Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 October 3
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 2 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 4 > |
| 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. |
October 3[edit]
What's the longest scheduled cargo ship round trip in the world?[edit]
Longest time to return to A by days and miles. Not necessarily an A to B shuttle, it could be a cycle like A to B to C (etc) to A to B to C.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Before I started managing mobile property for a care organization, I was a programmer for a Chinese shipping company. My experience, though it is with only one company, might be of interest. The main business is moving products from China to the United States. Once the Chinese goods are offloaded, there is very little comparative demand for American goods in China. So, the ship returns nearly empty. I had to set up stops to load/unload on the trip back. It was not uncommon for a ship to go from China to Miami and then wiggle through multiple ports in Europe and southeast Asia on the trip back. That isn't a permanent route. It is an on-demand route. But, it is common because if there is cargo to move, it will be across the Atlantic and through Europe. There is very little demand to move goods to or from the Pacific islands and, as noted, there is very little demand for American goods in Asia. So, it is necessary to go through Europe on the way back. An example that, hopefully, makes good sense is one of the auto carriers. It would load up with Japanese and Korean cars and go to America. It would unload there and load up on American cars - but not near as many. On a good trip, it would load up about half as many American cars as the Asian cars it dropped off. Then, it goes to Europe (likely Spain) and unloads. It picks up European cars - even less than the American count, and goes to India. It unloads there and then has to quickly get back to Japan to load up again. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thats an easy one: All the ultra-large crude carriers because they can not use any of the canals. So they are forces to go around all the landmasses. Anything smaller will highout do a bit more than half around the earth and back. The longest lines likely are from China to Venezuela and back. --Kharon (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Guns[edit]
Why are Republicans in America so obsessed with guns? Deadliest Mass shooting in the History of the US, they will still do nothing about it. Don't want to get overly political, just don't understand the obsession. CTF83! 01:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Guns equals Votes. 110.22.20.252 (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Our article Gun culture in the United States gives a rough overview of the issue. It is very difficult to design any effective gun control measures that would comply with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as interpreted in recent years by the Supreme Court, and pretty much impossible to come up with anything effective that would pass in the current Congress. The issue is highly polarized, and the Republican Party has not yet experienced any significant political losses due to their opposition to gun control. They control the White House, both houses of Congress, and a majority of governorships and state legislatures. They have won at the Supreme Court, and that court seems highly likely to become more conservative in the next few years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Gun manufacturers funnel millions of dollars into politicians campaign bank accounts via the NRA to make sure legislation and culture encourages Americans to buy more guns. Lobbying is marketing. --Jayron32 02:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I thought their love for guns was tied to their love for war/soldiers and nationalism boosted by the military–industrial complex. Of 19 (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's a factor too, no reason it can't be both. The love of guns is also tied up with the myth/fantasy of the "Good guy with a gun". SemanticMantis (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I thought their love for guns was tied to their love for war/soldiers and nationalism boosted by the military–industrial complex. Of 19 (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Gun manufacturers funnel millions of dollars into politicians campaign bank accounts via the NRA to make sure legislation and culture encourages Americans to buy more guns. Lobbying is marketing. --Jayron32 02:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Our article Gun culture in the United States gives a rough overview of the issue. It is very difficult to design any effective gun control measures that would comply with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as interpreted in recent years by the Supreme Court, and pretty much impossible to come up with anything effective that would pass in the current Congress. The issue is highly polarized, and the Republican Party has not yet experienced any significant political losses due to their opposition to gun control. They control the White House, both houses of Congress, and a majority of governorships and state legislatures. They have won at the Supreme Court, and that court seems highly likely to become more conservative in the next few years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Gun rights supporters will argue that the occasional mass shooting is the price of freedom. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds F-ed up! I got to thinking is it they are afraid of minority so much and the loss of white power? Seems like race has to do with everything in this country. CTF83! 02:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Racial minorities are also covered by the Second Amendment and many civil rights activists including Rosa Parks favored the right to keep and bear arms. It was their line of defense (not 100% effective) against Ku Klux Klan killers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- More on Rosa Parks and guns. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I don't know if I'd pull support for the right to bear arms from that...that sounds like overthinking a possible life or death case (it would have been life or death for her grandfather in ways that simply don't apply to most gun owners today). Drmies (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Well, anyone is free to try to amend the Constitution and its Second Amendment at any time, my friend Drmies, but I prefer snowballs to hell. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Racial minorities are also covered by the Second Amendment and many civil rights activists including Rosa Parks favored the right to keep and bear arms. It was their line of defense (not 100% effective) against Ku Klux Klan killers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds F-ed up! I got to thinking is it they are afraid of minority so much and the loss of white power? Seems like race has to do with everything in this country. CTF83! 02:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with Republicans. Throughout the world, guns are used to impose political beliefs or oppose them. ISIS isn't fighting with ling shots. Guns are a very old weapon ans U.S. law restrict technology to things invented over a 100 years ago. The issue isn't guns per se, but those that get acess to them. ISIS foesn't have a problem getting them nor does the occupied territories of the West Bank. Legislation doesn't stop the acts. North Korea, for example, has an appetite for nuclear weapons. How many resolutions have curbed their ambition? Find the solution to North Korea first (hint: no nuclear nation will surrender their weapons or tools as an appropriate way to stop North Korea. Nor would any thinking person describe nuclear countries that oppose North Korea as being obsessed with nuclear weapons.) --DHeyward (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's the argument that keeps coming up, but the data indicates it's a bullshit argument. In every other Western country with a robust state and rule of law, they by-and-large keep guns out of the hands of the assholes in their society. There's a reason why the criminal insane go on stabbing sprees or resort to driving cars into people in Europe. They can't get guns there. So yes, you can't legislate the crazy people away. But legislation DOES limit their damage, at least in every country where it has been tried with effective legislation power. Sure, ISIS had access to weaponry. In countries with no effective state control. Supposedly, the US has a functional state.--Jayron32 14:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- The comment about the occupied west bank is completely uninformed, the Israeli government promotes the settlers owning guns and the there are very very few weapons in the hands of Palestinians which is why they have been throwing rocks towards the occupation tanks for over 50 years. Of 19 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'd also add that measuring the effectiveness of gun control is a social science. Accounting for cultural differences is very difficult to do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- The comment about the occupied west bank is completely uninformed, the Israeli government promotes the settlers owning guns and the there are very very few weapons in the hands of Palestinians which is why they have been throwing rocks towards the occupation tanks for over 50 years. Of 19 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's the argument that keeps coming up, but the data indicates it's a bullshit argument. In every other Western country with a robust state and rule of law, they by-and-large keep guns out of the hands of the assholes in their society. There's a reason why the criminal insane go on stabbing sprees or resort to driving cars into people in Europe. They can't get guns there. So yes, you can't legislate the crazy people away. But legislation DOES limit their damage, at least in every country where it has been tried with effective legislation power. Sure, ISIS had access to weaponry. In countries with no effective state control. Supposedly, the US has a functional state.--Jayron32 14:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Someone wrote a song just for us! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEsE6BNbTgk --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't get the Ryder truck reference. Does their steering fail calamitously? Also, no one has linked to one of the most obvious drivers of American gun policy, the National Rifle Association. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Tim McVeigh used a Ryder truck in the Oklahoma City bombing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- The National Rifle Association are trying to push through Congress legislation which will facilitate the fitting of silencers to guns. Why is this? 92.8.220.234 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what arguments the NRA is making. There are practical reasons for wanting to suppress the noise from rifles and shotguns used for hunting. If you are out in the woods wearing passive hearing protection, it's hard to hear wildlife or your hunting partners. If, for example, a hunting partner became ill and called for help, but the calls for help were not heard, this would be a safety hazard. Active hearing protection is available, which electronically reproduces normal sound levels inside the hearing protection, but suppresses loud noises. The earmuff style isn't too expensive (~$100) but can interfere with placing the cheek on the stock of the gun. There are in-the-ear devices, but these are expensive (~$1000).
- The National Rifle Association are trying to push through Congress legislation which will facilitate the fitting of silencers to guns. Why is this? 92.8.220.234 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Tim McVeigh used a Ryder truck in the Oklahoma City bombing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Some form of hearing protection is necessary for those close to the gun, to prevent hearing damage.
- They also make hunting rifles more accurate by reducing barrel whip. They don't actually silence the report of a firearm as most bullets have a superonic crack that cannot be eliminated. Really, there hasn't been a good argument made as to why they should be illegal (or rather, why they should have such a high tax as anyone who can buy a handgun can buy a suppressor). They aren't illegal or hard to purchase in many European countries where hunters use them routinely. Think of it as the muffler on a car. Do you want every car to sound like a lawn mower? A lawn mower engine is tiny compared to a car but there would be lots of complaints about car without mufflers. --DHeyward (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I sure would hate it if cars weren't allowed to have mufflers so I guess I must support making assault rifles silent. Maybe guns should have higher calibers and fire longer distances so the screams aren't heard either. But really if everyone had a gun, people would stop shooting each other. The obsession is part of their culture. Of 19 (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Silencers don't make assault rifles (or any other firearm) silent, they just make them quieter. It's not a <puff> sound like you'd hear on a movie, rather it's a less loud explosion. For example a 230 grain .45 ACP is generally a sub-sonic round, which makes it quieter. When fired it's about 162dB, which causes immediate hearing damage. With a silencer, the sound drops down to about 133 dB, or still loud enough to cause hearing damage over time.Tobyc75 (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I sure would hate it if cars weren't allowed to have mufflers so I guess I must support making assault rifles silent. Maybe guns should have higher calibers and fire longer distances so the screams aren't heard either. But really if everyone had a gun, people would stop shooting each other. The obsession is part of their culture. Of 19 (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- They also make hunting rifles more accurate by reducing barrel whip. They don't actually silence the report of a firearm as most bullets have a superonic crack that cannot be eliminated. Really, there hasn't been a good argument made as to why they should be illegal (or rather, why they should have such a high tax as anyone who can buy a handgun can buy a suppressor). They aren't illegal or hard to purchase in many European countries where hunters use them routinely. Think of it as the muffler on a car. Do you want every car to sound like a lawn mower? A lawn mower engine is tiny compared to a car but there would be lots of complaints about car without mufflers. --DHeyward (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
"In every other Western country with a robust state and rule of law, they by-and-large keep guns out of the hands of the assholes in their society. There's a reason why the criminal insane go on stabbing sprees or resort to driving cars into people in Europe. They can't get guns there."
I would suggest visiting the Wikipedia categories Category:Mass shootings in Australia, Category:Mass shootings in Germany, and Category:Spree shootings in Europe. Despite efforts by Western countries to restrict access to weaponry, such crimes keep happening. Of particular interest is the 2016 Munich shooting. The perpetrator was a teenager with a history of being treated in hospitals for major depressive disorder and of being systematically bullied by his classmates in school. Despite Germany having relatively strict gun laws, the boy managed to purchase a Glock 17 9mm semi-automatic pistol and more than 300 rounds of ammunition through the darknet. He then orchestrated a shooting against fellow teenagers. The incident sparked conversations in Europe about how easy it is to smuggle and/or purchase weaponry.
And Europe has its own legal gun owners, who sometimes use their weapons for illegal purposes (such as settling domestic disputes with bullets). Our article on Gun legislation in Germany is quite revealing on how widespread gun ownership actually is there. "Germany's National Gun Registry, introduced at the end of 2012, counted 5.5 million firearms in use, which are legally owned by 1.4 million people in the country. About 1.5 Million sport shooters in several thousand Schützenvereinen own and use guns for sport, about 400,000 hunters have a licensed gun, about 300,000 collect guns and about 900,000 own an inherited gun."
And of course, Europe has quite a number of gun smuggling rings. The Greek mafia, for example, owes part of its profits to the smuggling of cigarettes, drugs, oil, and weapons.
I am European, and I usually consider the United States to be a hellhole. But Europe is not as safe and as quite as it seems. Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- So is it a coincidence that cities in Europe, Australia and New Zealand are safe to walk at night but those in America are not? 82.12.63.55 (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't overgeneralize. Most of the crime in the US happens in urban areas, particularly inner cities. Most streets in the US are perfectly fine to walk down at night. I do it all the time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- The rate of both gun ownership and gun deaths in the US greatly exceeds that of any country in Europe. [1][2] For perspective, there are literally more guns than people in the US. Of course, mass shooting can and do happen in other parts of the world, but I would still argue that frequency with which they happen in the US is much greater than would be expected based on what is observed in other similarly developed countries. Dragons flight (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comparing Europe to the U.S. without looking at social dynamic creates correlations, not causation. Gun violence in Chicago is quite different than gun violence in Montana. Gun law and gun ownership are quite different as well. Lumping together all crime as a national issue misses the mark in a country with very diverse social and economic differences. --DHeyward (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, there are differences between states, and even within states there are differences among cities. One of those differences is often the availability of weapons as mediated by local laws and culture. You may be surprised to know that per capita there are roughly three times as many guns in Montana as Illinois and roughly twice as many gun-related deaths. Dragons flight (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Firearm deaths per 100,000 residents per state in 2013: "States with the highest rate include Alaska (19.8) and Lousiana (19.3). Alaska doesn't require residents to have a permit for carrying concealed weapons, while Louisiana does (but has fairly permissive gun laws otherwise)". Alansplodge (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Alaska also has the highest male-to-female ratio in the nation.[3] Since a disproportionate amount of men commit homicides, that probably also plays some kind of role. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- The fact that 62% of Alaskans own guns [4] with few legal controls seems to me to be a more likely causal effect, but who knows? Alansplodge (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, they sound like hunting accidents rather than murder. Homicides and murder rates are not the same thing. --DHeyward (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Nope, Study: Suicide Is Top Reason for Alaska Gun Deaths. However, Alaska has the sixth highest murder rate in the USA according to Murder in the United States by state with 8 murders and intentional manslaughters (so not including accidents) per 100,000 people (the UK rate is 0.92). Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, they sound like hunting accidents rather than murder. Homicides and murder rates are not the same thing. --DHeyward (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- The fact that 62% of Alaskans own guns [4] with few legal controls seems to me to be a more likely causal effect, but who knows? Alansplodge (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Alaska also has the highest male-to-female ratio in the nation.[3] Since a disproportionate amount of men commit homicides, that probably also plays some kind of role. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Firearm deaths per 100,000 residents per state in 2013: "States with the highest rate include Alaska (19.8) and Lousiana (19.3). Alaska doesn't require residents to have a permit for carrying concealed weapons, while Louisiana does (but has fairly permissive gun laws otherwise)". Alansplodge (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, there are differences between states, and even within states there are differences among cities. One of those differences is often the availability of weapons as mediated by local laws and culture. You may be surprised to know that per capita there are roughly three times as many guns in Montana as Illinois and roughly twice as many gun-related deaths. Dragons flight (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comparing Europe to the U.S. without looking at social dynamic creates correlations, not causation. Gun violence in Chicago is quite different than gun violence in Montana. Gun law and gun ownership are quite different as well. Lumping together all crime as a national issue misses the mark in a country with very diverse social and economic differences. --DHeyward (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Has China become less authoritarian?[edit]
Has China become less authoritarian over the years as its economy has grown, or has the government stayed pretty much the same as when Mao Zedong died?Uncle dan is home (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- The short answer is yes, in the sense that pre-reform there were extremely few chances to get a court to side with a civilian. SeeLaw of the People's Republic of China.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- This question cannot be answered factually, because it invites personal speculation about what goes on in China. Has China become less authoritarian or more? Authoritarian is a value judgment. Had this question been asking for non-RD opinions about whether China is an authoritarian state, then that would be appropriate for the RD. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are factual statements that can be made based on the the implementation of authoritarian rule in China. For example, laojiao (re-education through labor) was disbanded in 2013. Disbanding a system of placing dissidents into hard labor camps without trial is certainly a step towards less authoritarian rule. Speculation would be how big of a step it might be, but no educated person would claim it was a step towards more authoritarian rule. On a personal level, capitalism grows every year in China. This gets into the "two Chinas" view. In Eastern China, the cities are large and capitalism is seen everywhere. In Western China, cities are rare and people are still under heavy authoritarian rule of the government. With capitalism, personal autonomy increases because young capitalism brings increased choice - unlike in the United States where mature capitalism must be forced to avoid monopolies. There is also the issue of media control. During the Olympics (and still to today), national media regularly makes point of problems in the country. Previously, state media would never print anything negative about the country. Yes, they do try to keep a positive spin on the bad news, but the bad news is out there for everyone to see. Just a couple years ago, plenty of nasty stuff was printed about General Xu. That would never have happened in the past. He was a high up in the Communist Party. The worst that the public would know was that he was relieved of his post. Instead, the details of his corruption were all over the news. He was arrested. That was right after Su Rong, which was rather shocking because the negative media about officials of the state simply didn't happen. So, the government no longer forces all state media to be happy. It includes limited access to problems, allowing the public to see the good and some of the bad of government. That just reminded me that in 2013, protesters were allowed in Tiananmen. Previously, the public wasn't allowed to know about the Tiananmen protests at all. Now, they can know about them and continue to protest. That certainly is a step towards less authoritarian rule. The Great Firewall on the other hand is heavily controlled. So, there is parity. State media is relaxed. Access to free media on the Internet is blocked. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Courtesy links added: 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:65A7:28DA:7F79:4E50 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are factual statements that can be made based on the the implementation of authoritarian rule in China. For example, laojiao (re-education through labor) was disbanded in 2013. Disbanding a system of placing dissidents into hard labor camps without trial is certainly a step towards less authoritarian rule. Speculation would be how big of a step it might be, but no educated person would claim it was a step towards more authoritarian rule. On a personal level, capitalism grows every year in China. This gets into the "two Chinas" view. In Eastern China, the cities are large and capitalism is seen everywhere. In Western China, cities are rare and people are still under heavy authoritarian rule of the government. With capitalism, personal autonomy increases because young capitalism brings increased choice - unlike in the United States where mature capitalism must be forced to avoid monopolies. There is also the issue of media control. During the Olympics (and still to today), national media regularly makes point of problems in the country. Previously, state media would never print anything negative about the country. Yes, they do try to keep a positive spin on the bad news, but the bad news is out there for everyone to see. Just a couple years ago, plenty of nasty stuff was printed about General Xu. That would never have happened in the past. He was a high up in the Communist Party. The worst that the public would know was that he was relieved of his post. Instead, the details of his corruption were all over the news. He was arrested. That was right after Su Rong, which was rather shocking because the negative media about officials of the state simply didn't happen. So, the government no longer forces all state media to be happy. It includes limited access to problems, allowing the public to see the good and some of the bad of government. That just reminded me that in 2013, protesters were allowed in Tiananmen. Previously, the public wasn't allowed to know about the Tiananmen protests at all. Now, they can know about them and continue to protest. That certainly is a step towards less authoritarian rule. The Great Firewall on the other hand is heavily controlled. So, there is parity. State media is relaxed. Access to free media on the Internet is blocked. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Any claim without a reference to an external source is considered an opinion. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- But the question can't be really answered factually, so any source is just an opinion too. Just because they call themselves experts, doesn't mean anything. It would be difficult to define how many factors have to be considered when talking about the adjective "authoritarian". The person just pointed out some facts you can verify yourself. The OP's question has a flaw. It sets the death of Mao as the reference time and ignores other notable people like Deng Xiaoping. And you can compare it to other governments, some considered overall democratic, but what happens when you examine characteristics in certain fields? Everything has been changing and fluctuating, that's for sure. --92.75.193.121 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Unless they are actually experts, then their opinions are as reliable as they can be, and can be cited. Democratization of expertise is not a thing, people who spend their lives working on something really are better at it than people who and only a passing knowledge of it. Experts do exist, and we should trust them more than rank amateurs.--Jayron32 20:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- This palaver about "experts" is wrong-headed. People don't go around proclaiming that they're "experts" on stuff, and if they did, that would be arguing from authority, a serious flaw. No, this is Wikipedia, believe it or not; and what we do here is take note of what reputable published sources have to say about whatever issue you're interested in. Maybe a lot of what is published comes under the heading of "opinion", but so what? The point is, it's published - and therefore citeable. What any given Wikipedia editor thinks about the issue is also opinion, and possibly just as valid an opinion as those that are published - but it's NOT published, and therefore NOT citeable. Could anything be simpler? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's exactly, word-for-word, almost an exact replica of my post, so it seems weird you would take an oppositional tone. Just to clarify, replace the word "expert" in my reply with "reliable published source" because that's what an expert is.--Jayron32 01:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- "... exactly, word-for-word, almost an exact replica" - best. post. ever. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's exactly, word-for-word, almost an exact replica of my post, so it seems weird you would take an oppositional tone. Just to clarify, replace the word "expert" in my reply with "reliable published source" because that's what an expert is.--Jayron32 01:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- This palaver about "experts" is wrong-headed. People don't go around proclaiming that they're "experts" on stuff, and if they did, that would be arguing from authority, a serious flaw. No, this is Wikipedia, believe it or not; and what we do here is take note of what reputable published sources have to say about whatever issue you're interested in. Maybe a lot of what is published comes under the heading of "opinion", but so what? The point is, it's published - and therefore citeable. What any given Wikipedia editor thinks about the issue is also opinion, and possibly just as valid an opinion as those that are published - but it's NOT published, and therefore NOT citeable. Could anything be simpler? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Unless they are actually experts, then their opinions are as reliable as they can be, and can be cited. Democratization of expertise is not a thing, people who spend their lives working on something really are better at it than people who and only a passing knowledge of it. Experts do exist, and we should trust them more than rank amateurs.--Jayron32 20:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- But the question can't be really answered factually, so any source is just an opinion too. Just because they call themselves experts, doesn't mean anything. It would be difficult to define how many factors have to be considered when talking about the adjective "authoritarian". The person just pointed out some facts you can verify yourself. The OP's question has a flaw. It sets the death of Mao as the reference time and ignores other notable people like Deng Xiaoping. And you can compare it to other governments, some considered overall democratic, but what happens when you examine characteristics in certain fields? Everything has been changing and fluctuating, that's for sure. --92.75.193.121 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Any claim without a reference to an external source is considered an opinion. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Geez, can you for once try not to talk about Wikipedia policies. We are not even editing an article. --88.66.174.2 (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- At the moment, you have a total of two edits, both of which were done to attack other users. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Geez, can you for once try not to talk about Wikipedia policies. We are not even editing an article. --88.66.174.2 (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I would assume the answer is "no", since the political class still seems absolutely "untouchable" by the judicial class, no matter what, in china. Some higher politicians where sentenced for corruption as where some dissidents for challenging the system lately and in both the judges where clearly ordered how or to what end to do their job. --Kharon (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Unless someone developed a universally accepted objective score of authoritarianism whilst I wasn't watching, this is an unanswerable question, and a request for opinion. Fgf10 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are such things as Freedom House rankings... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's pretty much only about the right to vote. It's like every country can have the label "free" if they hit the magical number 50. The criteria are sometimes very specific, quite biased in favor of the US, no penalty points for not letting US criminals vote, which is a thing in other countries. Moreover, it doesn't say anything about how the government behaves. This has nothing to do with the political system in general but with the actual government in office. --88.66.174.2 (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
"has the government stayed pretty much the same as when Mao Zedong died"
Mao Zedong died in 1976, there have been 41 intervening years of reforms since then. Subsequent governments have abandoned many of his policies or ideologies. And none of them have quite matched Mao's brutal record of internal purges. To quote Jasper Becker on Mao's version of China: "Mass killings are not usually associated with Mao and the Great Leap Forward, and China continues to benefit from a more favourable comparison with Cambodia or the Soviet Union. But as fresh and abundant archival evidence shows, coercion, terror and systematic violence were the foundation of the Great Leap, and between 1958 to 1962, by a rough approximation, some 6 to 8 per cent of those who died were tortured to death or summarily killed—amounting to at least 3 million victims. Countless others were deliberately deprived of food and consequently starved to death. Many more vanished because they were too old, weak or sick to work—and hence unable to earn their keep. People were killed selectively because they had the wrong class background, because they dragged their feet, because they spoke out or simply because they were not liked, for whatever reason, by the man who wielded the ladle in the canteen." Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is very widely known that China is less authoritarian now. You could refer to virtually any book about contemporary China, or see for instance the Lonely Planet guide. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)