Humanities desk
< December 17	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 18

Epistemology of Wikipedia

What are the philosophical arguments and implications of [citation needed]? -- The guy from the other day (talk · contribs) 13:47, 18 December 2013

If one is making a claim about a subject, then one needs to show which written source evidences this claim. Is that what you're talking about here? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The basic philosophical argument to a citation being needed is that the information is not unquestionable fact and therefore may be challenged requiring verification by a reader. The implication is, that the sourced material is accurately represented in summary from a reliable source.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the direction you were thinking of, but I've been doing some work into different understandings of knowledge and their application to Wikipedia - I describe it research into a kind of applied epistemology. I tend to see a citation as providing for justification, and "citation needed" as an indicator that the statement lacks justification. In that sense it meets one of the criteria of the standard/Platonic definition, and claims without a citation either need some other source of justification, or don't qualify as knowledge within the framework. However, as Wikipedia fails on the other two criteria, (content on Wikipedia doesn't need to be true or held as a belief) it isn't a definition of knowledge that applies well to Wikipedia. That said, I still feel that epistemologically citations fall best into the category of justification, or perhaps even something like Plantinga's notion of warrant due to the requirement for sources to be reliable, if you want to make that argument and you remain concerned about the Gettier problem. I also suspect that there is room for viewing Wikipedia's understanding of knowledge to be simply "justified (or warranted) belief", which makes citations central to the issue. - Bilby (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, it has nothing to do with "unquestionable fact". It has to do with WP:Verifiability, which makes it plain we're focussed on verifiability, NOT truth (or fact). In other words, what is written in our articles is not just what some editor thinks, but what some reliable source(s) have said. The information might still be very much in the "questionable" zone (such as who really shot JFK, or who wrote the works of Shakespeare, or what happened to Percy Fawcett), but it's at least not some editor just making it up as he goes along. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "verify" means "to make true". Citations are needed in a lot more places than Wikipedia. More and more we hear reporters say, "Police say that..." or "Officials say that..." which is their way of doing what we do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than give you a bunch of OR, go read WP:RS. It speaks for itself. There's also Wikipedia for Dummies. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@The guy from the other day: - Can you be more specific? That question can be answered so many ways. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about you invert it? I started contributing to Wikipedia because I was coming across some very unique, interesting and historical information and did not wish for it to be lost down my personal--or society's in general--'memory hole', so I built article sections (and sometimes entire articles) from the citations/references out. Instead of saying 'hey you know this thing needs an article' etc. To look at this inversion completely, wikipedia could be seen as just a very large cluster search portal of references many of us don't wish to lose to the dispersion field known as the world wide web.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why many editors maintain their own "To Do" lists. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic Immunity and the arrest of Devyani Khobragade

Devyani Khobragade, apparently an accredited Indian diplomat, was reportedly arrested, strip searched, and even cavity searched by federal law enforcement officials in the US, for allegedly trying to bring a domestic worker into the US which was to receive less than minimum wage.The arresting officers apparently were fully aware she was a diplomat. The diplomatic immunity article lists numerous cases of espionage, vehicular homicide, other murder,and theft, with the accused allowed to leave the host country. The press reports I've seen have made no mention of why the US apparently chose to abrogate diplomatic immunity for her, even though it stirred up a political shit storm. Was it retaliation for some previous Indian action against a US diplomat, or is the US just out to humiliate India for some geopolitical reason? Has any press source discussed the motives for ignoring diplomatic immunity? When the Iranian government ignored US diplomatic immunity in the seizure of the US embassy in 1979 the US media were all over it. Edison (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has potential to be an ugly incident.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between diplomatic immunity (granted to diplomatic personnel in an Embassy, i.e. in a diplomatic mission in the capital), and consular immunity (personnel working at a consulate, as was the case of the Indian diplomat in New York). The first is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and the latter by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The second convention provides immunity simply in the context of work performed on behalf of the consulate. As explained by the State Department spokesperson quoted in the news story linked by Bugs, the U.S. considers that the Indian diplomat violated U.S. law in the course of actions that were not related to the performance of her duties. That is the official US position. That being said, even in cases where consular staff are not covered by immunity, there is usually consideration paid to their status, and it is extremely rare (not to say unheard of) for such extreme treatment to be meted out in what is essentially a civil matter. It's quite understandable that the Indian government is mad. One last point: it is not for the U.S. to ignore diplomatic immunity (they are bound by the two conventions mentioned above, to which they are party), but India can renounce it on behalf of its diplomat. This is usually done in extremely serious matters only, the famous example being Georgia having renounced immunity for one of its diplomats in Washington who killed someone whole driving while intoxicated in the early 1990s. --Xuxl (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this is an escalation in an on-going tit-for-tat pissing match between the US and India (This action by India, a few months ago, may be lurking in the background... and that was apparently in retaliation for something the US did... which was in retaliation for... etc). I won't comment on "who started it" or who is right or wrong... Certainly both Nations feel aggrieved, and there is probably blame on both sides (there usually is). I am just noting that a diplomatic pissing match exists, and may be influencing events. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mention in the article provided of the AdvanFort case being a retaliation for anything the US did nor does a search find anything (although it's difficult to search given junk from the recent case). I can't of course rule out the possibility but I don't see any particular reason to think it was retaliation against something the US did. Seems far more likely the main reason why the Indian government may have been more concerned over the Advanfort ship (whether you want to call it retaliation or justified concern is not relevant to the discussion) was because of the reason the article did mention namely the killing of Indian fishermen by Italian marines on a private ship 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea. (Which didn't have anything to do with the US and I don't think any suggested the killings were retialiation for something India did although there were accusations of tit-for-tat moves arising afterwards.)

I would note while Advanfort is a US company, the link you provided doesn't mention any Americans being among affected crew and sources suggest they weren't [2] [3]. In fact while I assume the US government did communicate with the Indian government on the matter and while it did happen during the United States federal government shutdown of 2013, I can't find any real evidence the arrests and detention of the ship were something the US made much noise about. Frankly I'm not surprised, my impression from previous cases like Blackwater (I assume this link still finds the company despite their many renames) as well as based on what I expect is the thought process of those involved, most governments prefer to stay out of doing too much defend mercenaries when they get in legal trouble elsewhere, particularly if they aren't their citizens and weren't acting on behalf of them at the time, regardless of if the company itself is from their country. And even when your citizens are involved [4]....

Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civil matter? As I understand it the crime she has been accused of carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. [5] Note that allegation is not just that she tried to pay less than the minimum wage but that she lied in the visa application (said she would pay more than the minimum wage but had a secret agreement with the maid to pay less [6]). I don't really know about the way the arrest was handled but [7] if the Indian view is that this is a civil matter, I think they don't really understand how sensitive the US can be to immigration issues such as visa fraud particularly in light of September 11th (even if this sort of lie doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that risks letting someone the US considered dangerous in). Or for that matter that the minimum wage is seen as much more than a civil issue in most Western countries (and not forgetting the legacy of slavery in the US) although from what I can tell, there's so far no indication she's going to be charged with anything in regards to the minimum wage law. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but I doubt that many people who underpay their domestic staff in New York City serve lengthy prison sentences. --Xuxl (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The case isn't really about under-paying as such, but about allegedly lying on a visa application, which the US takes seriously, hence the max 10 year sentence. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes precisely as I said.

However we shouldn't underestimate that exploting workers such as by seriously underpaying them is viewed as a serious thing in much of the Western world [8] Postville Raid [9] [10] [11] [12] (UK) (NZ), and much more than simply a civil matter. (Many would suggest such cases aren't pursued vigiriously or widely enough, but there's no question they are usually seen as something the government should involve themselves in, that's after all the reason why the laws are there in the first place. And I don't think this is unique to the developed world either [13].)

This story suggests that in fact there is concern that it's a wider problem [14] among diplomats resulting in a recent crackdown. While some may consider this xenophobia or racism (but remember the domestic servants are rarely white or Americans) there are obviously cultural differences and in particular financial issues (supporters of the Indian diplomat suggested she didn't earn the minimum wage herself in fact a fair bit below it so there's no way she could afford to pay it) which make it more likely to be a problem among them.

Remember also that there are different levels of underpaying (or other violations of legal requirements). While I obviously have no idea of the realities of the diplomat case, the figures that have been quoted were said to be about 1/3 of the minimum wage. If true, this is the sort of thing likely to be seen as serious exploitation rather than the more ordinary disputes between domestic servants and their employers like minor violations of the minimum wage or making the person work longer than they should etc (although that also depends how far you go e.g [15] [16]).

Note that in some of the links I provided of cases in the US weren't or aren't being pursued simply as violations of the various worker protection laws, but related crimes like employee undocument migrants, submitting alse documentation, i.e. somewhat similar to the diplomat case. This likely reflects the fact amongst other things, that such crimes are easier to prove and carry equivalent or stronger sentences. Yet all of the examples did emphasise to some degree the explotation of workers was a concern (often part of the government PR), further emphasising my point.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe part of India's rage over this incident is that they were "shown up" by the revelation of routine exploitation of workers (as suggested on NPR the other day). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senate resolutions during the Clinton impeachment trial

I'm looking at several Senate resolutions from the Clinton impeachment trial with unusual histories, at least as presented through the ProQuest Congressional database. For example, 106 S. Res 16 and 106 S. Res. 17 don't have any committees mentioned, so it looks as if the resolutions went straight to the full Senate for consideration. Did these two go to committee (meaning that the database omitted something), or did they indeed go straight to the full Senate? 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:46C8 (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, both went to the Senate floor and were passed the same days they were introduced. John M Baker (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both in the House and Senate, "housekeeping" resolutions are frequently taken up without reference to a committee, usually by unanimous consent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]