Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 5

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.

January 5

1881 US and UK political cartoons

I'm trying to find political cartoons from 1881 depicting King Kalākaua's world tour from the United Kingdom and United States. Where are good resources for cartoons from this specific year? I know there usually published in magazines. The UK ran a few back in the 1820s when Kamehameha II visited London and Kalakaua also had this interesting cartoon (File:The Royal Tattoo, 1875.jpg) made of him when he visited Washington, DC in 1875.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Punch (magazine), after 1841.
Sleigh (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• One, A Liliput Kingdom For Sale Cheap from The Wasp, appears in the article you linked. I could only find one Punch cartoon of the tour and it's just a caricature with a poem, punning on the then-current British name for the islands, the Sandwich Islands. Smurrayinchester 11:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Prisoner's dilemma with countries

Regarding the Prisoner's dilemma, Why don't countries announce openly to all other nations that they wish to be "C" and forget any past "D"s with old foes? Wouldn't they profit in the longrun and save money and lives, etc? Wouldn't that leave "D"s at a huge disadvantage and out in the cold with no other choice but to be nice? What's with all the "You're the enemy!" stuff? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Nations have the same motivations as every person confronted with the prisoner's dilemma. They can always try to get away with non-cooperative behavior. --Llaanngg (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Your example appears to be backwards. When prisoners dilemma is applied to countries, it is normally in a cold war example. "C" means "build more nuclear weapons" and "D" means "disarm nuclear weapons." 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be 209.149 who has things backwards. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful replies. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not just that the nations may not agree to cooperate - they may not agree on which actions count as "cooperating", and on the relative value of outcomes. The world is full of examples which can be painted as either "single actor putting their own economic gain ahead of the environment/a species/ everyone else" or "NIMBYs/hippies standing in the way of economic progress because they consider beauty spots more important than wealth" (fracking, whaling, CO2 emissions...). The issue with the philosophy of "why can't we all just get along?" is that no-one can quite agree what "getting along" actually means. MChesterMC (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MChesterMC. I'd think Norwegian society is a good example of everyone "getting along". Plenty of "C"ing. The whole "winner take all"/"I won't stop until I am the one percent." thing we see in other countries seems to be an example of everyone losing by trying to get too many points at the other's expense. Getting along should mean give an take, or at least, not trying to just take, take, take. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course in the case of nations, the game is the iterated prisoner's dilemma, which is discussed further down that page, along with strategies for playing it. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you mean ongoing, repeated dealings, then yes, Someguy1221. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

British demographics

How many Britons live like Mike Leigh's characters? And how many live like Bridget Jones' characters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaanngg (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope this chart (from Income in the United Kingdom) helps. Note that the National Living Wage of £7.20 per hour might result in an annual salary of about £16,500 for a full time job [1] although a lot of low-income workers are on part-time contracts. Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• In Britain, demographics are usually grouped by "NRS social grade" (if you've ever heard someone call the middle class "ABC1s", that's what they're talking about). The table in that article shows what percent of the UK population fall into each category (not including the upper class, which is very small) - for instance, 23% are intermediate managerial, administrative or professional (roughly Bridget Jones' level). Smurrayinchester 14:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

(If you want something more granular, there's Mosaic. Bridget Jones would be "Urban Intelligence" - 7.19% of the population in 2004.) Smurrayinchester 14:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Presiding Officer of the United States Senate

The article states: The Presiding Officer of the United States Senate is the majority-party senator. Yet, this is not generally correct since the Democratic Party does not have a majority within the Senate at present. Or am I wrong?--Hubon (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You are not wrong, and the lead continues and contradicts itself a few sentences later. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Thank you for answering! Firstly, I'm glad to hear that I haven't misunderstood that. Now, shouldn't this contradiction be removed somehow?--Hubon (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hubon, feel free to re-write it to make sense. Be bold in editing, and use the talk page and explain your reasoning behind your edits. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and it's up to all of us to make corrections to articles to make them better. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried my best...--Hubon (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the original was correct, and the lead did not contradict itself. It says the vice president rarely in modern times presides over the Senate, and the president pro tem is a Senator from the majority party. What's the contradiction? Loraof (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"The Presiding Officer of the United States Senate is the majority-party senator." is not correct. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I've cleaned the article up. Any of you could have done so without any permission from anyone else. Wikipedia doesn't require any approval to fix problems. --Jayron32 21:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Loraof: the president pro term is a Senator from the majority party – I disagree: The Republicans have a majority of 52, and Biden is [still] a Democrat! Otherwise, please tell me if I've misunderstood sth. @User:Jayron32: Thanks a lot for cleaning up! PS: Is pro term really a proper expression?--Hubon (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The term, which Loraof had written correctly before you changed it, is "pro tem", short for "pro tempore" meaning "for a time". So president pro tem is essentially "temporary president." - Nunh-huh 01:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Biden is vice president, not a senator. The article says that the vice president rarely presides. However, he can, so it's not correct to say it's always a senator. But when it is a senator, it's one from the majority party. Loraof (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(after EC) Now I see – of course you're absolutely right! I'm sorry for my "slow-wittedness", but I'm not [yet] a specialist in American politics... So, please excuse me, once again, and thank you very much indeed for your explaining and patience. (By the way, of course I didn't mean to distort your edit!)--Hubon (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Biden is still President of the Senate (for a few more days)... but the President Pro Tem is now Orin Hatch (a Republican) Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear option

In this article, it doesn't really become clear to me why only a simple majority is needed to decide on a constitutional matter while ending filibusters requires a qualified one. Why is the right to filibuster regarded as a more important constitutional good than others? Moreover, it says: They immediately put the issue to the full Senate – but other [also regular filibuster] decisions are made by "the full Senate", too, aren't they?--Hubon (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"Filibuster rules" are not part of the Constitution, they're just "Senate convention". The Senate makes its own rules, which may include filibuster rules. If the Senate wanted to write their procedures that a speaker could be made to shut up with a simple majority vote, I believe they could. But convention is, pretty much every Senate has included "filibuster rules". Have there historically been any exceptions, where the majority party in a newly elected Senate did not agree to include these rules? Eliyohub (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

pretty much every Senate has included "filibuster rules" – What do you mean exactly? I thought the Senate's rules of procedure, including filibuster rules, have stayed more or less the same throughout the centuries...?--Hubon (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

See Filibuster in the United States Senate for some background and history of the practice. You'll see there that the rules on filibuster have changed over time, including recently. The relevant Senate Rule is Senate Rule 22. To quote our article:

According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered if a majority vote from two-thirds from senators who are present and voting is received. The two-thirds required vote was a change made from the original three-fifths vote that was originally required.

In other words, filibuster is not a practice enshrined in the Constitution, but one enshrined in Senate rules and Conventions, which could in theory be changed - but such an attempt at change could itself be filibustered. So it's unlikely to happen unless in the extremely unlikely event of one party gaining a two-thirds majority in the Senate. But even if that happened, there would be no reason to change the rule, as in such a situation, filibuster is impossible anyways. (I suppose an exception here would be if the party in control of the Senate thought that following the next election, they would still have a majority, but not a two-thirds one, so would want to keep full control of the chamber by a simple majority vote). Or the equally unlikely event of a bipartisan agreement to change the rule. (Such agreements have in fact occurred at various times, see our article on the subject that I linked to above) Eliyohub (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted, in this discussion that one has to make a distinction between Big C "Constitution" (the written document written in 1787 and amended several times) and the little "c" constitution which is the principles by which a governing body operates. When a`principle or practice becomes enshrined for a long time, it becomes "constitutional" (little "c") even if it isn't Constitutional (Big "C", that is written in the document itself). The entire British system of government is based on little "c" constitutional principles, and it works fine. In the case, revocation of the filibuster would likely still create a constitutional crisis even though it isn't written into the Constitution, simply because it is so enshrined. --Jayron32 17:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If one party did it unilaterally (which could only occur if they somehow obtained a super-majority in the Senate, an unlikely occurrence), you might be correct. The Supreme Court could not intervene, but there would likely be a degree of political turmoil. But as our article notes, changes to the rule have been made several times by bi-partisan agreement, or support of an element of the minority party in the Senate, as have been made agreements not to filibuster in a specific case, and these have not caused any serious turmoil, to my knowledge. Actually engaging in filibustering is more likely to be controversial, at least in some cases where it was done. Eliyohub (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The restraining feature that holds the two U.S. political parties at bay with regard to violating most rules and conventions to their own benefit is that, for the most part, in the Senate at least, neither party holds the body in perpetuity, and any weapon one creates to punish the other party can easily be used BY that party once it (inevitably) comes to power. As you can see at Political power in the United States over time, over the past 40 years, neither party has achieved long-term dominance, so there is a general leeriness to change rules which can come back to bite the same party in the ass a short while later. --Jayron32 20:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered if a majority vote from two-thirds from senators who are present and voting is received. – I don't get it: You need a two-thirds majority to authorize a filibuster, or what? I thought the two-thirds rule is applied for ending a filibuster! Please, help...!--Hubon (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're confused. They're saying, any move to change to the "senate rule" which allows filibustering, could itself be filibustered, unless it was supposed by two thirds of the Senate. Makes sense now? Eliyohub (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Eliyohub, unfortunately not yet... a rule change itself could be filibustered if a majority vote from two-thirds from senators who are present and voting is received – so, doesn't that mean, you need a two-thirds majority to authorize a filibuster against the rule change? If so, how would that go together with the intention of filibuster as a minority right – if the majority gets to decide on the opportunity to make use of it? Sorry for my slow-wittedness... Best--Hubon (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree the current wording is very poor. It was changed here [2] for clarity and other reasons but IMO became impossible to understand. I've partially reverted to the older wording [3]. The point is you need a 2/3 majority to end the filibuster for rule changes, unlike the 3/5 needed for most other filibusters. Edit: Actually just noticed further misleading info was introduced which I've also changed [4]. If anyone has time, they can go through the changes and make sure the other changes didn't have similar problems [5]. BTW it's not just the numbers that are different but what numbers as 2/3 is present and voting but 3/5 is duly sworn, so nominally rule changes can happen with fewer Senators actually voting to end a filibuster. (Ignoring the nuclear option.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Note as both Nuclear option and Filibuster in the United States Senate, it's unlikely you actually need a supermajority to change the rules. You only need a simple majority. It's not possible to filibuster it unless the majority and presiding officer allow it. Actually changing the rules when you have the necessary 67 may be controversial, but is far less likely to be a genuine crisis than using the nuclear option. That's why the later is called the nuclear option. Note that it isn't as simple as bi-partisan agreement, since that agreement can come only because of the threat to use the nuclear option (which has always been with only a simple majority). Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I'm sorry but I don't quite get your last statement: why do you think a bi-partisan agreement is "simpler" − in which respect? – than a nuclear option? In fact, I would probably disagree and say it's just the other way around: If the "nuclear threat" forms the basis of such a bi-partisan agreement, then the latter is actually more complex since it needs the additional precondition of this threat (besides the question whether actions based on agreements aren't more intricate than unilateral actions – like the nuclear option – in general, considering that at least two players are involved and not just one...). Best--Hubon (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. I never said bi-partisan agreements are simpler. My point was that you can't simply say there was bi-partisan agreement so there won't be any controversy. The details of bi-partisan agreements often reveal there was some duress (in terms of threats to us the nuclear option etc) so it's more complicated than a simple bi-partisan agreement and you need to look actual situation rather than simply saying there was bi-partisan agreement. This was in response to Eliyohub's suggestion that when there is bi-partisan agreement there is unlikely to be any significant controversy, without considering the actual details surrounding the various bi-partisan agreements. Actually I still maintain that it's easily possible that a single party able to achieve the necessary 67 to change the rules could in some cases do so with less controversy that a nominally "bi-partisan agreement" where there was significant duress. (I should add a caveat that even without the nuclear option you don't technically need 67 due to the present and voting issue, although we have to assume it will normal be 67 if it matters unless someone tried some funny business.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Nil Einne - I'm not too sure about what some people are saying above. So it may be worth noting some background knowledge: Each Senate is a new entity that has no rules except what is in the Constitution, which says simple majority. Rules, including filibuster rules are adopted at the beginning of the session, by simple majority. So filibusters are impossible then, and by various means, with enough will, probably able to be ended later by a majority.John Z (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

John Z, now I'm really confused: What about the Standing Rules of the United States Senate???--Hubon (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW: In the lead of the aforementioned article, what is actually meant by "The stricter rules are often waived by unanimous consent." (That should also be explained in the article, I'd say)--Hubon (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

How did ethical eating become non-religious?

Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians all have their own ethics in regards to eating and animal life. Nowadays, there are vegans, and these vegans mostly use scientific findings to justify their lifestyle. How did ethical eating become non-religious? Do the ancient religions hold the fossilized scientific knowledge of a bygone era, and that there really is no difference between "religious" and "non-religious"? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

See History of vegetarianism which says that vegetarianism based on ethical rather than religious grounds was practised in Ancient Greece but "It was not before the European Renaissance that vegetarianism reemerged in Europe as a philosophical concept based on an ethical motivation. Among the first celebrities who supported it were Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) and Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655). In the 17th century the paramount theorist of the meatless or Pythagorean diet was the English writer Thomas Tryon (1634–1703). Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Pythagoras was vegetarian? I thought he discovered the Pythagorean theorem. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Would the one prevent the other? --Jayron32 17:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Eudoxus writes that Pythagoras used the greatest Purity, and was shocked at all bloodshed and killing; that he not only abstained from animal food, but never in any way approached butchers or hunters. (Eudoxus, Description of the Earth qtd in Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras, 7). It is uncertain whether Pythagoras of Samos c. 570 - c. 495 BC was ever connected to the famous theorem that was first credited to him centuries after his death. Blooteuth (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"and these vegans mostly use scientific findings to justify their lifestyle" . If people are vegan for reasons of animal welfare etc, no problem. But those that use "scientific" reasons to claim humans aren't omnivores etc are closer to religion than science. Fgf10 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

More to the point, I have known a multitude of vegans, and their reasons for being so are just as multitudinous. That is, there is no "mostly" for why a person may choose to be a vegan, and while a non-zero number may do so for reasons justfied as so described (that is, at least one vegan in the world), there is no "most" in this regard, there are far too many reasons, and such generalizations are not even wrong. The Wikipedia article on Veganism discusses many different such reasons people have for being vegan. The quote you give is bullshit not because such justifications aren't scientific, but because it's prima facie bullshit for being based on a false premise. --Jayron32 21:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The 'scientific' reasons some vegans give why humans, clearly adapted to being an omnivores, are 'natural vegans', are bullshit though. Fgf10 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions. When OP said "use scientific findings" you seem to have immediately jumped to exactly one claim that is in fact not a scientific finding ("Humans aren't descended from omnivores" or "Humans are 'natural vegans'", or however you want to put this claim you think all these vegetarians are making). Moreover, you've apparently assumed there can be no other scientific findings that may support vegetarian's choices. Let me address that:

Land use required for food production is topic fairly amenable to scientific research. Vegetarian diets require far less land per person than meat eating diets, provided access to good arable land. That claim is well-supported scientifically, and a reason some vegetarians choose to be so (e.g. these folks [6]). If there is insufficient access to good arable land (a contrapositive assumption for much of the world), recent research suggests adding small amounts of dairy and meat may in *some* cases offer a *small* advantage over purely vegetarian diets, with respect to land usage. See here [7] and here [8] for scientific studies of land use efficiency and diet. Now, I suppose you can say that it is not a scientific position to want to need less land per person, reduce malnutrition and starvation, that is an ethical choice. However current well-vetted research readily supports the superior land-use efficiency of vegetarian diets, compared to the average EU, AU, or USA omnivorous diet. We also have an entire article on environmental vegetarianism which covers these ideas and more. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not just that mostly-vegetarian-with-some-meat "may be more efficient", it simply is more efficient. Thousands of years of trial and error brought us the four field system (not an article on Wikipedia, just a couple paragraphs right now at crop rotation), with 3/4 of the fields for food and one for livestock. This system stood the test of time for centuries until finally supplanted by chemical alteration of the soil. And of course as your articles note, there are lands that you can raise ruminants on that simply aren't suitable for sustainable growing of crops for direct human consumption. These ideas are neither new nor controversial, so I'm surprised to see anyone framing them as mere possibilities. That aside, I think Jayron's point was quite excellent, but you may have missed quite what it was. The inclusion of "vegans mostly use scientific findings to justify their lifestyle" makes this a loaded question, though sure, we can pretend as if it's true and go from there. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

My contention is not that the claim is true, it is that Fgf was leaping to conclusions and making bold statements without reference. Your claim "simply is" is also not supported by any reference at the moment, and is in fact contradicted by the reference I provided, under the assumption of access to arable land. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"When did you stop beating your wife?" We cannot answer questions in any meaningful way built on suppositions which are not themselves established facts. We should NOT pretend as though such facts were true and go anywhere. We should refuse to answer the question unless someone can further verify that the suppositions it is based on are themselves true. --Jayron32 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You have motivated me to dig. There is quite a rich field of literature asking why vegans go vegan [9][10][11][12]. There seems to be a general consensus that about half or more vegans choose the lifestyle for its perceived health benefits, with most of the remainder making their choice based on animal welfare concerns. "Religion" grabs much of the remainder, with some room left for "other". I suspect that most vegans who chose the lifestyle for its health benefits probably believe that it's based on scientific findings, but are also probably unaware of all the nuances to the vegan/vegetarian/meat-eater health comparisons. Anyway, looking back at the original question, I actually have no idea what kind of science the OP is even talking about, so I guess this is all irrelevant. There is also no historical consensus on how or why the Kashrut was conceived, and scholars have debated since ancient times what the purpose even is. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)