Humanities desk
< March 20	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 22 >

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

March 21

Small sectors of the economy

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Pennsylvania yesterday announced that businesses across the state must close. His office released a list of "life-sustaining" sectors of the economy that are exempt from the closure order. List of exemptions is here. The exemptions sound a lot like they're taken from somewhere else. If the state health department were creating a new list, I can't envision them listing Psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals and Specialty (except psychiatric and substance abuse) hospitals separately (just do a single entry for specialty hospitals), and ditto for Wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) and Satellite telecommunications. Can anyone guess what kind of list the governor's using? Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea but maybe it will include liquor stores like NY.[1] I'm still wondering about that one. 2601:648:8202:96B0:386A:A40C:EBB1:ACC0 (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol is a disinfectant, right? It's for "medicinal purposes". 2606:A000:1126:28D:D137:5FBD:51AA:C141 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to be standard North American Industry Classification System descriptions [2] although since the NAICS replaced older systems, it's possible they also have the same classifications [3]. I can't comment on who did what, but any competent government agency should probably be aware that especially in an emergency, it tends to help a great deal to use existing classification systems for which there is likely to already be a great deal of understanding as well as literature and decisions to help with any confusion, rather than try and invent new ones. Ideally of course, a list of life-sustaining industries which will stay open under various scenarios should have been prepared long before 2019, and definitely a list for the current situation has had at least 2 months to be prepared. Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps clarify that my comment is assuming that the existing classification system works for your purposes. But this also gets into my other point. I would expect it should since relevant agencies should have assisted with its development to ensure it worked. If it wasn't possible to develop a classification system that worked but for such purposes and the other purposes NAICS is used for, then there should really be an existing classification system that did work. If this all too obtuse, what I mean is I personally do expect there's a good chance a competent state health department creating a list would create something like that list. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I can now give a specific example of the problems I was referring to. NZ recently announced an almost complete shutdown midnight Thursday NZ time. Since the decision was announced at midday Monday, there has been a lot of confusion of who can stay open [4] [5] [6]. While it was made clear even before this announcement that supermarkets will always stay open, which didn't shop a made rush, for other stores it was less clear.

As attested by those sources this even lead to a trading halt after one company announced their stores will stay open and the government said wait what? Some issues that need to be dealt with, can dairies and superettes stay open since supermarkets can? What about butchers, fruit and vegetable stores and Asian grocery stores (a number of which are a combination of fruit and vegetables stores, and some also have butchers)? Can liquor stores? Especially considering in most places in NZ, supermarkets and even dairies and superettes can be licenced to sell liquor. Does the allowance for food delivery services but no takeaway mean that Domino's the pizza joint can stay open if they do deliveries only?

Are The Warehouse stores allowed to stay open? They who mostly sell a tiny amount of non-perishable food along with a a tiny amount of bread and milk, and also some cleaning products and the infamous toilet paper; but mostly sell general goods like clothing, toys, electronics, crockery, gardening, DIY etc. If they can stay open can more specialised stores selling the same stuff in some areas stay open?

NZ doesn't use NAICS numbers but we do have Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification mostly used for statistical purposes and Business Industry Classification Codes used mostly for taxation and Accident Compensation Corporation levies [7] [8] (although also translated into ANZSIC codes). A lit with such codes would potentially have prevented this sort of confusion. That said, since I think BIC (and ANZSIC) are possibly used for less, I'm not sure if the classification system is as well refined. Also developing a system which would work for both may have been less likely.

And perhaps I was a little unfair with my earlier comments, I think the current situation is the sort of thing maybe people had thought of but no one really contemplated would ever happen. Even after Wuhan went down an even more extreme route, it was a mostly a case of "that's interesting, and I guess that's one advantage of their political system allows it, we'll see if it actually works'. And it's maybe only been a month since it became clear that it works and other countries began to seriously contemplate doing something like that. (And NZ has fewer people do handle things like this especially with all else that was going on trying to stop us getting to it.)

Also the food delivery point highlights another issue. namely how things change over time. 10 years ago, deliveries of fresh food meal kits was still very new. 20 years ago, online grocery shopping also an oddity. Now they're significant. And so questions arise 'if supermarkets can still deliver and shoppers can still go to them, does it make sense that meal-kit companies have to stop delivering?' I'm not entirely sure how well classification systems deals with stuff like this, and also the fact that a business may have multiple different parts.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While it does seem rather odd to list psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals separately from other specialty hospitals, it might actually be easier and less confusing to do it this way in the long run. If they simply said specialty hospitals there might be confusion as to whether or not P&SA facilities were included so it is better to have the two explicit groups and not use the larger grouping at all. --Khajidha (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the UK, last night Boris Johnson ordered, for at least three weeks, the closure of "all shops selling non-essential goods, clothing and electrical goods, libraries, playgrounds, outdoor gyms and places of worship." Baptisms and weddings are forbidden but funerals can go ahead. A list was later circulated to radio stations of businesses which can open: "supermarkets, pharmacies, post offices, banks, newsagents, hardware stores, retail shops in hospitals, vets and funeral parlours." The dairy company Milk and More reports an increase in orders for home-delivered milk [9]. 209.93.196.131 (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Arnold Schoenberg

Where can the original of this portrait of Arnold Schoenberg by Egon Schiele be seen? --Viennese Waltz 12:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If not here, then inquire therein (see contact info): "Egon Schiel Tulln Museum". www.schielemuseum.at. — It could be part of the Rudolf Leopold collection at the Leopold Museum in Vienna:[10]. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the information given here is correct, it is in a private collection. --Lambiam 21:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of Bellmore-Johnson

Working on the new German article about the Model 1898 Winchester Saluting Cannon, I became interested in the history of Bellmore-Johnson Tool Company, building replicas of this cannon from 1976 & ongoing. This is harder than expected - especially I've failed to find out yet when this company had been founded. opencorporates has a related entry of incorporation... in the end of 1989?! Supposed predecessor is '"R. J. Adley, Inc." ?! I don't know what this supposedly means and ask for hints how to research the full history of a company (in this case and general). --KnightMove (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KnightMove, there's a hint in Robert Hillberg, who in "1954 became the co-founder of Whitney Firearms in North Haven, Connecticut, with Howard "Howie" Johnson (of the Bellmore Johnson Tool Company in Hamden). Production of the Whitney Wolverine commenced in 1954, but poor marketing lead to the demise of Whitney Firearms in mid-1957. From that time on, until 1980, Hillberg was the Chief Engineer for Bellmore Johnson Tool Company". Unfortunately, the reference link is to a 1956 Guns Magazine article, the URL for which is dead. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howard "Howie" Johnson seems to be a common name, but the one in question is the Howard R. Johnson whose obituary is here. Alansplodge (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: Thank you for the hint. On this very topic, in the meantime I have found a 1982 issue of American Gunner - according to p.31 it was a little different and Hillberg was indeed part of the company back then: "Hillberg left High Standard in 1953 and went to Bellmore Johnson Tool Company which did contract work for many firearms companies, and it was there that the Wolverine was born." I will possibly start a discussion on the talk page. --KnightMove (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the fate of the Khmer Rouge now?

The English Wikipedia says that the Khmer Rouge disappeared in the 1990s, but there are such sources on Russian Wikipedia Вскоре вьетнамские войска без особого труда заняли Пномпень, и остатки «красных кхмеров» укрылись в джунглях. На протяжении 20 лет они вели с официальной властью партизанскую войну, но после смерти Пол Пота движение деградировало. Остатки его до сих пор скрываются в джунглях, промышляя разбоем и контрабандой. ("Soon, Vietnamese troops occupied Phnom Penh without much difficulty, and the remnants of the Khmer Rouge took refuge in the jungle. For 20 years they waged a guerrilla war with official authority, but after the death of Pol Pot the movement degraded. The remains of him are still hiding in the jungle, hunting robbery and smuggling."). So the Khmer Rouge and Elsi have survived to this day, yes, in what form? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of some former Khmer Rouge officials (who are now friendly with and allied to the current Cambodian government of Hun Sen) still being in power in parts of western Cambodia (such as Pailin), but I certainly haven't actually heard of any Khmer Rouge insurgency continuing there up to the present-day. Honestly, I would suspect that the Russian Wikipedia is simply wrong in regards to this and thus should be edited and corrected about this topic. Futurist110 (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian politics is an amazingly complex area, full of intrigue, constantly shifting loyalties, betrayal, and stark differences between public appearance and private reality. With that in mind, the Khmer Rouge as a group, ceased to exist in late 1999, but really ceased to be relevant about a year earlier. Most anonymous Khmer Rouge soldiers simply rejoined society while many Khmer Rouge leaders with famous names died of old age before being brought to trial. Others defected and joined the government of Hun Sen (three of the four listed at Cambodian People's Party#List of party leaders were Khmer Rouge cadre leaders, including Hun Sen, while the other was a Khmer Rouge supporter, and five of the first seven people listed at Cambodian People's Party#Organization were Khmer Rouge). The few who were too well-known to blend back into society or refused to join the government, hid out in the northeastern mountains of Oddar Meanchey Province (especially around Anlong Veng District) and Pailin, where they had the sympathies of many residents who were former Khmer Rouge themselves. In 1996 Ieng Sary defected with half of the Khmer Rouge's ~8000 soldiers and was pardoned by the king but later arrested in 2007. In December 1999, the last scraggly band of fugitives surrendered to the government and that was the end of the Khmer Rouge as a group. The last real combat involving the Khmer Rouge took place during the 1997 Cambodian coup and that was a complicated mess in which one faction of the remaining Khmer Rouge allied themselves with one of the government's co-premiers resulting in not only the primary conflict of the coup, but also bloody in-fighting among the various Khmer Rouge factions. In fact, Pol Pot died as a prisoner of Ta Mok at his camp in the remote mountains of Oddar Meanchey a year before Ta Mok surrendered with the last of the Khmer Rouge. The quote from the Russian article sounds accurate for the 1980s and 1990s; it likely just needs to be updated. Our enWP Khmer Rouge article leaves a lot to be desired, but is decently sourced, although maybe a little dated in places. Ben Kiernan's books are an excellent source of objective data, but his analyses are considered by many to be biased. David P. Chandler's books are also very good.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the USSR sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

I was wondering why the USSR signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Nazi ideology was the complete opposite of that of the USSR. For the Nazis it made sense, they didn't want to fight on two fronts (the stupid mistake they later made). So may there have been a similar reason for the USSR?
The USSR was already at war with Japan since 1935. But 'only' 70 thousand Soviet troops participated in the (for that war decisive) battles on the Khalkhin-Gol in mid 1939, around the time the pact was signed. For the USSR, that doesn't sound like a lot. Or were more stationed there? (Note though, that they signed a pact with Japan in 1941, when a Nazi invasion became probable.)
In comparison, almost a million were fighting the Finnish. So may that war have influenced the decision? That front was a lot closer, but fighting the Nazis might have meant losing that war. Also, I don't know what the local infrastructure was like, maybe troops couldn't be moved that easily. DirkvdM (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus among historians regarding the reasons that prompted the Soviet Union to sign the pact with Nazi Germany. The article Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations considers possible reasons behind signing the pact. DroneB (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility might be the hope that Nazi Germany and the Western Allies are going to bleed each other dry and that thus the Soviet Union would be in a strong position to subsequently foment unrest and perhaps even revolutions in Central and Western Europe--with of course an additional bonus being that the Soviet Union is going to acquire a sizable amount of additional territory for itself at very little cost in 1939-1940. Futurist110 (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the old "buying time" explanation in the article is rather clearly the correct one. One thing not in the article is that Stalin only dealt with Germany after he was rebuffed by the Western powers from an anti-Hitler alliance. IIRC Churchill in his history emphasizes the folly of this British and French policy, which gave Stalin little choice.John Z (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Churchill, he might very well be correct in regards to this--though I also wonder just how much he is trying to make the situation appear more rosy than it actually was. Indeed, the Soviet Union's post-1945 behavior in Eastern Europe shows that Britain and France were correct to be wary of it--though I do agree that allying with the Soviet Union in either 1938 or 1939 was the lesser evil in comparison to the alternative course of action. Futurist110 (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could be said that France and the UK were short-sighted in cold-shouldering the Soviet Union, but on the other hand the Soviets had nothing to offer the West with respect to the immediate problem of preserving Poland within its 1920s and 1930s borders, since the Soviet Union was far more likely to gobble Poland up than to protect it (as all were aware, and as happened immediately after the fighting began). AnonMoos (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the logic behind an alliance with the Soviet Union would be to prevent war with Nazi Germany. As in, to deter Nazi Germany from actually starting a war in the first place. If war would have still broken out and the Soviet Union would have subsequently proceeded to occupy and/or liberate Poland (from the Nazis), then Poland's fate would not exactly have been a good one. Specifically, Poland would have likely lost its eastern territories to the Soviet Union and would have likely had a Communist puppet government imposed upon the rest of it by the Soviet Union. Indeed, this is what actually happened to Poland in the years and decades starting from 1945 in real life. Thus, a better bet for Poland (especially without the benefit of hindsight, since the Holocaust wasn't actually reasonably foreseeable for most people back in 1939) would have been to ally with Britain and France but not with the Soviet Union and thus to eventually get liberated by the Anglo-French even if this means having Nazi Germany temporarily occupy their country. At least with Anglo-French liberation, the Poles wouldn't have had to worry about getting Communism shoved down their throats. It was the Fall of France in 1940 that severely screwed up this calculation in real life, of course. Futurist110 (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really wonder that the all of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact articles ignore the critical role of the ongoing Soviet-Japanese Battles of Khalkin Gol. Sure the Soviet leadership was interested to avoid a war on two fronts. And although they cannot have known it at the time, they succeeded in it also long-term! The Japanese were snubbed by the non-aggression pact between their current enemy in war and their most important ally, leading to the resignation of prime minister Hiranuma Kiichiro. Hitler squandered any chance that the Japanese would lift a finger for him in the war - and this may well have cost him his chance to win, if he ever had one. --KnightMove (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that the selection of which possible reasons to mention is geared more to a an anti-Soviet sentiment. Which is to be expected, but that doesn't make it ok. :)

In DroneB's link it states that "the Soviet Union was not in a position to fight a war in 1939." It doesn't mention that they already were fighting on two fronts.

And another thing that I just realise is that a large part of Poland (and the Baltic states and Finland) was part of Russia since the Napoleonic wars, which they lost a century later, after WWI. So there may have been a sentiment that they had a historic right to those territories. Same for Germany btw, although to a much smaller extent. There is a short mention of this in the background section, but it is not given as a reason for the treaty. DirkvdM (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DirkvdM -- the Soviet army in 1939 was strong enough to fend off Japan in Mongolia (far from any ocean, you'll notice), but it had just suffered from Stalin's destructive 1937-1938 military purges, and was under the heavy domination of political commissars and the secret police. Any military officer who went beyond the strict letter of his orders was likely to suffer severe retribution if there wasn't a favorable outcome (sometimes even if there was a favorable outcome), which didn't exactly encourage military initiative. A few months after the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the Soviet-Finnish War would show clearly that the Soviet military was not in any shape to directly confront Germany. Anyway, what reasonable moral case is there for Poland and the Baltic states losing their independence and undergoing brutal Stalinist repression (starting with the Katyn massacre, mass deportations to Siberia, etc. etc. ad nauseam)?? AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I wrote, until 20 years earlier those territories had been part of Russia for a century. So there would have been a similar sentiment like with the Netherlands wanting the East Indies back after WWII. Or the colonies that still exist, such as the USA. Not that they lost their land to anyone, but they didn't give it back either. DirkvdM (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For more on the aforementioned purges see Great Purge. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly editorializing a bit, but lots of WWII in Europe historiography tends to ignore any effects from the rest of the world. Most Westerners will draw a blank if asked about "Kalkhin Gol". Both Britain and France had colonial empires, of course. Churchill named as "the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history" not Dunkirk or anything else, but the Battle of Singapore. And the French decision to seek an armistice with Nazi Germany was motivated in part by the desire to maintain the French colonies under French rule. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned is the failure of the most modern Soviet weaponry against the latest German kit in the Spanish Civil War; the performance of the Polikarpov I-16 against the Messerschmitt Bf 109 is the clearest example. Also the Soviets only beat the Japanese in Mongolia by committing twice as many ground troops, twice as many aircraft and ten times as many armoured vehicles; the Soviets seriously struggled with command and control until the arrival of Zhukov, reflecting the purges of officers. The Pact allowed Stalin time to modernise and retrain and the impunity to grab back their lost European empire. Alansplodge (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]