Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 March 6

= March 6 =

Okhrana
During Nicholas II's rule, who was leader of the Okhrana and to what degree was Nicholas involved in its actions? Did it just report to him or did he actively control and decide its policies and actions?2602:306:C541:CC60:E461:E76B:164E:EA4 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

website comparing UK as unitary and Canada as a federation
Is there a website that shows a comparison between UK as an unitary state and Canada as a federation state? Please and thanks. My cousin who lives in UK thinks that UK is a federation but I argued it is not but unfortunately he is a narrow minded person. Please answer my question. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.169 (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "unitary state". The UK is a Constitutional monarchy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And so is Canada - same Monarch. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically, no. Same human, different monarch(y) Mingmingla (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If the Commonwealth Realms "technically" don't share a monarch, why the rule that they must all agree on changes to the succession? And why do they exchange High Commissioners rather than Ambassadors? —Tamfang (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it made sense. Mingmingla (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the OP is referring to a unitary state. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 15 Adar 5775 01:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We also have federation, confederation (for Canada) and federal monarchy. If I remember my high school politics class correctly, Canada is a federation because several different political units joined together to form one state, with the previous political units surviving within the new state; i.e., Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia all still exist, as provinces within the country of Canada. The provinces have their own laws, education, etc. For historical reasons we call this the confederation of Canada, but in modern political science terms, Canada is a federation, not a confederation. Obviously this is not how the UK was formed, but I'm not sure I can explain why it's not a federation...it just isn't. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The status of federation is independent of the way in which a state was formed: yes, often a federation is the result of multiple independent states (or multiple colonies) coming together, but some federations were formed by other means, and some unions of multiple jurisdictions aren't federations. In the UK context, the country is a unitary state because the national parliament is supreme over everything else, and there are no other jurisdictions in the country aside from ones that are its creatures, i.e. it could get rid of any of them or override any of their laws, if it wanted.  This is in contrast to Canada and Australia, in which the provincial and state parliaments are independent of the federal parliament, as it is unable to abolish them or override their laws on just any topic.  Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to piggyback on what Nyttend says, in a federation, the constituent states have reserve rights which, constitutionally, the national government is not allowed to remove or eliminate except by their mutual consent. Thus, in both the U.S. and Canada, the States and Provinces respectively have constitutionally guaranteed rights and roles which the National governments have no authority to supersede.  The U.K. has allowed devolved powers to its constituent nations (such as the Scottish Parliament, and National Assembly for Wales) which are allowed to decide policy for those regions, but those bodies serve at the pleasure of Parliament, and at any time Parliament still has the constitutional authority to override any of their acts, abolish them at any time, etc.  Thus, the U.K. is a unitary state, which allows a degree of home rule to some of its regions, but that still doesn't make it a federation, which is a constitutionally very different means of organization.  -- Jayron 32 18:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to piggyback on the piggybacking, we have to distinguish between Parliament having the constitutional authority to do something and Parliament being politically able to. As Jayron notes, the UK Parliament could abolish the Scottish Parliament tomorrow (or have the Welsh elect the Scottish Parliament, and the Scots elect the Welsh Assembly) if they felt like it; it would be politically unpopular enough that they'd never be "able to pull it off", so to speak, but there's no legal impediment to it, and that's the difference between a federation and a unitary state.  Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should clarify the mutual consent bit too. Notably, unanimous consent generally isn't necessarily needed to affect the rights of states (by which I mean the entitites constituting the federation), in fact often it isn't needed. What you generally need is a constitutional amendment. Often this requires the approval of the states themselves (generally meaning their legislatures), but usually only a majority or supermajority, e.g. Constitution of Australia, Article Five of the United States Constitution, Constitution of India (I think for relevant amendments anyway) or Amendments to the Constitution of Canada. Sometimes this requires a majority or supermajority in a nationwide referendum however there's no requirement for a majority in each state, I think Constitution of Venezuela is an example of this . But sometimes this only requires a supermajority on the federal legislature/s, e.g. Constitution of Malaysia (mostly), and I think Constitution of Nigeria, and also I think Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Note most of the earlier examples also required this or something similar in addition to the other requiremens.) Of course it can often be complicated, our articles often don't seem to cover amendment processes that well (they mention historic amendments, but not how the constitution is amended, sometimes this may be mentioned in another article, but I'm not sure it always is). It may not always be entirely clear how courts will intepret amendments which affect rights of states, particularly if the states themselves are in majority disagreement, even if the constitution seems to allow such changes. And it may not always be simple whether the constition allows it, e.g. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany entrenches federalism, but I'm not sure how far this is generally intepreted, can you remove most of the rights of the states? In any event, in the cases where the states themselves don't get a direct say in constitutional amendments which will affect their relationship with the federal government, some may suggest the countries are to some extent unitary states, but most of the cases are still usually called federations/federated states. (There are other reasons why the country may be said to have some features of a unitary state, see e.g. our article on India, or Federalism in Malaysia.) But despite the IP's comments below, I'm not convinced that the UK will generally be called a federation even if England get's a devolved parliament. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest that Jayron's definition is a too strong. Suppose that the UK repeated in England what was done in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, by creating a legislature separate from the UK parliament and devolving specific powers to this new body.  Then suppose that 10 years later the UK parliament winds back the clock, abolishes the various legislatures, and reclaims all the devolved powers for itself.  I say that for those 10 years the UK would have been a federation.  --05:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.169.183 (talk)
 * You can also say the moon is made of green cheese, but uttering words doesn't make them true. -- Jayron 32 15:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Syrian swastika?
While cataloging a small private library, I encountered this book, about missionary work done by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America in Latakia and surrounding regions of Syria. Published in 1913, the book includes a swastika on the cover. Was this device often used in Syria at the time, or is it more likely to be an example of Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century? The latter seems odd, because the article says that it was a good-luck symbol, and this church at the time typically condemned good-luck symbols as superstitious. Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See Secret Sects Of Syria: A Consideration of their Origin, Creeds and Religious Ceremonies and their Connection with and Influence upon Modern Freemasonry by Bernard H Springett, London, 1922 (p. 331), which states: "ORIGIN OF THE SWASTIKA... By certain early Christians it was known as the 'Tetragammaton', the unspeakable name of the Deity, as represented by four Gammas...". I'm not sure how reliable a source this is - it doesn't correlate with either our Swastika or Tetragammaton articles - but it does prove that some believed that it could be a Christian symbol. Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend -- The Syrian Social Nationalist Party had its swastikesque "hurricane" or "whirlwind" symbol, but the party did not exist in 1913. Swastika-like symbols have occurred in many cultures across the globe. AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It could possibly be Zoroastrian - Syria is on the western edge of the area where Zoroastrianism thrived. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

historical sculpture
Was there a sculpture of an airplane seatbelt at one point or another? (It was made from whatever was left of Aloha Airlines Flight 243.) If yes, what has become of it?158.222.165.116 (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Entirely unsure if it is what you are looking for, but apparently Honolulu International Airport has a memorial to C.B. Lansing, one of those who died in the crash. See here.  Might be a lead.  -- Jayron 32 16:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently the memorial is just a garden named after her, so there isn't a sculpture there. See the bottom of this page and this photo of the plaque to Lansing.


 * BTW - Lansing's was the only death, and there was no crash, the aircraft landed normally in spite of severe structural damage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

New communism
From the 50s to the 90s the main enemy of America seemed to be communism. However, I read an article recently stating that starting in the 21st century, the primary enemy of the US is Islam. So is Islam the new communism? Successiontomr (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Islam is Islam, it's a religion, not a political designation. Saying Islam is the 'new communism' is like saying 'orange is the new black' - total gibberish. What would be a 'new communism' anyway? For it to be called 'new', it would have to be a different form of communism from previous forms, something which doesn't happen. If people are too thick to be able to think of the phrase 'replacement for', then they shouldn't be listened to. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 12:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You say "However, I read an article recently stating that starting in the 21st century, the primary enemy of the US is Islam." Can you link to the article or quote a relevant passage from it? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It was in vlog format - here Successiontomr (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You do know that anyone can write anything, but merely mashing keys on a keyboard doesn't make them true. People can make provocative statements like "Islam is the enemy of the United States" and just saying it doesn't actually make it a fact.  I can say "Cheese is the enemy of Bolivia", and that doesn't mean Bolivians are going to invade Wisconsin any time soon... -- Jayron 32 16:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheese-flavoured cocoa puffs are apparently the enemy of good taste. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You clearly misunderstood the video. The point of the video is that Islam (even radical Islam) is not a major threat to the US.  It is the "new communism" because just as communists were fired from jobs and ostracized during the hysteria of the Cold War, Muslims today are being discriminated against in the hysteria of the War on Terror.  Just as politicians used the supposed threat of communism for political gain during the Cold War, politicians today are using Islam to fearmonger.  You might agree or disagree with this analysis, but that's the point the video creator is making.  --Bowlhover (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, main enemies don't have to pose major threats. They just need to be the focal points. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The greatest threat is officially climate change, at least till further notice. But it can't be a main enemy, because talking about stopping it gets "scattered applause". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sort of like how advocating the opposite of terrormongering gets grumbling" InedibleHulk (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Pre Indian southeast asia
What was the religion of mainland Southeast Asia before contact with India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Before the introduction of Indian religions (Buddhism & Hinduism chiefly), native religious beliefs include forms of animism and shamanism closely related to Chinese folk religion. See, for example, Vietnamese folk religion, Satsana Phi, Ua Dab, etc.  -- Jayron 32 16:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly animism, shamanism, and folk religion, but the close relationship to Chinese religion came only after the spread of Chinese influence to the region around the same time that contact with India began. Marco polo (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a chicken-and-egg problem here. It's not like some alien space ship set down fully-formed Southeast-Asian cultures in place with their own religions already in existence, which lived in total isolation for centuries until China and India suddenly "discovered" them and decided to oppress their native beliefs and supplant them with their own.  Cultural evolution is a continuous process, and for thousands of years cultures have been influenced by those that border them.  What is "native" is highly contextual, and really depends on what and when you mean.  Even so, it is unlikely that there exists a "pure" religion of the area which is wholly uninfluenced by any single other culture, at ANY time in history.  -- Jayron 32 00:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Problems Dubai is facing as a developed city
what are the problems that Dubai is facing as a developed city? Such as sea level rising, population growth water shortage unemployment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.14.66 (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . If you want to know more information, see the article titled Dubai, which can be used for you to formulate your own understanding of its situation and challenges.  -- Jayron 32 16:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a bit about a very recent domestic water law, and a slightly older foreign program. Might be helpful. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What System of rule would this be?
Throughout history nations have had all sorts of systems of rule; Monarchy, Republic, Empire, Oligarchy etc. etc.

But what would it be called if a nation has several provinces/holds/regions that is each ruled independently by, say, Jarls and there is no king. But all of the Jarls get together occasionally in some sort of assembly and put down laws and make decisions together to rule the nation, as equals? Perhaps they even elect a 'king' or a leader-type amongst themselves, but it still can't be a republic, since it would only be the Jarls voting, and not the people. The position of Jarl would also follow bloodline rather than voting, so all the Jarls would be Jarls by birthright.

2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:40F5:404A:1E78:5E9 (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that be an Oligarchy or an Aristocracy? I'm not sure from our articles what the difference is between the two.  Rojomoke (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a Monarchical Federation or Federal Monarchy (depending on how you want to put it). What you have described is exactly how countries like the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia run. See Politics of the United Arab Emirates and Yang di-Pertuan Agong for information.  Historically, two states which ran that way also were the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.  Also, while today we tend to think of "Republic" and "Monarchy" as exclusive concepts, there is some historical overlap; in the Federalist Papers, Poland is referenced as a "failed republic" for its badly run elective monarchy, for the writers of the Federalist Papers, Poland was a type of republic merely because it elected its leader, even though that leader was also a King.  Another historic example might be the Dutch Republic, which was nominally a republic, but ran like an elective monarchy almost exactly like you describe.  See Politics and government of the Netherlands (1581–1795). The various constituent provinces had Stadtholders which were very monarchical in nature.  One Stadtholder, that of Holland (also simultaneously of Utrecht and Zeeland) became the hereditary right of the House of Orange-Nassau, by extension they became the de facto (though not de jure) hereditary leaders of the Netherlands.  One of these supposedly republican Stadtholders even became king of England, see William III of England.  -- Jayron 32</b> 17:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just thinking, another example would possibly be the rule of the Twelve Tribes of Israel under the period before the United Monarchy, i.e. the Israeli people during the time period described by the Book of Judges. In that case the "Judges" were the temporary leaders of the entire nation, but under most times each of the twelve tribes managed their own business, being united mostly by religious connection, i.e. the worship at the Tabernacle at Shiloh and the role of the Levites, which held Israel together, since they lacked a central political authority.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also sounds like something close to the system used in the Icelandic Commonwealth, where they had an Althing from 930. The infobox of the article defines it as "Federation under religious democracy". --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answers. Gives me food for thought, and goes to show how intricate and complex these things can be sometimes. How I have seen these things have mostly tended to be rather black and white, but there's certainly lots of colors in between... 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:40F5:404A:1E78:5E9 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's important to remember that as humans, we have an instinct to classify things; but at some level every nation is a sui generis creation unto itself which has worked out (and in most cases is in a constant state of "still working out") how to govern itself. When we classify such a diverse group of entities into a small set of categories, there are bound to be many edge cases.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Who should clean in a utopic fair society?
According to socialists, and intellectual creators of any other "alternative" society, who should do the menial work? Some menial work, like shoe polish, could disappear, but what about cleaners? How to distribute work if you give all an education?--Noopolo (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Robots. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have people volunteer for the work they are qualified for and like, with some positions in such demand that hiring is competitive and some people would have to settle for their second or third preference, then distribute the rest by lots, with the least desirable kinds of work requiring the smallest weekly time commitments. (For example, people would be required to list unclaimed jobs in order of preference.  Let's say that robots for cleaning toilets have not yet been perfected and cleaning public toilets gets the lowest average ranking among such jobs.  The required X hours of public toilet cleaning required in a municipality in a week would be divided such that those assigned that task would devote fewer hours to it per week than other such tasks that need to be assigned.) Marco polo (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An apocryphal story is told of Holocaust survivor and writer Ephraim Kishon, who as a new immigrant on a kibbutz (egalitarian society) agreed to a regular assignment cleaning the public lavatories with shorter hours as compensation - time he devoted to acquiring the local language so as to more quickly return to his profession. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This question has been answered in quite some depth by many people who think about such things. Two related topics the OP may want to look into is Tragedy of the commons and Post-scarcity economy both of which approach the problem of "who does work that needs to be done when there's little net individual benefit of doing it".  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even in a non-utopian society job design allows the menial tasks to be incorporated into various occupations. Job enrichment is a related approach, so rather than employ people who only clean, you could employ people who have responsibility for a whole area of estates management. Another strategy, which could be used in combination with those ones, is to expect everyone to start at an elementary level, but provide sufficient training so that no-one stays at that level for long. If you don't already know William Morris's News from Nowhere you'll find that it explores these issues in fictional form. Highly recommended. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I also say let robots do it. They don't mind, and beats giving them powerful positions. If a human really wants to clean, and they don't slow the robots down, I don't see why not. It's their utopia, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Cleaning could be split between everyone, I've previously lived at a place where everyone was assigned one rotating chore per week. Cleaning could also be done as punishment for crimes, aka, community service. 184.145.53.236 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's not a lot of crime in a typical utopia. Not enough to build a workforce, even in the shabbier ones. But if everyone is rotating shifts, that'd be too many, so I guess not enough complements that ideally. And if everyone's cleaning, the one who doesn't will naturally be looked at as a deviant, written law or not. He'd compel himself to clean or leave, so the spotlessness would sustain itself. We couldn't kill him for it, because we just cleaned. And we couldn't lock him away, because he'd get filthy.
 * But your idea makes sense. I'd like to steal it and write a screenplay. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One guy we lived with committed the crime of being an asshole so we gave him the choice of double chores or leaving. 184.145.53.236 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as the group isn't big enough for subcultures to sprout, self-policing is good policing. Did he leave? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose that if you define a utopian society to be one in which everyone is doing the job they most enjoy, the answer is that the menial work is done by those who most enjoy menial work. To see why, suppose otherwise: if any of the people doing menial work is dis-satisfied with this arrangement then they are not doing the job they most enjoy, and thus you no longer have a utopia (per definition). Trivially, therefore, the only solution that matches our definition is that the menial work is performed by those who most enjoy it. If there are no such people, it must be the case that no menial work is performed. RomanSpa (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By people, anyway. Robots don't dislike the things they don't like. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A truly fair society would pay people proportional to both the importance and the distastefulness of the work. If you pay enough, you'll never run out of folks interested in what we consider low-end (but vital) jobs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good luck finding that particular utopia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect to. The OP's "utopic fair society" is imaginary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In a capitalist society, people who wished to do the job for the wage offered would do the work, with the help of all sorts of nifty inventions like rideable floor polishers and on scaffolds hanging from skyscrapers. What is really interesting here is the premise that under a socialist utopia anybody would be forced to do anything.  Is that how socialism works?  To me that sounds like a communist dictatorship. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The market doesn't work when everything's equal. Who would pay the menial workers, and where would they get enough money to do so, except from working many times more hours in the day? We'd need some sort of special treatment for payrollers, and many other "important" jobs. Utopias shouldn't have currency, I think. Someone always gets hurt. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * When everything is equal is what's called the heat death of the universe. Some people will always get hungry or horny before others.  Then the horny ones can plant while the hungry ones can prostitute.


 * The general principle is, one should always do that work for which one gets the greatest reward. For example, you and I can both work as a salesman or a secretary.  If I can make $50/hr as a salesman, and you $20, and we can both make $15/hr as a secretary, then I should work as a salesman, and be willing to pay you $20 an hour to work as a secretary, even though I could do the same work for $15/hr.  Evene though I have to pay you $20/hr, I still net $30, which is $15/hr more than I would doing the secretarial work myself.  And you net $20, $5 more than you could as a secretary, and $15/hr more than if you made $20/hr at sales and had to pay me $15 to be your secretary.


 * This is called division of labor. Download economist and professor George Reisman's college textbook on free-market capitalism for free in pdf form at http://capitalism.net/ μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "So he burst out laughing at last, and said: 'Excuse me, neighbours, but I can't help it. Fancy people not liking to work! — it's too ridiculous... 'What a queer disease! it may well be called Mulleygrubs!'" Morris, op. cit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs)
 * "Socialism" covers quite a few different concepts. If all property, businesses, etc are state-owned, then the state can set whatever wages for or conditions of employment it wants.  If all businesses are run as workers' cooperatives, then the workers would presumably decide among themselves how work would be assigned and how wealth created would be shared out, and if someone thought they weren't being compensated enough for doign all the cleaning, they could presumably leave and find another coop to work at.  Also, bear in mind that just because everyone in this utopia has been educated, doesnt' mean everyone will be equally capable of all jobs.  Or that they will want to do the same jobs - plenty of people prefer doing manual labour to working in a office. Iapetus (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)