Humanities desk
< August 23	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 25 >

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.

August 24

Key Art - please let me know

Please let me know. Did this style exist before now? Where? When? By Whom?

Rough definition of key art to me - 'key art' assumes there is a lock to the art and the artwork is meant to be hung up where others who do not know the key will view the artwork. (like code in view of all... cryptography test like I suppose - 'key art' is meant to be displayed in front of everyone, but the 'key art' works(the lock works) when before knowledge of the key the viewer can't get the level or levels the key reveals - 'key art' is at it's perfection when after the key is seen, the viewer is like 'why didn't I see that'). The ordering in some 'key art' is necessarily very precise. - invented in 2017 for fine arts, I guess... art show pic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.181.141 (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean esoteric artworks, with information canceled to the profane but that initiates can understand? Or do you mean major art, the kind of artwork that need the viewer to have knowledge and understanding of previous work and symbolic framework (eg: Piet Mondrian works post 1921), as opposed to minor art (readily sensible to laymen, eg: pop song)? Or something else? key art exists only as a redirect to "film poster", and i am not sure it is needed of its own.

Gem fr (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP seems to mean something analogous to a Roman à clef, but in visual form, not verbal... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. I specifically mean that a story is locked inside the artwork which the key reveals. Also, I specifically mean an artwork that is designed for gallery display, not for private initiates. — Preceding

This painted art style I linked is like Esoteric Architecture... multiple pieces acting as a single piece, meant to be displayed publicly, but the full meaning is to a limited audience. Ahhh! Thank you. I really appreciate your help. Umm... so if it's like Esoteric Architecture, meant for a public display and not meant for private display like esoteric literature... what style is it called?

Roman à clef is right. Just looked at that. Exactly. What's in front is many things and though they might true and needed, what's inside is either what's important or, in a way, the real foundation of the piece.

Thank you one more time. Roman à clef, wow, who would have thought there was a name for it. I never saw what I did in art... and that was because it is done in writing. You all are amazing. Thank you so very much, and thank you AnonMoos.

unsigned comment added by 184.167.181.141 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're thinking of, say, a metal bas-relief? in which turning a certain leaf reveals a keyhole, I remember reading a Hardy Boys adventure a very long time ago to that effect. There are of course a lot of schlocky movies where you press on something or another to open a secret door without a key - it was old enough to mock in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, where groping the breasts of a statue opened the passage. Another example was John Carter of Mars (the movie) where turning some letters in text on a fancy mausoleum opened a gate... it seems very common in film. Of course, in reality there is the huge problem that if the place is truly public, how do you keep someone from finding out about the gate and getting curious fiddling with it? Such doors are inevitably single-use plot devices in film. Wnt (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had done a 12 gallery piece using paper/BEE braille capable paper/scratchboard and hung it up in July and some of August. It hung up in two different places, yet I never seemed to know 'what' I had done. Imagine staring and thinking about your own work for 54 days that people are visiting in public and you have no idea what it actually is. Someone told me conceptual very early on because it seemed like it was that, but over the weeks it was becoming obvious it wasn't conceptual. At some point I was actually making up a name, hence 'key art' because it was a basic feature of the art. Fortunately I asked Wiki, which referred me to humanities, which then AnonMoos got it right. I've updated the information in my link to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.181.141 (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical unemployed

The article unemployment could help from some expansion on the its history section. I'd like to find some sources about how societies dealt with 'people who don't work' (or whatever name they called it). Can't it be that the problem just started to exist in the 16th century England? Previous societies like Rom were pretty urbane, couldn't they have developed some sort of people who were looking for work? --Hofhof (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you define concepts like "employment", "job", and of course, "unemployment". Clearly, people without the means to support themselves have existed as a problem for societies for thousands of years, this article briefly discusses unemployment in the context of Ancient Rome. However, the concept of Wage labor as the primary means of economic activity and organization of the workforce really didn't happen until the 16th century. Previously, people worked in trades that were organized by guilds, if they weren't involved in subsistence agriculture (which was sizable). Of course, any society has people who don't have adequate employment to support their own needs, but the modern concepts are based on the modern, urban, western, capitalist-socialist economy, and without such an economy, the concepts don't necessarily apply in the same way. --Jayron 32 16:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit of information about unemployment in Ancient Rome, e.g. this Prezi presentation: The Fall of Rome- Unemployment. It is noted here that slave labor on latifundia contributed to unemployment. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:DD82:ED86:1C17:11D2 (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heated discussion about the ~~voracity~~ veracity of the prezi.com source

slavery contributed to unemployment? LOL! I guess slaves willingly would had left their work to do to others if they had any choice ;-)

slaves were considered some sort of machinery or beasts, so they do not really belong in work force, but rather in capital and machinery. If machines contributes to unemployment is matter of political (rather than economical) argument. Gem fr (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slaves might not be considered part of the workforce, but they displaced unskilled workers, especially on farms. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:DD82:ED86:1C17:11D2 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So did horses and ox, tools, machines, roads, aqueducts etc. Did this caused unemployment?

Besides, be aware that slaves were not unskilled, actually Gem fr (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, slaves contributed to unemployment. Your incredulity doesn't make any difference. Please read the source material from people who study these things. --Jayron 32 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously KNOW things, don't you? strange enough, because, if you had applied your own advice, you shouldn't be so sure. Xenophobes know that cheap labor (migrants or foreign low wage worker) cause unemployment, economists say otherwise. Gem fr (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I know or don't is irrelevant to the operation of this page. This is not the "Tell people what I know" desk. This is the reference desk. The role of all people responding to questions is to provide references, sources, and reading material for the OP. --Jayron 32 13:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, don't write slaves contributed to unemployment as if were the truth. The better you could say is some source says that slaves contributed to unemployment... which would only discredit the source, btw. You'll surely find some piece of ... paper that pretend that women's working created man's unemployment, that won't turn it into truth. Now, you have a point, i surely don't always provide ref when it would help. I tend to forget source more than information, i remember that slaves were not unskilled, but i would have a hard time remembering were i read that one. Should i refrain to tell this information? I don't think so. Gem fr (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A source that I had already provided above stated that. Also, several sources by other people also said that. You didn't seem to want to read those sources. So I summarized it for you. You continue to make assertions, but have not yet provided any reading material for the OP. --Jayron 32 16:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you point it, the fact is, there it just nothing worth reading in this whole part of thread, my contribution being limited "do need read this BS" -- which is much more useful that this old debunked thesis that horse, ox, machines, migrants or women's work create unemployment for free male worker, wether WASP or Roman Plebeian Citizen. Gem fr (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether slaves were seen as machinery or beast is indifferent to its effect on unemployment. They functioned like people and so displaced low skills workers. Its economic effect is comparable to people working below the minimum wage to people asking to work for a minimum wage. If you let companies get away with it, they'll pay less. Obviously, slaves would not be allowed to leave such a deal. B8-tome (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No they didn't functioned like free people. They were bought, then the owner incurred very low maintenance cost (bad shelter and food), that the very opposite of paying people for a job (no initial cost). And they were not interested in doing a good job, resented the owner for obvious reason, and worked accordingly (this was observed in pre-civil war USA, the border between a slaver and non slaver state literally showed in the field). Gem fr (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron didn't say they functioned like free people. He said they functioned like people. By which I presume he means filled the same role as a paid worker would (rather than a different role, as a machine would), but at a lower cost. If you can force people to work for you for less than they would willingly, that is presumably going to reduce the job opportunities (or at least the expected wages) of the free population. Iapetus (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was B8-tome, not Jayron, for what it matters. "presumably", indeed, you said it all. Just like you might have said that horses and ox, machines, tools, migrant etc. "presumably" reduce the job opportunities (or at least the expected wages) of the free population ... but there is little evidence of such effect. And, please, use your brain: if you can afford a paid worker for some work, you still can if some slave magically pop out of nothingness. Will you refrain from using the saved resource (the money you don't have to pay anymore), or will you make some good use of it, either paying the worker for some other or supplementary work or buying some stuff you couldn't afford previously (that a paid worker will have to do)? Not only the slave won't reduce your ability to pay a worker, it will increase it, thanks to the product of your exploitation of the slave. Moreover, be aware that you nowadays have mechanical slaves working for you (machines doing work like washing, cloth-making, heating, etc., that would had required people work in Roman time) ; if they disappeared, will you hire free people to do their work? no you won't, you couldn't afford Gem fr (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say we have a cotton farmer. In a world where slavery was illegal, he'd have to hire many workers to harvest the cotton, as would all his competitors. However, where slavery was legal, that becomes the only practical way to farm cotton, as the increased per unit cost of harvesting cotton with paid workers would mean he would be unable to sell cotton at competitive prices (unless he could manage to sell it for more as "slave free" cotton, but this might cause his neighbors to attack him for threatening the institution of slavery). So, what would a cotton farmer who uses slaves do with excess money he had saved ? There are many possibilities, from saving it for a bad harvest year, buying more land, building a bigger house, to buying more slaves. But hiring free men to pick the cotton would not be among them, as this would still make the per-unit costs too high. StuRat (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

all of the options you mentioned (more land, bigger house, more slave) involve giving the save money to free men in exchange for some work they did (well, slaving WAS a work, as unsavory as it was...). Think of it: slaves would had none of the money, it had, one way or the other, to go into free men hand for their work. For instance, Railroad were developed in the south because of cotton export. free people couldn't be in the cotton fields, they had to be railroad employees (not a much more qualified job), which they couldn't be if that had a job in the cotton field. Which was better for them? Gem fr (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather minimal free labor would be needed. Buying new land didn't even require a real-estate agent, if they just made an offer to their neighbor. The bigger house would no doubt involve major slave labor, in hauling materials, cutting lumber to length, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything on the matter. I directed people to read some references, from which they could perform research and arrive at their own conclusions. Anything I did say was to restate the source material, for those who didn't want to read it. --Jayron 32 12:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My "incredulity"? I was simply responding to Gem fr (per sources -- yes, I did read them) Sanctimony is not helpful. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:DD82:ED86:1C17:11D2 (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking to you. I was speaking to a different person, as you can tell by the way I chose to indent my post. --Jayron 32 01:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, I don't care about your "sanctimony" ;-) However, i think (my 2 cents), that the reaction of 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:DD82:ED86:1C17:11D2 could teach you something Gem fr (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your account was created 13 years ago, but you've only really been active on it since a couple of months ago. And if you continue down this path, your summer activity here is likely to end in a fall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been active all along the whole period, actually, and even before. I may sometime not be a pleasant person, but that never went further than the occasional argument in talk page. Except for bullies. This account was created only to try and stop some people bulling another contributor, I didn't felt any need before. I don't like bullying and bullies don't like me, either, but so far they tried but didn't managed to hurt me, have my account banned or anything like that; some of them did got some sanctions (one of my favorite was, an administrator auto-banning himself for his bad deeds). So, fear not. Gem fr (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here, it is you who looks like the bully. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the rest of this conversation would be better conducted on your respective talk pages. Alansplodge (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want him sullying my talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, a reference for medieval European unemployment is at Life and Work in Medieval Europe by P. Boissonade. It's an ebook, so no page number; hopefully Google Books will let you see the link above, if not I'll try to pick out the bones for you (basically, unemployment meant that you had to go begging, maybe even in another country). Alansplodge (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness of prostitution law in Sweden

Has the criminalization of buying sex instead of selling sex been effective at reducing prostitution, or have prostitution levels in Sweden stayed approximately the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second question:What effect has the law had on crime rates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First question: definitely yes. There's still some prostitution, and you can still even see some street prostitution . But there are no macro brothels like in Germany with 'fuck as much as you want for 100 euros' or half naked young girls in a row and a legal pimp pushing the clients to pick one.

Going to prostitutes is also stigmatized. If you buy it, better hide. You can still travel to Denmark or Germany, which is out of reach for many (so less demand). The same applies to pimps, who are not seen as business owners.

Contrary to Germany, you can't obviously see sexist advertisement of prostitution services, where women are called 'girls' gets compared to a 'sweet fruit' or 'obedient bitch'.

Second question: kind of tricky. Sweden has revamped how to measure and define sexual attacks. So there are more reports of sexual assault. If you are right wing, you can blame the immigrants. If you are pro-prostitution, you can blame the ban on buying sex. I assume it has remained constant though.

Notice that the Swedish model is not just the ban, but a whole concept for reducing human trafficking.

Comparison between the abolitionist Swedish model and the permissive German [1]:

--B8-tome (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about actual research studies investigating my two questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 00:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the Swedish model hasn't simply driven prostitution underground, it's actually been effective. Uncle dan is home (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can't just drive prostitution underground since clients still have to find prostitutes. Detectives can follow the same path as clients to find prostituted people. Clients of prostitutes also expect to get 'fresh meat' so the pimps have to be dynamic and offer always new women (and girls and so on) and try to find new clients. That makes it difficult to hide.B8-tome (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with any sort of criminalization of victimless crimes, even if it is lopsided, is that it strips one party of legal recourse. The John can't call the cops and say the prostitute robbed him or the pimp beat her up. They have just switched whom the pimps will victimize, and incentivized the women to become thieves. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of clarification, the Nordic model generally makes pimping difficult because it too is illegal. This doesn't prevent it although it is different from an all criminal regime since it means that the sex worker can theoretically at least, report the pimp without fear of legal prosecution. (Whatever fear they may have of the pimp.) And so also theoretically at least, the john can anonymously report the pimp not for beating them up but for pimping without fear of the sex worker being prosecuted (assuming they care about such things), whether or not anything comes from it. I mention this because as I said below, one of the concerns with the Nordic model is because it makes pimping or providing any sort of service like a security for a sex worker risky, even people who may be provide useful services without exploiting the sex worker in any way are at risk. I'm fairly sure some would suggest this means exploitative pimps are more likely because they're the ones who will be willing to run the legal risk. Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Nordic model is not just about criminalizing the johns. It's a full fledged effort targeting human trafficking, offering exit strategies to prostitutes, stigmatizing the buying of sex, and not perpetuating gender stereotypes, etc. It leads to a lower demand eventually.

Although I believe that what happens between two consenting adults is no one else's business, that's not how prostitution as industry works. It basically incentivizes violence against woman. In its most common forms is far away of a victimless crime..B8-tome (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think B8-tome linked to what they intended to link to but we do have a Prostitution in Sweden article which is quite extensive including both criticism (e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) and support of the law there with references often based at least in part on research, some fairly significant depending on your POV (e.g. the UN). For more viewpoints specifically critical of the Nordic model for dealing with prostitution [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]/[12]. Of particular significant are perhaps [13]/[14] [15] (see a media report [16]) since one is The Conversation (and based at least in part on this research [17]) and the other based on Amnesty International report. I also include [18] which while not directly criticising the Nordic model does discusses perceptions of the law in New Zealand which has decriminalised prostitution. (Although it also mentions isolation as one factor which may have reduced trafficking and this isn't something easily replicated.)

To avoid arguments I won't say too much, but they often discuss issues such as re-enforcing paternalistic attitudes about women and their bodies as well as problems the laws either create or at least don't prevent for sex worker (mostly women) in their dealings with governmental bodies (including the police), landlords, security agencies, clients and others including some mention of specific problems for foreign sex workers. (I.E. This includes the problem sex workers have in finding places to live and work, as well as in hiring security.) And of course related to both of those factors, that the laws effectively don't allow women who wish to be sex workers to choose do so i.e. they don't have agency over their own bodies; and also the problem of how the laws are implemented. I'm not sure if these sources mention this in particular, but I've heard people bring up cases such as where an 18 year old son was charged because he was supported by his sex worker mother. (I wouldn't be surprised if you can find similar cases where e.g. a partner male or female temporarily supported by their sex worker partner while out of a job finds themselves in legal trouble remembering that even with a generous welfare system it isn't that uncommon for partners to support each other when needed.)

For these reasons and more, many of the sources note that sex workers themselves are often critics of the Nordic model, generally advocating for decriminalisation. (This of course gets back to the earlier point on paternalistic although I'd note that in a fairly egalitarian country like Sweden it's both men and women who are developing the laws.) The Conversation source, and possibly others, also takes aim at the claims of a reduction in sex work, suggesting the way the numbers have been derived are flawed. The Conversation source also suggests it's a myth that there's one singular Nordic model because the laws and implementation vary so much between the 3 Nordic countries that even have laws which could be considered the Nordic model. (Other Nordic countries didn't actually follow the Nordic model at the time of publication.) Various sources also question the claim that there are Nordic model, or even the particular example of Sweden really provides much of an exit strategy, or that it has improved gender stereotypes (the later gets back in part to the earlier point on paternalistic attitudes). And to be clear, this also means they challenge any suggestion it lead to a reduction in the stigmatising of sex workers (whatever effect it may or may no have had on the perception of buyers of sex).

I would mention that implementation is an issue whatever course a country chooses. For example one often cited example is that while sexual assault may be a crime and a sex worker can theoretically approach authorities without fear of prosecution to report one under a decriminalised regime, it doesn't mean that case will be taken seriously, i.e. there's still a risk the attitude that as a sex worker 'she's asking for it' or 'he paid for it so it's fine' will prevail.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One final comment is that besides the direct effect on the ability of sex workers to go about their work, some of the sources claim that the laws have an indirect effect of suppressing wages for sex work and so can actually make exit strategies more difficult in yet another way. Some also note that human trafficking and worker exploitation isn't unique to prostitution even if it may be common there, so suggest more general measures are more effective or at least those problems aren't a reason to criminalise it when there isn't exploitation or the people involved took sufficient care to try and avoid exploitative situations. Here in NZ while exploitation of sex workers is a concern, the big areas of concern at the moment tend to be foreign students and migrant workers particularly in the horticultural and food service industry. (These people can't legally work in the sex industry.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

captain obvious told me that the law created a new crime out of a previously legal behavior, so the law increased crime rate in that respect. He added that, now the trade is underground, involved persons have to resolve their disputes extra-judiciary by threat or use of extra-legal force, which is probably also a crime ("probably" because i am not versed in Swedish law).

As for its effect on other crimes, it would need to answer the question "how crime would be without these laws?", which is just impossible. However, one of the reason cops want to have some control above prostitution (not ban it utterly, just have control, which is quite different) is that pimps are not good guys, and usually deal in other crimes (drugs, robbery, etc.).

Gem fr (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not helping the OP find references to answer their question

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Do you have any sources for that information, so I can read more about it? --Jayron 32 10:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pimp Gem fr (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC) note that i just added the link to pimp in section above, it wasn't in the original state of the section Gem fr (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that article doesn't mention Sweden. Can you show us where you read your above information, so we can all read it ourselves? It's clear you didn't read it in the article you linked. --Jayron 32 12:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you are just looking for some polemic, I won't play your fool game Gem fr (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for the opposite of polemic. I'm looking for a reliable, scholarly source. What you've done, by posting a long, unreferenced, diatribe is polemic. I've just politely asked you to provide reliable sources for your information. If you can't do at least that bare minimum, there's no use for your contributions here. --Jayron 32 13:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you admit why you are looking for polemic: you want me out of here. Fair enough, that's easy : i don't show up when i don't feel i can add something useful, so just make good answer and you won't see me. Pretending looking for reference, when you actually don't is the chief polemic tool, as you know very well, not the opposite of polemic as you pretend, and this kind of trick won't work. You didn't care for "reliable, scholarly source" when you brutally stated that "jewish lobby" was a creation of antisemitic people for the purpose of antisemitism, or that "slaves cause unemployment", or when you disregarded that pimp has an extended section beginning with A large percentage of pimps in the United States are also documented gang members etc. which is all the information i brought (the rest was only tautological stuff that i felt somehow forgotten, but useful nonetheless). Gem fr (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly interested in whether you stay or go. If you simply provide people with references and reading material, no one will bother you. --Jayron 32 15:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can you provide a reliable source for both of your statements? Gem fr (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had already provided both of those references. Just because it was inconvenient for you to read them, doesn't mean I didn't. Also, this has nothing to do with helping the OP answer their question. --Jayron 32 16:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I thought Gem fr (talk · contribs) had gotten up on the wrong side of the bed. Today too. Looks like a trend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like being flattered, but, thanks anyway Gem fr (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be confusing "flattered" and "flattened". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article does offer info on some who claim violence has increased as a result of the law (but there's a lot of dispute over this), but not whether this violence is because of attempts to resolve disputes. It also suggests the number of convictions is fairly low albeit with quite a lot of reports. So while I guess you could say the number of crimes in that specific area has gone up (since there were none before the law), I don't think it's possible to comment on the effects on the overall crime rate (and our article also suggests there's a lot of dispute over the effects) given that it may have affected the crime rate in other areas. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can only work well if you first adopt a Nordic-style social system, see e.g. here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

heart health awareness and U.S. Olympic athletes

I saw quite a few U.S. Olympic athletes wearing red dresses for The Heart Truth. They included Kristi Yamaguchi, Nastia Liukin and Gabby Douglas. Were there any other American gymnasts and figure skaters involved in that type of thing?2604:2000:7113:9D00:A4BE:ACF:DAF0:3697 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UK Transport industry complexity

In the U.K., are all the transport industries as complex as each other? Or are some more complex than others? How would you rank the main ones in complexity - highways, railways, aviation, maritime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.112.134 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to interpret the word 'complexity' here. Depending of this, it might be one or the other industry. Aviation for example might be technically more complex, but it needs less physical routes (like roads and rails) to operate. There are definitely more asphalted ways than rails, since all places connected by rail are also connected by roads (I believe), and there are streets on the top of it. --B8-tome (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every developed Nation has a complex transport system and industry. For example our Article Canals of the United Kingdom will actually show you how very complex the transport industry in the UK once was. Compared to that today's transport systems and industries seem "simple". Additionally now most transport systems are international so you can not compare national systems anymore today. --Kharon (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? You can for example compare the size of the railway network in the UK against the railway network in Bhutan quite easily. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The British railway system was the product of unrestricted capitalism in the 19th century, if there was a chance of making money somewhere, somebody would build a rail line there. In France and Gernmany, railways were considered to be part of the military infrastructure and routes were often planned by the government, profitable operation being a secondary consideration ("“Build no more fortresses, build railways,” said Helmuth von Moltke the Elder [19]). In the UK in the 1960s, there was a somewhat arbitrary attempt by the government to rationalise the system, the Beeching cuts, but it ended up pleasing nobody. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When we're talking UK land transport, you can definitely compare it with that of other countries; the UK rail network established in the 19th century had no linkages at all with other networks until the 1990s, aside from cumbersome things like rail ferries. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russia (and I believe some other countries) deliberately chose a different rail gauge to their neighbours, to prevent it being used by an enemy if there was an invasion. It came in handy in 1941. Alansplodge (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! For what I call "the Great Australian Stupidity", see Rail gauge in Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think worldwide transport in general is a very complex industry. It is an industry with safety at its core, is heavily regulated, political and is a complex system of interdependencies. 82.132.230.178 (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]