Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 26

= January 26 =

How many of these orders seem likely to happen?
Everything from the border wall to banning immigrants from certain countries to eliminating NPR and PBS - are these headlines overblown or are these things that will definitely happen? Aren't these issues to be run by congress, and doesn't he have a lot of opposition from repubs, let alone dems? I feel like a lot of it is all talk, because even though repubs have a congressional majority, I remember that Bush had an even bigger one in his second term when he couldn't even privatize social security. A lot of younger folks I know are having meltdowns because every day presents new orders and mandates that are phrased as seeming definite and permanent. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many of these proclamations are basically putting stakes in the ground, and it will be up to Congress to act upon them. For example, the wall is estimated to cost 8 million dollars a mile, so we'll see whether Congress feels like allocating that money. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the notice at the top of the page. "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate."  Please ask questions for which we could help you find reliable source material to research the answer on your own.  This is an open-ended request for predicting future events based on our own opinions.  That is NOT what we do here.  -- Jayron 32 00:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Jayron32, I am much more of a Wikipedia novice than you. But whilst we absolutely cannot offer our own predictions, surely there are political and legal analysts who have looked at exactly the issues the OP asks, whose articles we can provide links to? And one of the OP's part of the question sounds like asking about the limits of Presidential power vs that of congress, as it regards the issues on the Trump agenda. How far does his executive power extend regarding these issues and plans? (For example, I don't know the limits of his right to order the construction of a border fence or wall, but unless he can "get Mexico to pay" congress would definitely need to allocate the funding. This is not opinions or predictions). This doesn't sound like a request for predictions or opinion, I think this part can be answered. Likewise, any reliably sourced answers as to what individual congessmen have openly expressed on the question of how they view or would vote on specific items on the Trump agenda, or collating of such statements by congressmen where they have been made, would seem relevant to the OP's question, without us expressing opinions or predictions.

As to how things are likely to actually pan out, that is something we cannot speculate on here. But we can provide links to what those with experience or expertise in American politics have said or written on the matter, can we not? These questions (e.g. how will Trump and congress likely get along?) have definitely been canvassed in reliable sources, haven't they? Their "expert speculation" and analysis of political and other realities in implementing the various items on the Trump agenda, is it not something we can link to? Eliyohub (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Are these things that will definitely happen?" is unanswerable for any proclamations that require Congress to act. News reports covering these various executive orders often give information as to what else will be required to carry out the order. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The OP's primary question was how many of these things seem likely to happen? We cannot answer that (it's a request for predictions), but we can give links to articles by political analysts who have written on what is and isn't likely to realistically take place, based on both political and practical realities. Eliyohub (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are absolutely correct, we are perfectly able to give OP references where other people speculate. For example, with respect to Trump's  wall propositions, we can point OP to this article  or this one  from the Washington Post. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While the order to build a wall may be "symbolic", it looks like the Republican Congress is going to go for it. Really, the best bet is to read the daily news articles about these issues, to see how they're going. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, what is shameful about border security? Or is it only shameful when the US does it? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It makes us look like East Germany in the Cold War days. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So when Senator Clinton and Senator Obama voted for it, it was also bad? Not sure why border security makes us look like East Germany, especially since the Berlin Wall was there to prevent people from leaving, not coming in. I would suggest you read the local papers of border towns in Texas and Arizona and see what they have to deal with before you decide that having border security is a fascist idea. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect, we are not here to discuss our opinions, we are here to provide references. I have deleted three parenthetical opinion words from my previous post, and I ask all to not share further opinions or talking points. Thanks! (If you really care about my, SemanticMantis', personal opinions on Trump or his plans, I'm not sure why you would, but I suppose you could ask me at my talk page) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I read SM's refs, they are opinion articles saying that building the wall will cost money, so it can't be done. We're simply not here for soapboxing. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are free to give additional refs, as is anyone else. The fact that you may or may not like or agree with a ref doesn't prevent me from sharing them, nor does my sharing a published opinion mean that I necessarily agree with it. If you want to hat individual soapboxy comments, feel free, but we are also free to give refs if we choose, as per Eli and myself above. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Any author who claims that something won't be done because it will cost money, is too ignorant to be taken seriously. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as eliminating PBS and NPR, I haven't heard that Trump said he planned to do that, but it wouldn't surprise me. The reality, though, is that all he could do is eliminate government funding of those orgs.  They might have to scale back, or they might find that this action would increase private donations, and perhaps they could even expand. StuRat (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Today's episode of Sesame Street is dedicated to Donald Trump, and is brought to you by the letters F and U." StuRat (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "And then Kermit will explain what a protective tariff is and how it will F U." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

US Secretary of State
Donald Trump's nominee for US Secretary of State hasn't yet been confirmed by the federal senate, so the person filling the role is Thomas A. Shannon Jr., who's "Acting Secretary of State". How does one become Acting? Is it a presidential appointment that doesn't need senatorial approval (presumably because it's for a short time), or does the senior-most State Department appointee automatically get elevated to the position when there's no secretary, or is it by some other means? Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thomas A. Shannon was confirmed by a senate vote . Not sure if acting secretary is legally required to be a senate-confirmed official. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Clarify: The answer is no. The current line of succession of secretary of state is established by Executive Order 13251, implemented by President Bush in 2001. Limitations on who may serve as acting secretary are established by law, specifically 5 U.S.C. §3345, with restrictions on how long an acting secretary may served dictated by 5 U.S. Code §3346. From first glance, it looks to me like every office in the line of succession is one that requires senate confirmation, but I don't see any requirement for this to be the case in the actual laws, nor do I see any restriction on the position of "acting secretary" being taken by a recess appointee to a lower position. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

US judicial system
Is the US judicial system racist? Benjamin (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Compared to what? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would not limit my search in that way. Benjamin (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you identify a judicial system that is "more" racist than the American? Or "less" racist? If not, then you need to define your terms better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this a serious question? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. --Golbez (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is a good place to start, specifically on black vs. white experience of the judicial system. It depends on where you live within the US, but overall blacks are more likely to be stopped on suspicion of a crime, more like to be arrested if stopped, more likely to have charges pressed if arrested, more likely to be convicted if charged, more likely to be sent to jail/prison if convicted, and likely to get longer prison sentences if sent to prison. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that link. Benjamin (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The chain of "more likely"s is missing the first link: Are black Americans more likely to actually commit a crime? Is it even possible to determine that, given that the statistics are actually generated by the "later links" because they are officially recorded as they happen? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Each step of "more likely" is given a population of blacks and whites of the same socioeconomic status, geographical location, generalities of the crime, and criminal history. Each step assumes the black and white person have passed through all previous steps in the same fashion. The data shows bias at every step. Now, do blacks commit more crimes than whites, on a per capita basis? Maybe? We have an article on Race and crime in the United States. Although this data is empirical, so it suffers from the exact same bias as the stops/arrests/convictions, this is probably true for some types of crime. However, most of the difference disappears when you control for socioeconomics and geography (i.e. in predicting the chance someone will commit a crime, it is more informative to know where he lives and whether he is poor, than what his race is). Let's take something specific, marijuana use. This data is all from before 2014, so recreational use was illegal everywhere in the US . Young black men were slightly less likely than young white men to use marijuana, but about 3 times as likely to be arrested for possession. Other studies have looked into this specific "marijuana arrest gap", and found it holds true even after controlling for other factors - it's not simply that a few police departments in black neighborhoods are going overboard and skewing the national numbers. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent info, thanks . Basically "being black" is by itself not a factor in "likely to commit a crime". However, socio-economic conditions that do affect crime rates negatively seem to occur more in populations where black people are overrepresented (the stereotypical inner city "gangsta" is usually black). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that of the eight discrepancies listed, most involve police, prosecutors, and the correctional system, not really the judicial system as such. Only numbers 5 and 6 directly involve the judicial system, and are still more about prosecutors putting their thumbs on the scale than about judges being biased as such. AnonMoos (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're going to include related parts, it's probably with considering other things like the laws themselves. E.g. whether there is justification for the historic or current extreme difference in treatment of crack cocaine and powder cocaine  . And if the level of difference those seem unfair, whether it's possible race (rather than just class or other factors) is a reason for it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is important to distinguish between systemic racism and outright intentional racism. Is the system biased? It absolutely is. Is it biased by design with the explicit purpose of singling out a race for overt discrimination? That's hard to say. I don't believe that to be the case, at least not in recent years. It does frighten me with how hard it is to prosecute police officers, however.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Something else I feel needs to be mentioned. As a criminology major I attended multiple local court proceedings (I had the pleasure of watching someone on trial for shoplifting at one point). One of the proceedings I watched was a "sentence management", which basically involved the judge going through dozens of defendants at a time and giving them reduced sentences. The system is pretty massively overloaded, and so many public defenders, out of expediency for the defendant, will usually encourage them to take a plea bargain in order to get a lower sentence and waive their right to a trial, but mostly to prevent the system from being overwhelmed with queued-up trials. So when you walk into court, there is generally an automatic assumption of guilt. Now once you've served your time, you have that conviction on your background check, and it becomes considerably more difficult to find employment or get benefits, which in some cases will lead to you committing a crime in order to just survive or pay the bills, and then the cycle starts all over again. In that sense, the system is hugely biased against the poor. As it turns out, many blacks happen to be poor. THAT is where we get the systemic racism in our system.--WaltCip (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you have any feel for what percentage of those convicts actually committed the crimes they were accused of? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Walt feels, but here is an article (with links to a peer-reviewed research article) about wrongful conviction rates in the USA. They conclude 4.1% (1 in 25) rate of wrongful convictions among those convicted and sentenced to a death penalty! From the article "Death sentences are uniquely well-documented. We don’t know nearly enough about other kinds of criminal cases to estimate the rate of wrongful convictions for those." SemanticMantis (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And since the vast majority of misdemeanor or lesser felony cases never go to trial in the USA (something like 94% of federal cases are plead out), it's difficult to estimate how many of the suspects actually committed the crimes. The answer could be anything, including SemanticMantis's estimate.--WaltCip (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't intend to suggest so, but it's worth remembering even if all convicts committed the crime, it doesn't mean there can't be a racist aspect. For example, if we a imagine an explicitly racist system where blacks who commit a crime will be convicted but if someone is white they ask for no conviction simply because they're white, that's clearly racist no matter that all people convicted committed the crime. Of course by the same token, it's frequently better to consider whether someone is guilty by the standards required by law, not whether they committed the crime as again it's trivial to imagine an explicitly racist system here. Since we're talking about plea bargains there's the complicating fact that a person who committed a crime may plead guilty either out of guilt or simply because it's too risky to go to trial even if there is a chance you won't be convicted i.e. a rational analysis of the situation suggests simply accepting the plea has a better average outcome. Although, and this goes back to WaltCip's original point, the later also appplies even if you didn't commit the crime and ultimately for various reasons it's more likely to be the case that rational analysis suggests this for the poor. And to avoid confusion, I'm not suggesting that whether someone committed the crime isn't something that is of interest, but rather it only has minimal connection to whether there's racism. Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No doubt that would be racist. But crimes in the US are generally committed by choice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes people feel that it's the only choice.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See (regarding the investigation following the Ferguson unrest).  I mean just read that, any part of it.  The notion that only criminals are charged with crimes, or that crimes are actually choices, it's laughable. Wnt (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of controversy over what actually happened with the guy at Ferguson. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Understatement of the century!--WaltCip (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how gunning down a resident would increase revenue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing that can be done to make people care for the sort of folks who live in Ferguson; they're poor, and they exist only for their hearts to be offered to Huitzlopochtli and their children to Tlaloc. But I don't have to put up with this bit about nobody looking at the link - I'll bring a bit of the mountain to Muhammad: "In 2013 alone, the court issued over 9,000 warrants on cases stemming in large part from minor violations such as parking infractions, traffic tickets, or housing code violations.  Jail time would be considered far too harsh a penalty for the great majority of these code violations, yet Ferguson’s municipal court routinely  issues warrants for people to be arrested and incarcerated for failing to timely pay related fines and fees.  Under state law, a failure to appear in municipal court on a traffic charge involving a moving violation also results in a license suspension.  Ferguson has made this penalty even more onerous by only allowing the suspension to be lifted after payment of an owed fine is made in full...  The court imposes these severe penalties for missed appearances and payments even as several of the court’s practices create unnecessary barriers to resolving a municipal violation.  The court often fails to provide clear and accurate information regarding a person’s charges or court obligations.  And the court’s fine assessment procedures do not adequately provide for a defendant to seek a fine reduction on account of financial incapacity or to seek alternatives to payment such as community service... Data collected by the Ferguson Police Department from 2012 to 2014 shows that African Americans account for 85% of vehicle stops, 90% of citations, and 93% of arrests made by FPD officers, despite comprising only 67% of Ferguson’s population.  African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search.  African Americans are more likely to be cited and arrested following a stop regardless of why the stop was initiated and are more likely to receive multiple citations during a single incident."  And guess what?  That's not all that particularly salacious for the stuff in the report - it has one thing after another about people's rights being violated and blatant injustices done.  When we're talking racism here we're not talking in the abstract. Wnt (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, your argument is not that the crimes weren't committed, but rather that the punishments are discriminatory? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Above it talks about minorities being charged when others wouldn't be, on average. The report (you should read it) gives some truly awful examples of charges trumped up out of nothing.  And then there is the money mill of fines and punishments for people who simply can't pay, in a jurisdiction that intentionally set that kind of fine in order to extract as much money as possible.  But yes, the punishment is also discriminatory.  It's pretty much discrimination all the way down. Wnt (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. Here's the catch: If I get arrested for speeding, while someone else gets a "pass", I can complain about that discriminatory treatment, but morally speaking I have no right to complain about being ticketed for speeding - unless I really was not speeding. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's also worth remembering that besides all the other reasons suggested above, another reason why a defendant may plea is simply to get out of jail if they can't be bailed for some reason, which for various reasons is much more likely to happen with the poor. (Whether there's also any evidence of a possible racist aspect, I don't know.) The first bit is mentioned in our article on plea bargains linked above with one source in one section that's 404, but is also described in others e.g. . So pleading guilty may have negative consequences but they're already strongly negatively affected before they even get to trial. For example, John Oliver did a section on this . Nil Einne (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The racism is the US justice system is largely a result of classism. That is, the rich and well-connected are more likely to "get away with murder", because they can hire teams of expensive lawyers, and also because laws are written to favor them, punishing armed robbery more severely than embezzlement, even for the same amount of money stolen, for example.  So, minorities which are largely in the lower class tend to be treated poorly.  OJ Simpson is an interesting counter-example, where, while black, he is also rich and famous and well-connected, so was able to hire the lawyers needed to get an acquittal. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He got an acquittal because Marcia Clark wanted women on the jury (because Nicole Simpson), and Johnnie Cochran wanted blacks on the jury (because OJ.) So they staffed (stuffed?) the jury with black wimmin. Race won. Asmrulz (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He got an acquittal because the prosecution bungled the case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The speeding thing was the most insightful ethical argument I read today so far. Must be hard for you on the Left. Asmrulz (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When have you heard a leftist argue that the Simpson prosecution bungled the case? Keep in mind that their procedural screw-ups disallowed such obvious "consciousness of guilt" stuff as the famous slow-speed chase. As far as the trial was concerned, it never happened. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What never happened? And I haven't heard them argue crime was conscious moral choice either (rather than 100% SES, bad childhood etc), hence my surprise Asmrulz (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From the legal standpoint, the slow-speed chase "never happened", because it couldn't be introduced as evidence at the trial - thanks to procedural bungling by the law enforcement side. As far as the racial component of the jury, I knew white people who had served as jurors on murder trials, and they told me they would have voted "not guilty" also... Because the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * oh, ok Asmrulz (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Introduction to Economics
Hi all,

I am looking for a book I was given about 15 years ago when I was starting my Economics A-level. It was an introduction to economic thought aimed at those who hadn't studied Economics before. It took you through the history of economic thought up until the WW2 / early post-war era. Each chapter in the book was devoted to a particular economist, starting with Adam Smith and continuing through Malthus, Marx, Keynes, Friedman and Schumpeter. Probably others I have forgotten.

Obviously there are hundreds of "introduction to Economics" books but I particularly liked the way this book started with the basics of economic theory via Adam Smith, and then built up to later economic theory. It was extremely accessible - a book you'd take to bed rather than a textbook, written in prose form rather than graphs. I'd like to recommend it to a friend but can no longer remember the author, and of course it's very difficult to search for. (I have looked through the first few pages of Amazon and Google searches but no luck.) Does this ring a bell with anyone? --87.224.68.42 (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Worldly Philosophers by Robert L. Heilbroner is probably not what most people would think of as an introductory economics textbook, but it roughly fits your description, and has gone through many editions. AnonMoos (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's it! Many thanks. --87.224.68.42 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ideology
Are there any sources comparing the ideology of Students for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty, or other liberty organizations? Benjamin (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are. But be careful how you use that lower-case word "liberty", which is used by those kinds of groups as a propaganda word. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need to use that word if you search for the organization's names as a string. OP, something strange about the Wikimarkup is not letting me link this directly for you but do this: Go to Google scholar and type in the search string ideology "Students for Liberty" "Young Americans for Liberty" and you should get a list of sources. 184.147.116.166 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My concern is the propagandistic expression "liberty organizations". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, 184.147.116.166 (talk). I searched a few results, but only found one sentence that mentioned any sort of comparison. Is there any way to search more effectively? Benjamin (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The obvious thing would be to go to their individual websites and compare the lists of what they supposedly stand for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be original research, wouldn't it? Baseball Bugs Benjamin (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That would depend on what your objective is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Editing Wikipedia would be the reasonable assumption. Benjamin (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Editing what, in particular? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles for YAL and SFL, of course. Is that not obvious, or reasonably assumed? Does it affect which sources you would provide? Do you even have any sources to provide? Benjamin (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you propose to add content to each article contrasting the two organizations? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Of course. Now stop wasting my time. Do you have any sources? Benjamin (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can Google as well as I can. And I find those types of organizations repugnant, so I won't be doing that work for you. And even at this point, I'm uncertain what it is you're trying to accomplish. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, in the future, don't comment unless you have something useful to provide. Benjamin (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, in the future, don't post questions that are too vague to answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They're not too vague to answer, and certainly not certainly too vague to answer. Benjamin (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to Google? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, don't be silly. Benjamin (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Benjamin, I don't know. I'm not a librarian, though some do participate here and perhaps will chime in. Perhaps add keywords for the factors you want to compare? 184.147.116.166 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Which religious group has the longest religious text? Longest canon?
I've heard there's a Buddhist scripture that's 108,000 pages. Is that true? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You'll have to define your terms. The Torah is only the first five books of the Tanakh which in slightly altered form is the Old Testament of the various forms of the Christian Bible.  Are you going to include the Talmud as "scripture"?  And measuring pages is not very useful, when books of poetry have many fewer words per page than portable Shakespeares. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Right, it's very complicated. Just like hadith. I will count the Talmud. Is the revised question unfuzzy enough? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Per your second question, perhaps they were thinking of the Tengyur, which our article says is usually 225 volumes long. 184.147.116.166 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Did that cause trouble before the invention of printing? They must've been expensive! I suppose a monastery of up to several hundred members could make do with only one copy, dividing the books among them and passing the lowest numbered one to their left once a month. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They appear to have been printed from hand-carved woodblocks. As there are usually only five or six lines of print per page, the number of pages is not really comparable with a modern book. Wymspen (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Kangyur might be where OP's getting the 108-ish figure from. Source amnesia, but I do know that I've read there were serious transportation issues with the Tibetan Buddhist canon in the past, though that might have been just the woodblocks for printing. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Tripitaka Koreana is a big collection of scriptural works (not sure if the biggest) where the woodblocks still survive... AnonMoos (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Asia's awesome. I can see how they could've colonized the world instead of Europe if they were expansionist in the 1400s. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

H. G. Wells
Is it true that all of Wells' works are now copyright free (since 1 January 2017)? Or is this perhaps just in UK? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing will enter the public domain in the US until 2019 at the earliest, due to the 1998 Mickey Mouse Act. I wonder if they'll manage to do it again.  There's much more resistance now than there was 20 years ago. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * p.s. I suppose copyright is less clear cut these days, with the web? Doesn't one just have to site one's internet servers in a country where no copyright protection exists and publish from there? Or spread one's servers across a number of different countries, some of which don't offer protection? Sorry to digress. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * See Copyright and H.G. Wells (public domain in nearly all European countries, Israel, Canada, Australasia and Africa but not US). Perhaps that nice Mr Trump will put it on his list of reforms? Alansplodge (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Any of his works published before 1923 is public domain in the U.S. - Nunh-huh 03:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Bedtime reading down at the Trump Towers Potting Shed one imagines. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Or maybe this.  Alansplodge (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unlikely. According to the New York Times, Trump "does not read books".  And as for how the vote would go -- even if it were not Trump in power, this document applies.  But these laws are merely one form of terrorism, and there are non-governmental terror authorities which possess sovereignty of perfectly equal validity; one cannot expect any law nor absence thereof to be true protection against harm, but only hold to what is right, which is for all to enjoy the freedom of thought and sharing their knowledge and experiences. Wnt (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Protection for authors and inventors is written into the US Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So was the three-fifths compromise. Both provisions allowed for a measure of ownership over men. Wnt (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was eventually nullified. Not so with copyrights and patents. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Just a bit of a shame that some people think books don't work. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * H.G. Wells has long since gone far beyond the US Government's ability to "protect" from anything. ApLundell (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank heavens for the wonderful US political system. --Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)