Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 February 21

= February 21 =

What happens in USA political primaries when a first term president seeks a second term?
What happens when a first-term sitting president decides to run for a second term? Does that person automatically receive the party nomination? Is a primary held? Do we forego a primary? How does it work? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends on whether the party is happy with the incumbent. As far as I know, Obama was unopposed in 2012, and I would say it's usually that way. But in 1968, Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy both declared, and President Johnson announced he was done as president. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, he wasn't formally unopposed. Looking around, I find that John Wolfe, Jr. picked up 117,000 votes, and a bunch of counties (mostly in Arkansas), though he didn't win any actual delegates.
 * I would go so far as to say I expect it never happens that there is no opposition at all in the primary. For a sitting president, there is often no serious opposition, meaning opponents who have a serious chance to win (of course, they may be making a serious point by running). --Trovatore (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And more recently, see Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1980, which says  It is notable for being the last time that an incumbent president lost a state's presidential primary. Loraof (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * At the 1972 Republican convention, there was a Congressman named McCloskey who was running against Nixon. He got a grand total of 1 delegate's vote on the first ballot at the convention. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * They still have primaries, caucuses, and a convention, but the sitting president tends to be unopposed. For the most recent example, see Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 and 2012 Democratic National Convention. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * So, they go through all that time, energy, money, resources, labor, expenses, etc., all for naught?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a lot more to the primaries than just the presidential candidates. There are any number of state and local officials on the ballot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the most important differences is spending. A sitting president, whether running unopposed or not, is very likely to spend far less getting nominated than will his opponent. More, he will have to do much less to define his political persona, which means he doesn't have to be extreme enough to be nominated, but moderate enough to be elected.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Pat Buchanan ran against incumbent GHWB in 1992. The RNC did everything it could to make sure neither got elected. μηδείς (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Franklin Pierce was the only president not nominated by his own party for a second term.Hayttom (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What are the statistics for US Presidents who transition from a first-term to a second-term?
What are the following statistics?


 * (A) Number of first-term presidents who decided not to run for a second term


 * (B) Number of first-term presidents who decided to run for a second term and won


 * (C) Number of first-term presidents who decided to run for a second term and lost

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * James K. Polk decided not to run for a second term, due to ill health. In fact, he died about a month after his term ended. Millard Fillmore, the poor sap who inherited the presidency when Zachary Taylor died, as I recall is the only sitting president who sought renomination and was spurned by his party. Pierce's situation was almost the same as Fillmore's, but he withdrew after no one got enough votes at the 1856 convention. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I recommend you look through List of presidents of the united states and read each one's story. It's interesting stuff. And you'll get your answer in the process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That list only tells me who actually was president. It doesn't tell me if someone was an incumbent, ran, and lost (for a second term).  Right?  Or does it indicate so, somehow?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In fact, it doesn't even tell me whether or not an incumbent (who only served one term) even tried to run for a second. Yes?  I just looked up Jimmy Carter on that list, trying to remember if he did/did not run a second term.  The list is unhelpful in that regard.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The catch was you had to read each one's story. Jimmy Carter's was pretty sad. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, February 21, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the point, to urge the OP to read each president's unique story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I gathered that. Needless to say, I don't have time to read 44 biographies.  Not to mention all the off-shoot articles about the actual elections, etc.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't have to read them all the way through (although you should). Just jump to the parts about their running for president. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I used to think Jimmy Carter was Jimmy Stewart. Today I learned they were mortal enemies (who may have never met). It's a wonderful list. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, February 21, 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the last movie Carter watched as President was Fools' Parade. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, February 21, 2016 (UTC)


 * The answer to (C) includes Gerald Ford, who ran for a second term in 1976 but lost to Jimmy Carter; Jimmy Carter, who ran for a second term in 1980 and lost to Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, who ran for a second term on 1992 and lost to Bill Clinton. Loraof (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Since the OP is unwilling to do the work, and since I'm kind of interested in the answer, here is how the 44 presidents categorize:

Washington, J.Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q.Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, W.Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, A.Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, B.Harrison, Cleveland, McKinley, T.Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, F.Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, L.Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H.W.Bush, Clinton, G.W.Bush, Obama.

Polk, Hayes, Arthur.
 * First-term presidents who decided not to run for a second term;

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, T.Roosevelt, Wilson, Coolidge, F.Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, L.Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, G.W.Bush, Obama.
 * First-term presidents who decided to run for a second term and won:

J.Adams, J.Q.Adams, Van Buren (tried more than once), Cleveland (tried again and won), B.Harrison, Taft, Hoover, Ford, Carter, G.H.W.Bush.
 * First-term presidents who decided to run for a second term and lost:

Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, A.Johnson.
 * First-term presidents who were not nominated for a second term:

W.Harrison, Taylor, Garfield, Harding, Kennedy.
 * First-term presidents who died in office:


 * ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Garfield also died on a Monday. Now it all makes sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, February 23, 2016 (UTC)


 * If you want to take it a step further, you could also think about Presidents who did not run for a third term, who ran for a third term and succeeded (just one), who ran for a third term and lost (none formally nominated, I think, though several tried) and those who were constitutionally barred after the 22nd Amendment. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Or Presidents who ran, won and technically lost (or ran, lost and technically won). A solid eleventh of those. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, February 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * It strikes me as a bit tendentious to say that candidates who got more popular votes but fewer electoral votes "won but technically lost". No.  They lost, period.  That's the way the contest is structured.
 * You're certainly entitled to the view that it shouldn't be structured that way. But that's a different discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I like this way. They should mostly end clean, but knowing the popular one can get screwed at any time maintains an element of unpredictability till the very end. When it goes down, the "good guy" gains sympathy, the "bad guy" looks cunning and both sides of the crowd become more invested in how the next four years play out. All part of the American Dream, baby. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, February 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * Is InedibleHulk an American? He appears not to understand the American presidential election process. The president is elected by the states, not directly by the people as such. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Canadian. I get how it works, but that doesn't change the fact that these sorts of losses (and the whole game) are controversial, especially among Americans. That's why those four (and these eleven states) have an article. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, February 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * Also aware that D.C. isn't technically a state. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, February 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, y'all's PM isn't elected by popular vote either....
 * Sure, there are lots of people who think the president should be elected by popular vote. There are decent arguments on both sides.  It won't happen, because it would take 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and inevitably at least 13 states will think that they will lose out in one way or another.  The compact might happen; has some constitutional issues but they might be overcome by the nearly plenary power granted to the states to choose electors.
 * Just the same, whether those should be the rules or not, if you lose in the Electoral College, you just lose. There's no asterisk. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In Westminster countries, it's common enough for elections to produce winning parties/coalitions (as determined by seats in parliament) that polled fewer popular votes than their rival party/coalition. It's certainly happened in Australia and I'd be very surprised if it's never happened in Canada.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not playing the "Canada is better" card (this time). No official asterisk. But just like many Average Joes think Gustafsson beat Jones in beautiful Downtown Toronto, and Gustafsson thinks D.C. doesn't count till he does, there are many still not convinced about the whole "President Bush" thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, February 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * That's true, but usually the question is whether he really won Florida, not whether the electoral-college result should trump the popular-vote one.
 * (There seem to be similar questions in some of the other elections on your list, by the way.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In politics, the questions change about as often as the answers do. That much, at least, is universal. If you ask me, a straight-up race to the capitol would be simplest and best. A fast, strong man can always be made mentally fit later, by the advisors who nobody elects and never leave, and is far better-suited to not wear a shirt. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, February 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no significant support for changing the electoral college system. 13 opposing states? More likely, the majority of states would oppose it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Until there exists a fair way to vote on how voting should work, yeah, maybe. But maybe not. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, February 24, 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an offshoot of the Great Compromise, which gave the smaller states a stronger voice, to try to offset domination by the bigger states. That's still an issue, and it's why the electoral college likely will never be abolished. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Most electoral systems are designed with values in mind other than just one-man-one-vote democracy. Giving a slight advantage to less populous states, or giving a slight advantage to rural versus urban voters than is proportional to their numbers, or giving a slight advantage to ethnic minority groups, are all principles that have found support in different countries. The way you count votes also reflect a choice of values. The "first past the post" system used in the UK seems antiquated and unfair to those of us used to a preference-based system, but it is acceptable to those who accept its underlying principles. Similarly, a proportional system favours minor parties, and there is debate about whether this is "good" or "bad" in principle. There are different mathematical rules for judging whether one electoral system is "better" than another, but these also require value judgements about what an electoral system "should" achieve. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A majority of states perhaps, but I'm not sure whether it's accurate to say 'no significant support' considering that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact already has the support of sufficient states to give 30.7% of the electoral college or 61.1% of the needed 270 votes. While nominally not changing the electoral college, if implemented the compact effectively would mean there's little real difference in practice from the popular vote directly election the president except for borderline cases (e.g. the president-elect dies after the vote but before the electoral college meets). Admitedly the NPV seems to have having trouble attracting the support of the non swing Republican states that it will likely need to come in to effect (as our article says), perhaps because they perceive (correctly?) that the current system provides their party an advantage so may not advance further. Still it's difficult to say there's no significant support. The number of states may not be that high, but the skewed nature of the population means it doesn't have to be that high even considering the slight bias for small states built in the EC. In fact if Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and one of Michigan or Georgia supported the compact they'd already have enough of the electoral college for the NPV to come in to effect and have enough buffer that it shouldn't fail in the short term due to population changes meaning it no longer has the majority. Of course Florida and Ohio being swing states may mean reluctance there to support the NPV regardless of party. Perhaps Pennsylvania and Michigan too although I think this gets into the complicated issue that what's seen as a swing state can change from election to election. Note this also highlights that whatever the historical reasons, the EC combined with the winner-takes-all system many states have adopted means that the actual advantage to small states is small. The big advantage is to any state with a close race, particularly in fact if they have a large population. Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's odd that this subject never comes up on the nightly news. Maybe it will, if something actually happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

2014R
What does the "R" behind each year (2012R, 2013R, 2014R) mean here?

What does the "R" stand for, if anything? Johnson&#38;Johnson&#38;Son (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just based on the note at the bottom of that page, I believe it means that the numbers have been revised (i.e. the numbers were altered from their original values due to newer or more complete data becoming available). Matt Deres (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Architectural style ID


What would you call this building? Simply eclectic, or does it fit into a single style? The consistent use of brick (as opposed to stucco, for example) makes me lean away from Mission Revival/Spanish Colonial Revival, and while it's rather similar to File:University Street East, 517, East Second Street HD.jpg and several other buildings in Commons:Category:Spanish Colonial Revival architecture in Bloomington, Indiana, the building guide that I followed with categorising Bloomington buildings is slightly odd, tending to grasp at straws sometimes for a building's style (calling this Tudor Revival, for example), so I hesitate to follow its guidance for a building in another city. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The round-headed arches suggest Romanesque architecture, but I think they're added in to give it a quasi-religious appearance befitting a Masonic temple. Alansplodge (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * (EC) The prominent buttresses, combined with the semi-circular arches, mark it an example of vernacular Romanesque Revival architecture to my eye. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think your first instinct was right (Mission Revival/Spanish Colonial Revival). The excessive use of brick is just because they are masons (bricklayers), and that's what mason's do. StuRat (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Carnets de guerre
What is a carnet de guerre? No article here or at fr:wp, its Commons category has no description and no parent categories except for Category:World War I, and a Google search returns results mentioning these items but none explaining what they are. Nyttend (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * War diaries. Wikisource has some here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just war diaries in general, or is the term restricted to World War I? Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Potentially all, a carnet is a pocket notebook or pocket diary. DuncanHill (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A famous example is Les carnets de René Mouchotte, 1940-1943. We have a brief article, War diary, so we could possibly redirect to that. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Our article is about official unit combat records. There are plenty of examples of the personal diary sort, see War Diaries 1939-1945 by Lord Alanbrooke and The Revolutionary War Diary of Major William Croghan picked at random. Perhaps we should have a specific article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Details about Donald Trump financing his own presidential run
My understanding is that Trump is financing his own presidential run. Is this correct? Or is this just bluster on his part? (My guess is that it's partially correct.) Do we know how much of his own money he is spending? Is this public information, somehow, through campaign finance laws? Or is it private info that he is not obligated to disclose? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Contributions to (and expenditures by) the campaigns of candidates for federal office are public record under U.S. campaign finance law (see Federal Election Campaign Act). There is a lag period, though, so disclosure is not instantaneous; FEC filings are made quarterly. Note that this disclosure requirement does not apply to outside dark money groups.
 * As for the Trump campaign, your instincts are correct: Politifact rates the blustery and oft-repeated "self-funding" claim as half-true and half-false. Trump has provided about 66% of his campaign's cash; the remaining 34% are from other donors. But the "vast majority of Trump’s contributions to his own campaign — about $12.6 million — are loans rather than donations. This means he could expect to eventually recoup these funds." Rick Hasen, who is probably America's leading campaign-finance expert, says that Trump is not self-funding because a significant share of contributions come from others, and because Trump's contributions are primarily loans rather than donations. Neutralitytalk 21:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Being a businessman instead of a politician by trade, he's playing it smart. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So, like he does with his businesses, he leeches off is supported by the public. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump gets a yuge amount of free publicity, because he drives up ratings, often record ratings for three press that cover him. He bragged about this late last year, that he had spent almost no money at all over the summer, and was recently heard inadvertently on an open mike from Joe Scarborough's show pointing out the same fact, that outlets that feature him do quite well, and that he probably helps them more than they help him.  No refs, as I am out the door, but I can add some later.  Meanwhile, JEB spent well over $100 million to lose ignominiously. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Trump left no stone unturned when he beat the Bushes. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Essentially, another way of explaining it is that he's not actively fundraising. He'll take your money if you want to give it to him, and sell you a hat if you want to buy one, but he's not (as far as anybody knows) holding secret fundraisers in Boca Raton mansions. Blythwood (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Segregation in the Deep South (USA)
During segregation, especially during the 50's/60's, did many white southerners 'dislike' or 'hate' coloured people? Would it have been possible for coloured and white people to be friends on a personal level, or was there animousity? I am struggling to get into the mindset of segregationist white southerners during the 50's/60's. Thanks. --Finderoomertæs (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It clearly varied, but there was some obvious cognitive dissonance in many avowed segregationists' attitudes.


 * Here's one example, about Forrest County, Mississippi Prosecution Attorney James "Jimmy" Dukes: "He never developed a hatred for blacks like some whites in his community. Rather, he expressed an abiding love for his black nanny who raised him, a black man who had taught him how to hunt and fish, and the black men he labored alongside in various working class jobs during his summer breaks from college.  Still, he was a segregationist, who accepted the 'existing mores' of the time and perceived white and black activists who demonstrated in the streets as dangerous 'radicals.'  His philosophies and actions would grow more moderate.  But in 1964, he used the power of his position to pressures the movement through diligent prosecution of activists."  Patricia Michelle Boyett, Right to Revolt: The Crusade for Racial Justice in Mississippi's Central Piney Woods (University Press of Mississippi, 2015).


 * Here's another variation from horrifying far-rightist Gerald L. K. Smith: "Smith knew few blacks ... His Shreveport church was strictly segregated. ... Smith had black cooks and housekeepers, whom he got along with only so long as they were submissive." Glen Jeansonne, Gerald L. K. Smith, Minister of Hate (LSU Press: 1988)


 * The notorious segregationist Strom Thurmond and his black housekeeper had a child together: Essie Mae Washington-Williams, whom Thurmond refused to publicly acknowledge). See Mary C. Curtis, Strom Thurmond’s black daughter: a symbol of America’s complicated racial history, Washington Post (February 5, 2013). Neutralitytalk 01:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Haha, he hated black people but when horny couldn't keep himself from what must've been to him a horrible sin (unsegregated intercourse!). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sure he only had intercourse with her every other month, as he would have designated one ovary and fallopian tube as "whites only", and aimed for that one, strictly avoiding the "colored" set. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Segregationists could respect and even love blacks as long as they "knew their place". It might help if you think about their attitude as how we think about pets.  If your dog or cat does as it's told, you love it, but if it starts biting you or growling at you, it's time to punish it or even have it put to sleep (or, back then, to take it out behind the shed and shoot it).  That, unfortunately, is how many of them felt. StuRat (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI the user has been indeffed for trolling, as one could have guessed from his user contributions. μηδείς (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That statement appears to presuppose that we review the contributions of anyone who asks a Q here. StuRat (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There's some good related reading at Racism_in_the_United_States, and Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

U.S. citzenship
My grandmother lives in the U.S. and is unsure of the citizenship of those wanting to rent her apartment in Nebraska. How can you know of the citizenship of a person?. Thank you. --190.50.126.207 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * IANAL, but according to NOLO, you can require tenants to fill out Form I-9 to verify U.S. citizenship, except in New York City (NYC Admin. Code § 8-107(5)(a)) and California (Calif. Civil Code § 1940.3.). However, in order to not violate the Fair Housing Act, that requirement must apply to all prospective renters, not just certain ones. clpo13(talk) 00:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be careful of that. I think it's just a poor wording. In this part it says
 * "If you categorically refuse to rent to applicants without SSNs, and these applicants happen to be foreign students, you’re courting a fair housing complaint."
 * The 12th edition of the book they advertise instead says:
 * "It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of national origin, although you may reject someone on the basis of immigration status, as discussed in Chapter 5."


 * and in another part:
 * "HUD has addressed this issue with great care. Because “immigration status” is not a protected category under the federal fair housing laws, it is not illegal to require that all applicants provide “identity documents” that establish that they meet rental criteria (which, presumably, can include legal residency). However, HUD hastily adds that “a person’s ability to pay rent or fitness as a tenant is not necessarily connected to his or her immigration status.” (“Immigration Status and Housing Discrimination Frequently Asked Questions,” www.hud.gov.) And HUD makes it very clear that if landlords intend to ask for residence verification, they must ask all applicants, not only those whom they suspect may be here without legal status. Requiring verification from only some applicants is almost always an instance of race, color, or national origin discrimination."


 * In other words, I think when it says "citizenship status" it actually means immigration status. I.E., whether the person is in the US legally.
 * This newsletter from a Colorado law firm
 * "Similar to the issue of illegal immigrants, the issue of non-citizens has been decided. You must rent to qualified non-citizens; again these persons are foreign nationals with proper legal status."


 * I'm not sure if that's only in Colorado but I don't think so. It sounds to me like refusing to rent to legal non citizens solely because they are legal non citizens is a problem in the US, perhaps because it's been intepreted to violate the national origin protection. Edit: See below. (That same newsletter suggests the issue of prospective tenants lacking Social Security numbers is untested although it is 2012.
 * BTW, the Nolo book is a good read if you're a prospective landlord or helping one. It includes stuff like:
 * "The examples and advice we give below may seem “politically correct” in the extreme, but take our word for it, they are based on actual fair housing complaints and deserve to be taken seriously. .... Management extends the use of the common room to tenants for “birthday parties, anniversaries, and Christmas and Easter parties.” A better idea: Invite your tenants to use the common room for special celebrations, rather than list specific Christian holidays."


 * Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I found which says:
 * "The federal Fair Housing Act does not prohibit discrimination against aliens or because of language"


 * and
 * "Both alienage (whether a person is a citizen of the United States) .... remain permissible bases for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act"


 * So it does sound like some sources think it's okay.
 * However says:
 * "Legal foreign residents have the same rights under the law as anyone else. Besides, if you don’t rent to them, you could be opening yourself up to a charge of discrimination based on national origin."


 * That and about disparate impact suggest that it's quite complicated. I won't research more but only say if you wish to proceed down this line, I strongly suggest you see a lawyer and don't rely on either comments here on wikipedia nor on nolo and sites like that. It seems clear what you're trying to do is something which could easily fall on either side of the boundary, even if you have a clear cut always implemented policy and reasons for not wanting to rent to non citizens. In addition, while California and NY may specifically forbid even asking, it's possible perhaps even likely that other states have laws which while not going that far, still clearly forbid discrimination based on US citizenship status.  BTW, I'm following clpo13's intepretation that you want to know if the person is a US citizen or not. If you want to know what citizenship they have if they are not a US citizen, I think the sources discussing national origin speak for themselves. If you just want to know if the prospective tenants are living or working lawfully in the US regardless of citizenship, Nolo does give advice on how you can approach this and the caveats.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Why does she actually care ? Would their lack of citizenship affect her ?  StuRat (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * OP's grandma probably wants to avoid illegal immigrants. There might be a law baring illegal aliens from renting in her neck of the woods. Scicurious (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The OP, who has only posted the one entry, would need to clarify that. Refusing to rent to illegals might be OK. Refusing to rent to non-citizens who are here legally might well be against the law. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is all supposition, and certainly none of the Reference Desk's business. Why the OP's grandmother wants to know is not for us to question.  Don't you guys have lives to be getting on with, or something? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the hatting, though I won't reverse it (perhaps others should consider doing so). Understanding what the OP's grandma's end-goal is in insisting on only U.S. citizen tenants may well help us in answering the question as to how to practically achieve that goal, perhaps via other measures.

Somewhat unrelated, I will note that to my understanding, some banks in certain countries will hesitate (or flatly refuse) to lend money to non-citizens or allow them credit cards, as they fear the borrower may return to their home country without repaying the debt (and chasing them for the debt through their home country's legal system may be difficult, expensive, tedious, of dubious success, and in some cases, impossible). I have no idea if this is relevant to the OP's grandma's concerns, though clarification from the OP would IMHO be helpful, as I stated earlier. But I have one (probably unnecessary) piece of advice: DO NOT, EVER, rent a property to foreign diplomats. Diplomatic Immunity can make it totally impossible to enforce collection of the rent, or even take legal action against them to evict them for non-payment. Many landlords have been trapped by this. Eliyohub (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

fallacy of a faulty comparison?
(Transfered from Talk:List of fallacies.)

i was going about my internet browsing like usual when i came across a picture that said "a liberal's paradise would be free this and that and the other. but believe it or not, a place like that exists. it's called prison" that isn't really an accurate comparison, is there some type of fallacy that covers this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.58.228 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly a fallacy, it's just propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fallacy implies some sort of surface logic, this doesn't make any sense at all. Or is it a pun on the two different meanings of "free"? A pun is not a fallacy either. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Check out Argument_from_analogy. Also note that, like lists of terms of venery, it can be fun to wade through the taxonomy of logical fallacy, but it is seldom that helpful. The aid is usually to be able to use it as a shorthand. But if neither you nor your audience know what the specific name is, it doesn't help. It also doesn't help that these terms get used and abused in all sorts of incorrect ways, e.g. begging the question, in its original fallacious sense, is now hopelessly lost to us. What does help generally is knowing how to identify logical soundness and logical validity. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this may not be the exact same as what OP came across, but a similar sentiment was given by Saint Paisios: It is not freedom when we say to people that everything is permitted. That is slavery.
 * See e.g. here . Charitably, I think he's not trying to be logical so much as pulling a clever switch-a-roo, and jumping between very different notions of freedom and slavery. This is perhaps similar to some zen koans. I also think he doesn't know how trees work, and is basically just espousing paternalism. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is kind of similar to the old joke about the dangers of that dreaded substance "di-hydrogen oxide", or making a thing out of the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WHAAOE, naturally. The standard counter-argument to the OP's example replaces "liberal" with its opposite, "free" with "no", and "prison" with "Somalia".  I suppose the argument could be classed as a Straw man ("taken to its logical extreme..."), or an undistributed middle ("All liberal paradises have free food, all prisons have free food, all liberal paradises are prisons"), but I agree with SM that the logic is important, not the name. Tevildo (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok I think I know where I went wrong. The "free" is to be read as "the state provides", right? I realise now that this would be clear in an American political context. Whereas I had read it as "freedom", as in free speech, free press, free enterprise etc - which would make no sense in relation a prison. The state providing "free stuff" sounds like socialism, rather than liberalism, but I forgot that in the US liberal catches both. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what OP saw, but the quote I cited above is not simply conflating free as in freedom and free as in beer, i.e. Gratis versus libre. Not to defend the claim that permissive society is slavery, but I think St. Paisios is not playing with the petty trick of "food in prison is provided at no cost to the prisoner", and he's clearly speaking about libre, not gratis. Not that that makes the strict logic any better, but Paisios is at least doing his best to speak clearly and in good faith to the cooperative principle. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's try to analyze the "logic"


 * Assertion: "Liberals want everything to be provided for people at no charge."


 * Assertion: "In prison everything is provided for the prisoners at no charge."


 * Implication: "Therefore, any situation where everything to be provided for people at no charge is a negative experience, as in prison."


 * I think a false analogy applies here, too, since there's no reason to draw the implication from the assertions. (The first assertion is also untrue, but that doesn't matter from a logical analysis POV.)  Incidentally, the first assertion can be more effectively argued against with simple economics, that is, that somebody has to pay for everything, which would be the taxpayers, in this case, and thus it isn't "free" after all. StuRat (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there are at least two fallacies there, possibly more. "a liberal's paradise would be free this and that and the other" is a straw man.  "but believe it or not, a place like that exists. it's called prison"  is a false analogy, and possibly an false dilemma as well (you can either have free as in freedom, or free as in beer, but not both).  There is probably also an implied slippery-slope argument as well: that a government that gives you everything for free will inevitably end up controlling you as though you were in prison. Iapetus (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)