Humanities desk
< December 18	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 19[edit]

carpet[edit]

There is a photograph with the caption "A meeting of Foreign Ministers about the situation in Syria is pictured at the Palace Hotel in the Manhattan borough of New York December 18, 2015" but I can't find an image of the pictured flooring using Google Image search. I am guessing is is a carpet. It seems so extraordinary that there would be an image of it online. Can anybody find it? Bus stop (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] --164.215.104.173 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is it. Thanks. The design looks so much larger in the Reuters photograph. Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither picture shows the whole carpet, so you may be seeing different parts of it. Possibly a similar pattern occurs in more than one place in more than one size. Also, note that the original photo seems to have been taken with a wide-angle lens, which somewhat exaggerates the size of things nearest the camera.

Here are two other pictures of the hotel's Villard Ballroom. On page 4 of this PDF document you can see a large table partly covering the central design feature from the original photo. And again in this photo a large table is partly covering that feature. That last table looks as if it would fill most of the space inside the U-shaped tables of the original photo. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a pretty good picture of it. The original link I posted above no longer works. Bus stop (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, notice the bit that reads &w=976 within that URL. On some news media web sites, this is used to specify how wide you want the picture to be. If you trim it out of the URL, often you get a higher-resolution version. That works with this one. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is wonderful. Thank you. I'm glad I started this thread. I learned something. Bus stop (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conference rooms I've been in are typically tight-weave carpeting. Tile or other hard surfaces tend to exaggerate noise and are less "cozy" anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They should sit on the carpet to maximally enhance conviviality. Bus stop (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or to enhance pain, maybe. Tight weave carpet on a concrete floor would be even less comfortable than typical conference room chairs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suspending the whole thing on a trampoline might bring about whirled peas. Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the boy gets a cigar! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea: presidential or semi-presidential regime?[edit]

Article South Korea states that it has a presidential regime. But South Korea also has a prime minister. I'd always thought that any regime with both an effective non-ceremonial president elected through a general popular vote and a prime minister with a cabinet that comes out of parliamentary elections (e.g. France, Russia, etc.) is by definition semi-presidential. Wouldn't that make South Korea a semi-presidential system? If not, could anyone point to another presidential regime with a prime minister? And another thing: article Turkey says that it is a parliamentary system. But as far as I can tell it also fulfills the definition of a semi-presidential regime. Have I misunderstood something? Contact Basemetal here 10:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey was a parliamentary system until recently, with very limited powers accorded its president. However, constitutional changes introduced in 2015 at the behest of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan after his election as president have changed the nature of the regime, making it semi-presidential. Note that in the past, both Turgut Özal and Suleyman Demirel exercised significant power out of the presidential seat in spite of the regime being parliamentary in name. --Xuxl (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of Korea is a presidential representative democracy, as per our article. The president exercises executive power, the National Assembly and the government exercise legislative power and the Supreme Court and subordinate entities exercise judicial power. The President appoints the Prime Minister, with the approval of the National Assembly. In my experience, the main job of the Prime Minister is to resign, so as to accept responsibility for any embarrassment that might befall the President. DOR (HK) (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly how Vth Republic France works and that is (according to WP) a semi-presidential regime. Contact Basemetal here 13:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly how Vth Republic France works, and to the question "France, presidential or semi-presidential regime?", the French (who probably don't read WP carefully enough) would without hesitation answer "presidential". Akseli9 (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

uh, I am French, and I listened at school, and I definitely would answer "semi-presidential" without hesitation. What French do you socialise with? --Lgriot (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With User:DOR (HK) and with User:Basemetal right above. Akseli9 (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it was a French political scientist, Maurice Duverger, who came up with the concept of régime semi-présidentiel and applied it to the French Cinquième République (Maurice Duverger, Le système politique français, PUF, 1970). See fr:Régime semi-présidentiel. Contact Basemetal here 15:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens From Countries That Need Visas To Travel v Using Ethnic Profiling To Prevent Crime - Explain The Difference?[edit]

The passport that my wife holds, requires a visa to travel to most countries on earth. I am from a European country and hardly ever require a visa. She finds this completely unfair, and whilst I do sympathise with her, she understands that as her country is extremely poor and corrupt, a lot of it's citizens would like to leave and never come back.

But isn't this just the same as ethnic profiling to prevent crime/terrorism?

She has travelled widely with me and has always returned to her country (we both live there). Obviously we can go through the process of applying for a visas, but this is extremely troublesome and expensive. However, over time as she has visited more and more countries, the application process becomes a lot easier

But surely what foreign governments are doing is just a bigger version of ethnic profiling? Basically, they are saying either:

The people in your country are generally very poor, if we didn't check you out in advance, you might not come back

OR

We have noticed in the past some people from your country have overstayed, therefore you might overstay as well

So lets just substitute a couple of words, and then allow the police to use this logic instead of the border guards:

The people of your ethnicity in this country are generally very poor, therefore you might be tempted to commit crime

We have noticed in the past that people of your ethnicity are more likely to commit crime, therefore you might commit crime

Now of course, you can say that citizenship does not equal ethnicity, however, in many examples (especially in the developing world) this is actually true

In this day and age of political correctness, I'm amazed that the whole visa system hasn't be targeted as surely it is one of the last bastions of legal discrimination

However, if on the other hand, the visa system does work, then surely ethnic profiling should be adopted by police forces all around the world? Jaseywasey (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post long political scenarios and then ask for comment on various arguments you have made. Please feel free to add specific requests for factual material. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unhatted because Medeis does have a point but there is further information for the questioner. The further information is that visa requirements are often on a tit-for-tat basis. So, coming from the UK, I need a visa to go to Cambodia, but at the same time a Cambodian needs a visa to come to the UK. By contrast a citizen of Vietnam doesn't need a visa for Cambodia, and a citizen of Cambodia doesn't need one for Vietnam. You could say that there should be more such arrangements, and lots of people would agree. If you look right across the world, there has been a fair amount of loosening up, mainly for tourism purposes, but also for cross-border work and migration for work. Your post assumes that visa-free travel is the default and then countries impose visa requirements for specific reasons. It's the other way round, really. Visas were required more or less everywhere, but the requirements are being dropped. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nations have the right to decide who comes in and who doesn't, and as Judith indicates, those rules vary for and about each country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If nations have the right to decide who comes in and who doesn't, what exactly made the ban on Chinese immigration in 1923 or Trump's recent proposal so objectionable? Contact Basemetal here 18:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were seen (by some) as racist and arbitrary. But these decisions are enacted by law, meaning they are debated and discussed, both in Congress and in the general public. And if they are objectionable to the rest of the world, it doesn't matter. The rest of the world does not have jurisdiction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's question had a verbose introduction which included unnecessary biographical information, but it was basically a very simple one: Are visa policies which distinguish between different countries a form of ethnic profiling? If yes, what makes it acceptable in this case and not in other cases such as crime prevention? It is a perfectly valid question for the RD in my opinion. Contact Basemetal here 18:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reclosing, because while we're bandying about terms like racist, not a single person above has offered a reference or article in response to the OP's rather long argument. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visa (document) has a lot of information about visa requirements. Respondents are pointing out to the OP that the restrictions on people entering countries because of their nationality are different from any proposed restrictions by ethnic/religious criteria. Schengen Agreement and Fortress Europe may also be of interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that immigration rules are largely ethnic and racial-based, so you can call them racially and ethnically discriminatory. However, in some cases this seems to be a necessary evil. Consider the case of a small, prosperous nation and a large, poor nation. If the small nation allowed everyone in from the poor nation, the numbers would soon overwhelm them, and they would be so outnumbered that their nation would become little more than a colony of the large, poor nation. That is, their culture, language, and eventually even form of government would likely change to match the larger nation. So, laws are passed to prevent this. If the two nations have different racial or ethnic makeups, then those laws will necessarily discriminate in those ways. StuRat (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is still worth pointing out that most of the time the restrictions on entry are set by nationality. See for example Visa policy of Mozambique, with the map showing which countries have visa-free entry. We have articles like this on most or all countries. So as a UK citizen I need a visa to enter, and that is entirely dependent on my UK passport, not on race, religion or any other aspect. If I moved to South Africa and took South African nationality, I would be able to enter Mozambique visa-free, and of course that would again be with no reference to race or religion. I don't know of any exceptions that are currently coded in official statements about visas. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it's also worth pointing out that there is more than one understanding of nationality. From that article's lede: "In English and some other languages, the word nationality is sometimes used to refer to an ethnic group (a group of people who share a common ethnic identity, language, culture, descent, history, and so forth)." Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can fairly effectively restrict immigration of a particular ethnic group by restricting nationalities which largely contain that ethnic group. For example, banning all immigration from Japan would rather dramatically cut down on the number of ethnically Japanese immigrants. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question (historic racists)[edit]

Can you list me some people from the past who were considered by their contemporaries to be far right racist and backwards like people today consider [some politicians] to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikou35464 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Mikou35464 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the BLP violations, "far right racist and backwards" covers a lot of ground, and the list could be very long. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might include some pro-slavery politicians in the US prior to the Civil War, who were considered to be racist by at least some of their contemporaries (the abolitionists). John C. Calhoun comes to mind. More recently, those US politicians who opposed civil rights and supported segregation, like George Wallace, might qualify. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the awesomely horrible Cornerstone Speech. Outside of the U.S., one might consider some of the particularly hardcore imperialists like Cecil Rhodes (see Mark Twain's quote in the article). --71.119.131.184 (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that "far right" and racist aren't synonymous. Hitler, for example, was about as racist as one can get, but wan't particularly far right, which in Germany would have meant a supporter of restoring the monarchy. StuRat (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In modern terms, Nazism and other forms of fascism would be almost universally considered far-right. Some monarchist groups are far right (e.g., the ultra-royalists), but monarchism is not part of all, or even most far-right movements, whether contemporary or historic. Neutrality^talk 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added to your title, to make it actually useful as a title. StuRat (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The original question mentions Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. There was no reason to delete these, as the OP didn't give any judgement on them, merely correctly stated that they are considered racist by (some of) their contemporariness, which is true. They are useful to mention as examples of the kind of people the OP is looking for. Though I must mention that Farage is more centrist in most of his other 'policies'. No BLP problems there, he isn't calling them racists. Fgf10 (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification, I was wondering if he wanted us to give those examples. So having had those examples, I can confidently name UK people like Enoch Powell, Oswald Mosley and John Tyndall (politician). --TammyMoet (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racism isn't always the sole prerogative of the right-wing however; consider Joseph Stalin and his Decossackization programs. Alansplodge (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and Stalin weren't left wing or right wing, they were totalitarians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe those terms to be mutually exclusive. Stalin at least professed to have left-wing ideas, supporting equality of wealth for all (the Constitution of the Soviet Union actually granted generous rights to all, too bad they just ignored it and did whatever they pleased). However, whether he actually believed that or merely used it as a convenient way to fool the masses is up for debate. StuRat (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many citizens did Stalin murder? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're still counting. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin, like Killgrave, never killed anyone. It is always someone else who does the killing. 175.45.116.66 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was responsible for the murders of tens of millions, but how is that relevant here ? Is your argument that a mass murderer can't have a right- or left-wing philosophy ? StuRat (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The left-right spectrum is quite simplistic; one improvement on it is the political compass. The Zong massacre may be relevant to the OP. Munci (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]