economically viable for the third party (government, charity, insurance) that gives the financial compensation to the donors instead of the recipients and that particular scenario is a proposal that is meant to prevent abuses. This is not supposed to be a free market system where private purchase is allowed. Also, this is in response to the increasing shortage of organs available for transplant especially kidneys that result in people in need dying every year if they don't go to developing countries for the black market. Most people do not donate their own kidney due to variety of different reasons and there is no way a compulsory donation would be possible in a liberal democracy. The only system with opt-out provision is presumed consent and that only makes organs available after the donor has died rather than immediately. In addition, a very small fraction of these deceased donors die in circumstances where their organs are healthy enough to be claimed for transplant. StellarHalo (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many parties are involved? Obviously the donors, and you mentioned a "a third party", so there is yet another party. The recipients of the transplants? As far as I can see, they have no economic role in the proposed system. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "economically viable"? That the amount earned exceeds the amount spent in compensating the donors and otherwise operating the system? If it is the third party whose income and expenses this regards, what is their source of income? Tax dollars? Allocate enough tax dollars, and the system will not have a lack of money. --Lambiam 21:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Va Kua Pomare of Tahiti

Trying to find who Princess Va Kua Pomare of Tahiti was. Here are two images from Getty Images: https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/princess-va-kua-pomare?mediatype=photography&phrase=princess%20va%20kua%20pomare&sort=mostpopular . I am presuming that she would have lived in the early 1900s and possibly is a misspelling since I am not aware of this name in the Pōmare dynasty of Tahiti. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Ari'i-manihinihi Takau Pomare, mentioned at Queen Marau? There is a certain resemblance in the facial features. --Lambiam 19:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of black market getting suppressed by legalization?

Could you provide me with notable and specific examples that would support the notion that the creation of a new legal and authorized market for a good or service has suppressed the prominence and activities of the its black market? StellarHalo (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after the end of Prohibition in the United States, sales of black market booze certainly declined, and criminal organizations focused on other nefarious pursuits. 2606:A000:1126:28D:8C34:E67B:DCB2:8E78 (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will also depend on taxation of the legal goods, and on how widespread the goods are legally purchasable within a jurisdiction where it is (theoretically) allowed. The Los Angeles Times article "California now has the biggest legal marijuana market in the world. Its black market is even bigger", from less than a year ago, reports that "high taxes and a refusal by most cities to allow licensed shops makes it cheaper and easier for people to buy from illicit dealers (...) An estimated $8.7 billion is expected to be spent in the illegal cannabis market in 2019 — more than double the amount of legal sales", this all despite the Adult Use of Marijuana Act which was passed in 2016. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In countries where coffee was made illegal (or excessively taxed) this created a black market, which eventually disappeared as the sale of coffee was normalized. --Lambiam 22:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another counter example: [16]. Black market for cigarettes, to avoid taxes. RudolfRed (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The takeaway lesson for lawmakers appears to be: if you want to legalize some good but do not want the black market to disappear, make sure to impose a heavy excise tax or other impediments to legalized access. --Lambiam 10:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for President of The United States

I read on your info page that a candidate for the president of the United States had to be a natural born citizen of the US.

How was Ted Cruz (not his real first name) able to run for President? He was born in Calgary, Alberta Canada. How does that work/ -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Wondering88 (talk o contribs) 22:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Natural born citizen" means that he was a citizen of the U.S. at the moment of his birth; that doesn't always mean being born on U.S. territory... AnonMoos (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Cruz had US citizenship because his mother was a US citizen. See Ted Cruz#Citizenship, and follow the link to Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016#Eligibility if you like. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should read natural-born-citizen clause#Ted Cruz, which discusses the question extensively. Put briefly, while the law is unsettled, the consensus of constitutional scholars seems to be that Cruz would be a natural born citizen for the purposes of presidential eligibility. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Riesman, Laura Bohannan

In Riesman’s foreword to Return to Laughter, why did he suggest she was a coward?Rich (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you state the exact quote? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this passage: "Professional men and perhaps especially professional women in our society have a dream of omnicompetence in which they are never ruffled, angry, irrational, stupid, and tactless, let alone cowardly. Mrs. Bohannan discovers in herself all these failings—with the additional failing, quite alien to the tribe she studied, of wanting to be a superior person and without failings."? If so, your question contains a mischaracterization – and the passage itself provides the answer. --Lambiam 10:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

International laws governing military aircraft flown by defectors

In 1953, Franciszek Jarecki defected from Poland with a Soviet MiG-15bis landing on the Danish island of Bornholm. It was the first MiG-15 to be examined by American experts, partially disassembled and studied in Denmark. The MiG-15bis was then shipped back to Poland a few weeks later; the wiki article claims it was because of international regulations, while the source only says it was shipped back without explanation. What international regulations might these be, if they exist? Why weren't the Danes allowed to transfer it over to the Americans, who so desperately wanted to study a working example of the MiG-15? They would soon after launch Operation Moolah in Korea, with the aim of getting a pilot to defect with another MiG-15, and they were definitely aware of Jarecki's defection because he was on the leaflets. Alcherin (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]