Humanities desk
< April 17	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 18

Early acceptance of Darwinian evolution

Recently, I encountered an unsourced claim (outside of Wikipedia) that only about 1/3 of scientists accepted Darwinian evolution circa 1900, despite the Origin of Species having been published 40 years earlier. I would like to find more information related to this. Does anyone know of historical studies regarding the acceptance of Darwin's theories over time, or especially around 1900? Wikipedia seems to cover the very early responses and some of the recent trends, but not much in between. Thank you for any assistance. Dragons flight (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled History of evolutionary thought which notes "Debate over Darwin's work led to the rapid acceptance of the general concept of evolution, but the specific mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until it was revived by developments in biology that occurred during the 1920s through the 1940s." And then mentions several prominent alternative mechanisms for evolution. As usual, the creationism/ID people have oversimplified their terms and confused matters here, it seems. Evolution, as a broad idea (the notion that species change over time) was well accepted very quickly. How things actually evolved (the mechanisms thereof) took some time to nail down; and it took a century or so before Darwin's specific proposed mechanism was widely accepted. The unsourced claim is only sort-of right, and it is NOT like saying that 2/3 of scientists (which is ALWAYS a bullshit claim; I don't really care what atomic physicists believe about a biology issue, after all!) actually believed in Young Earth Creationism and that evolution didn't happen. Evolution was accepted even among those 2/3 of scientists (presuming it's broadly true), however they hadn't all come to an agreement on how evolution happened. --Jayron 32 12:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Shaler was a respectable scientist around in 1900 whose acceptance of evolution was only slow and partial and grudging. However, he was hardly leading-edge, and there are reasons why today's creationists might not want to set him up as a role model... AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jayron linked (History of evolutionary thought) is a great one - a featured article - but perhaps a bit dense. If you want to get a bit more specific, the modern synthesis is what sealed the deal for Darwinian-style evolution. Prior to that, natural selection was something you could only infer and it was difficult to tell where it occurred versus where Lamarckism (the chief competitor) did. You could be a respected biologist and not believe in evolution - see Louis Agassiz. After the synthesis, this became virtually impossible. Matt Deres (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Agassiz died in 1873, and was one of those classic old-fashioned senior-scientist holdouts to a new theory. I think it would have been different for an average working biologist/paleontologist in 1900 (as can be seen from Agassiz's close disciple, Nathaniel Shaler, who I mentioned above). AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legal response to a chemical attack

In case chemical attacks would be conclusively attributed to, say, Asad or Putin (in Salisbury) through some kind of thorough UN-backed investigation, does the international law have non-military, but toothy response to such incidents, except standard sanctions, asset freezing, etc? Particularly, does the international law allow to arrest and oust for trial an incumbent head of state or other high-ranking officials after a conclusive OPCW and UN investigation? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is governed by the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, one of the Geneva Conventions. Information on enforcement is covered at Geneva Conventions#Enforcement. --Jayron 32 14:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no way "to arrest and oust for trial an incumbent head of state" and some "other high-ranking officials". See Immunity from prosecution (international law).John Z (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless you just do it. See Manuel Noriega. --Jayron 32 20:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if you never try, you'll never know. Peter Tatchell attempted, on more than one occasion and in more than one country, to perform a citizen's arrest when Robert Mugabe was outside Zimbabwe. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of diplomatic immunity is a valid reason to start a war. So, an arrest is only in the cards when dealing with a country that is too weak to pose a military threat and doesn't have strong allies to do its bidding. That's not the case of Russia or Syria which is backed by Russia. US federal law says:"ASPA authorizes the U.S. president to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court."" Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Territory the United States chose not to acquire

Some of the current land of the United States was acquired through purchase and peaceful annexation (Louisiana Purchase, purchase of Alaska, annexation of Texas, etc.) Are there any situations in the United States' history when there was a very real opportunity to acquire additional territory that was declined or fell through in some other way? (I'm interested in events that wouldn't have involved military action or conquest through force.) Käsewaffel (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Oregon Treaty, U.S. willingly renounced claims to British Columbia. Likewise, much of Northern Maine was relinquished to Britain peacefully with the Webster–Ashburton Treaty. There was no actual fighting in those cases, though there was some belicose "sabre rattling", (see Oregon boundary dispute and Aroostook War). --Jayron 32 17:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Treaty of Paris (1898), which ended the Spanish-American War, it was agreed that Cuba would become a free country, rather than a US territory, as did Spain's other imperial holdings. The Cubans formally received their independence four years later, and they didn't have to fight for it due to widespread public support in the US for the Cuban independence movement. This is... sort of? on the lines you were thinking of. It did involve military action, but the military action had already been completed - the US had physical possession of the island. The government simply chose not to keep it. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a chronological article on the territorial changes of the United States: Territorial evolution of the United States. Dimadick (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had seen that. That was actually the article that got me thinking about the territorial changes that didn't happen. :) Käsewaffel (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Annexation of Hawaii. The Hawaiian government's initial request for annexation was rejected by the US Senate and thus didn't happen. Texas annexation is also relevant; soon after Texas won its independence, the vast majority of the population wanted to be annexed, as did President Lamar, but the US government refused for several years because of the certainty of war with Mexico. This would have involved military action of course, but I take it you're only excluding situations where the annexed territory doesn't want annexation, which obviously wasn't the case with Texas. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me, in a similar case to Cuba, the US chose not to annex all of Mexico after the Mexican-American War. Baja California was specifically decided against due to the perception that it was a worthless wasteland, and many in the senate were concerned that annexing too much of Mexico would upset the political balance in DC. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

During the Grant administration, serious thought was given to acquiring the Dominican Republic. There is a chapter on it in Chernow’s 2017 biography on Grant. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Panama Canal Zone was peaceably acquired and eventually returned. A number of the guano islands have been given up or ownership still not established. Rmhermen (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is "social integration" operationalized as part of the ILO definition for "decent work"?

The ILO definition for decent work references social integration. How is social integration defined in this context? --12.233.203.203 (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's defined in such a way as to make you do your own homework. --Viennese Waltz 07:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can search the ILO site (I would suggest a query such as "decent work social integration"). If the ILO uses a specific definition of "social integration" then in all likelihood it will be found there. After all the only way to answer your question would be to refer you to an ILO document. Of course you can also start by looking at the WP articles (Decent work and Social integration) and see among other things if they reference ILO documents. Basemetal 08:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]