Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 November 17

= November 17 =

history
there is no mention of Salvador Allende on the date: 9/11 ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.13.70 (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which page are you referring to? He is mentioned twice in September 11 and once in Selected anniversaries/September 11. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 9th November? DuncanHill (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to mention Salvador Allende there but the poster may have confused it with his deathday. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 9 November is a red herring.  The OP is from America, where "9/11" does not signify this date.   Allende died on 11 September as our article correctly states so there's no confusion there.   However, if you type 9/11 into the search bar the article which comes up does not mention Allende. 92.8.63.27 (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Our September 11 article does give Allende a mention (under 1973) but only that he was "toppled" and not that he shot himself later that day. Alansplodge (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Scroll down to "Deaths". 92.8.63.27 (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Alansplodge (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Gautama Budha
Does Budha shows that being a vegan is also a way to achieve Nirvana ?

Please answer within these 3 days :) thank you for trying to help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richietravis (talk • contribs) 03:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This Wiki page will definitely help you. Omidinist (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Being vegan is not a "way to achieve Nirvana", though it can form part of the fourth stage of the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha was not a vegan; like other mendicants he was expected to accept whatever was placed in his begging bowl.--Shantavira|feed me 08:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Was Joseph Stalin a driver?
Did he ever possess his own automobiles? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 03:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here is one of his cars. Googling "Stalin drove" will give you plenty more information.--Shantavira|feed me 08:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But did he drive himself? As the Jalopnik article puts it, "Ever wonder what Joseph Stalin drove, or more accurately, was driven in?"  (Looking just at the Google search, what he would appear to have driven most was either his wife to suicide or the party down.) -- ToE 13:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe It was the other way around... -- Jayron 32 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

First black actor without blackface
Following the demise of blackface in the US, who was the first black actor to play naturally, without this makeup? I've browsed Blackface, but it doesn't specify, only suggesting that this might have been in late 1930s. Maybe Stepin Fetchit? --93.174.25.12 (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You may find List of African-American actors of use. Rojomoke (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an odd question. Black actors were performing on film during and after the blackface era, e.g. Paul Robeson or those playing the minor black characters in The Birth of a Nation (1915). And on what date is blackface supposed to have finally died? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Our article says it was "used predominantly by non-black performers". Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump's proposed immigration restrictions / bans on Muslims and the "free exercise" clause of the constitution
Here's something I have heard zero discussion of regarding Trump's statements of his intent to ban or restrict Muslim immigration.

Trump's current, modified proposal bases itself on whether the country the immigrant is coming from has the capacity to do effective background checks. Presumably, countries with weak law enforcement, such as Pakistan or Nigeria, would be on the blacklist. I would think this constitutional, if it could be shown to be justified by legitimate security considerations. If I was a judge, I might demand expert evidence on this point, if the law had a disproportionate impact on Muslims, even if it did not directly refer to them. See Free_Exercise_Clause.

But Trump's initial proposal whilst on the campaign trail was to ban or heavily restrict all Muslim immigration - specifically Muslim. Wouldn't this be a direct attack on the Free Exercise Clause of the constitution? They might only be potential immigrants, not even current residents, but banning them from coming to America purely on the basis of their religion would seem to me to raise issues here. "Congress shall pass no law" is not limited to current American residents, I would think. Have any constitutional law experts offered opinions on this point? Or are there any case law precedents people can point me to? Eliyohub (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if Trump genuinely believes in that (i.e. if it's was not just electoral populism), I doubt he will succeed, but scholars expressed different opinions. See this, this or this for example. Brandmeistertalk  16:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This has happened before, for example, through theChinese Exclusion Act, or, the Internment of Japanese Americans. The latter is a more of an extreme case, but, the former does not look far away from Trump's promise to ban all Muslims. Notice that the Chinese Exclusion Act was repelled as China became an ally during WWII. Racism can't always trump pragmatic reasonable decisiosn. (no pun intended, or maybe yes). Hofhof (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * America already has different rules for different countries. As to whether the first amendment applies to those who have not yet set foot in this country, would be for the courts to decide. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The question conflates two questions, the restriction of immigration, and the matter of citizenship and the rights of citizens. I am unaware of any law restricting immigration from certain nations (those governed by Sharia law, or the Warsaw Pact, for example) or by Communists or Nazis or Jihadis (for example) advocating the overthrow of the government to establish a religion or a dictatorship.  As for the free exercise of religion, that does not include the use of force against others.  "Free" doesn't mean anything goes, limits on assault, theft, murder, fraud or treason are not violations of one's freedom.  Free means without forcing or being forced. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government is a crime under the Smith Act, and anyone doing it could clearly be denied entry (or charged and imprisoned if they continued doing so once in America). Nazis and Jihadis do not enjoy Constitutional protection, as their beliefs clearly involve force and violence. Communists (those seeking to implement Communism via democratic means, though perhaps not membership of a Communist party in a dictatorship) may be a trickier question, as political beliefs are generally protected. If all Muslims believed in imposing themselves by force on others, clearly this would be grounds for a blanket ban. But clearly they don't. The question would be whether the free exercise clause extends to potential immigrants. Freedom of religion is an expressly protected right under the Constitution, and banning all immigrants simply by virtue of belonging to that religion would raise the question above: does the free exercise clause extend to non-citizens? Past precedent suggests no, but if Trump went down this path (which he won't - he's said so) it would almost certainly be challenged in court. (Note that if the court were persuaded that the only way to ensure U.S. safety were to ban all Muslim immigration, than clearly the "compelling interest" test would be satisfied, even if the court were to rule that the free exercise clause did apply to potential immigrants). Eliyohub (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned, experts disagree over whether a Muslim ban would be constitutional. Supreme Court precedent is to give the rest of the government extremely broad discretion when it comes to regulation of immigration. So it's really a question of whether the courts would want to defer to that very old precedent, or extend constitutional protections to prospective residents, as they have been gradually extended to various other groups of non-citizens. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The President ought to be in hell and if only I had the power... I would put him there
The words in the title of this question were held to constitute a threat to the President in a case back in 1918. (Clark v. United States, 250 F. 449 (C.A. 5th Cir.1918)). I cannot find the full decision of the court. I would love to read it if anyone can track it down. Truly, it baffles me.

In saying these words, Clark was admitting that he was not god, and had no power to decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Compare with Watts v. United States in 1969, where the court held that since the threat was conditional on something happening which the purported threat-maker swore would never happen (his being drafted into the army), it was not a "threat".

In general, must a person make the threat in such a fashion as to make a listener believe he had some potential intention of carrying it out, such that if he gained access to the President, there was a real risk he would assassinate him? I thought that was the general rule in laws relating to threats in most jurisdictions - they must cause fear, or be intended to cause fear, that they will be carried out. Does the same apply to threatening the President? (Clark, by his choice of words, admitted the fact that for all his rage, he was powerless to do anything to the President).

Also, please don't forget the Clark case I referred to above. That's the one that baffles me most (an "if I had the power" "threat"). Can anyone shed any light on the court's logic, and whether a modern-day court would see the same words in a similar light? Eliyohub (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He wouldn't have to power to specify Heaven or Hell, but he would certainly have the power to kill him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He only stated a desire (fantasy?) to put the President in hell - nothing explicit about killing. And regardless as to whether "putting in hell" is a euphemism for killing (a question for the jury), Clark clearly implied that it was beyond his power. Eliyohub (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article you linked discusses the hyperpatriotism of the era and that, as a result, any disloyal language or action (sedition) was punished much more severely than similar acts would be today (see Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 for how overbearing the laws of the time were). One reference (ref 7) is to United States v. Stickrath (1917) where threatening the president was said to be "akin to treason, and is rightly denounced as a crime against the people as the sovereign power." It doesn't appear that actual ability to carry out the threat was considered until the Watts case at the latest (in fact, this book mentions U. S. v. Jasick 252 F. 931, with the finding being that the "mere fact that such threat was expressly conditional upon the ability of defendant to carry it out does not render the same any less a threat"). clpo13(talk) 18:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think factual ability to carry out the threat would be an issue as such. Threating to do the impossible is still a threat in most jurisdictions, if, and only if a listener might reasonably think it to be possible that you could and would carry out your threat. (Threatening to shoot someone would clearly be a crime even if would be totally impossible to obtain a gun, if this was not obvious to a potential listener). That's my understanding anyways. Am I wrong? Eliyohub (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See imminent lawless action and clear and present danger. -- Jayron 32 17:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * While that may have been the doctrine of the Supreme Court in 1918, later decisions have revised and changed the prevailing legal definitions of the limits of free speech. At the time, the main legal doctrine was the Bad tendency test, which would certainly have been in place in 1918.  During the subsequent decades, the court developed the Clear and present danger test which prevailed until the 1950's and 1960s, when the landmark Brandenburg v. Ohio case of 1969 and the Hess v. Indiana case of 1973 established the modern standard for the government's right to prior restraint of speech, which is called the Imminent lawless action test.  Were the Clark case tried today, it would never have been decided against Clark.  His speech would clearly be protected, as a threat has to represent a call to "Imminent lawless action" to be unprotected speech: Did the speech cause, or have the intent of causing, a direct lawless or violent action.  Wishing the President to go to hell is not that.  -- Jayron 32 18:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed not. I always thought that was an American past-time! Someguy1221 (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Question: there's been a lot of focus here on Constitutional protections. My question was also intended about general legal elements of "criminal threats", even those against "commoners". If Clark had directed such language at his ex rather than the President, would there be any prospect of a conviction? Or would the judge say "this is clearly a statement of his fantasies rather than his intent, and would cause his ex no grounds for fear"? Put aside the Constitution - are the general legal elements of "criminal threat" present here, regardless of whether the target was a politician or a private individual? Eliyohub (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See True threat, which is held to be distinct from threats made in jest or as hyperbole. The Supreme Court has merely said that to exercise prior restraint on threatening speech, the speech in question must represent a "true threat".  However, the Court has never clarified what makes a threat "true".  -- Jayron 32 21:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Theodora 6th century: Some sources mention her as empress regnant with Justinian I as her co-regent.?
Theodora (6th century)

My question is, where are these sources? This wiki page doesn't make any other mention on her being an empress regent? I'm writing a paper persuading that she was in fact the regent, and Justinian her co-regent. Can you help me find some sources about this? ← — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.177.5 (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The 1902 Edition (the 10th edition) of the Encyclopedia Britannica did. See here.  -- Jayron 32 18:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Was there a series of articles on pre-columbian wars?
Im not sure if i imagined it or or something. I thought i read a series of articles on several pre columbian wars on wikipedia. Please tell me if this is wrong. Pyrusca (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we assume you are referring to wars that took place in Central and/or South America? ... (after all, the Punic Wars and almost all of the Crusades took place "pre Columbus".) Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See List of conflicts in North America and List of conflicts in South America. These are ordered by date and include pre-Columbian conflicts. List of conflicts in Central America does not list any pre-Columbian conflicts, but I'm not sure if that's because historians don't know of any, or because our list is incomplete. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Our list is obviously incomplete. They are actually already listed at List_of_conflicts_in_North_America. There's a bit of a "fluid" definition difference here; definitions of "North" and "Central" America vary; the term "Mesoamerica" generally refers to "Pre-Columbian Mexico + Central America", but many geographers include Central America as part of North America, Mexico being in Central America in some definitions, and in some not.  -- Jayron 32 01:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi I'll head there now. yes I was referring to the Americas. I thought there were a series of 3 articles for a huge war or something. Anways, I wnat to thank all of you for pointing me there. Pyrusca (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * HI, back again. I was wondering, were there a few articles that eventually got merged? It was something on the lines of 1st, 2nd, 3rd or something like that? Pyrusca (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Found it
Yes. it was the Tikal-Calakmul wars and the 3 proposed merger articles. Pyrusca (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)