Humanities desk
< October 1	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 3 >

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.

October 2

Country traits of Sark vs. Alderney

Starting with introducing the problem: Lists of countries usually also contain territories which are not independent countries but have some self-administration and other country features (Greenland, American Samoa, Åland,...). For this reason, Guernsey has its own ISO-3166-1 alpha-3 code (GGY), its own top level domain (.gg), its own license plate bode (GBG) etc. - and so, it has an entry in Country codes: G #Guernsey. So far, so good.

Alderney belongs to the Bailiwick of Guernsey as a self-administered sub-jurisdiction. As such it has no ISO-3166-1 code, no top level domain... but it does have its own license plate code on country level, GBA, as recognized by the UNECE in the same way as independent countries, and as Guernsey. For this only reason, Alderney also has an entry in Country codes: A #Alderney.

Sark is another self-administered sub-jurisdiction of Guernsey... and it does not even have a license plate code for the simple reason that it does not allow cars on the island. The only motorised vehicles on the island are tractors which do not need a license plate.

So... is it accurate to say that Sark is a "country" as much and as little as Alderney is... but in contrast to Alderney, it cannot meaningfully be addd to the country code tables, as it does not have any internationally recognized country code? Is the entry situation in the tables optimal as it is? --KnightMove (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Alderney has a licence plate code does not really say anything about the degree of "countryness" of Alderney vs. Sark. The licence plate codes have lived their own life from long before ISO-standards came to life. Licence plate codes that differ from ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes are reserved within the ISO system, but are expected to eventually be removed or replaced with proper ISO codes. Since Sark does not have licence plates, that will not be an issue for them. Alderney and Sark are in exactly the same formal position as constituent parts of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. The historically assigned licence plate code GBA does not change that in any way. --T*U (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so far. "Licence plate codes that differ from ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes are reserved within the ISO system, but are expected to eventually be removed or replaced with proper ISO codes." - I don't get it right now - in what way are they reserved? --KnightMove (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That means they are allowed to exist for the time being. 2A00:23D0:482:D001:E578:2121:89F:4D1E (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KnightMove: 'Reserved' in this context means that even if they are not used in the ISO system (and therefore theoretically could be used for any new entity), they will not be allocated to any other entity until the time they are removed or replaced. --T*U (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, garages got blocks of registration numbers which they used up as they registered the vehicles they sold. They were "reserved" to them, so if, say, an Oxford garage had the block AJO 100A to AJO 199A and registered AJO 150A, the next vehicle to be entered on the register with Oxford County Borough Council would only be AJO 151A if registered by the same garage. In the modern format e.g. AB22XYZ the last three letters are allocated randomly - I don't know how that affects the system. 2A00:23D0:482:D001:E578:2121:89F:4D1E (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an analogy, that is rather far off. The point here is that ISO (voluntarily) do not use some of the codes they 'own' in order to avoid confusion with a different set of codes that is not under their control. --T*U (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly relevant for the question, but at least the ISO uses BRN for Brunei (IOC: Bahrain) or AUS for Australia (UNDP: Austria)?! --KnightMove (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there are lots and lots of examples of conflicting country codes in different contexts. Different international bodies will often have made what they feel is the best coding for them, ignoring ISO (or preceding ISO-coding as in car plates). Just for fun, I checked the International Island Games Association, where both Alderney and Sark are members in their own right. In their result listings, they use ALD for Alderney and SAR for Sark (and GUE for Guernsey and JER for Jersey). None of these actually conflict with any active ISO codes. And it works for them... --T*U (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC) [reply]

CQ:

Status remark

Refers to the island of Sark and reserved at the request of the United Kingdom.

--Error (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A law against charging commission on Treasury bond trades?

American brokerages charge no commission on Treasury bill/note/bond trading. I don't believe they're altruistic, not least because I've never seen them advertise this fact, even as they proclaim no/low commissions on stock and corporate bond trades. So why don't they charge money for Treasury trades, if it's not illegal? Thank you. Imagine Reason (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from [1], in Britain there is a "bid" price which sellers get which is lower than the "offer" price which purchasers have to pay, as in all stock trading. I would imagine America is the same. 31.117.20.68 (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's true for all securities trades. Still other bond trades cost a minimum of $10, and if you consider the size of a minimum Treasuries trade, brokerages are moving a lot of money for free. Imagine Reason (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How did the Third Reich treat racist vigilantes?

No luck finding anything about this on Google Books.

What happened in the mid‐1930s when a German citizen murdered a Jew or a Romani? Did the police ignore it? Did the murderer have to pay 10¢ and spend twenty minutes in jail? What was the penalty (if any) for such unauthorized killing? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 16:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall from the recent Ken Burns film about the Holocaust, when vandals attacked Jews, the cops stood by and did nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, this would have been treated as any murder in the early 30's, before the Nazi seizure of power and specifically the Enabling Act of 1933. During the Kristallnacht of 1938 many Jews were murdered; the authorities did not intervene but in fact cooperated. One would assume that the transformation changing Jews and Romani from German citizens to vermin to be "lawfully" hunted and exterminated was not instantaneous, but required the normal court system to be taken over by Sondergerichte and anti-Nazi judges to be removed and placed by Nazi loyalists. --Lambiam 09:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Hartinger and Moritz Flamm did try to do something. --Error (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

quote

"law is reason unaffected by desire" famously quoted by Aristotle. what is the philosophy behind the quote? Grotesquetruth (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity (philosophy). 136.56.52.157 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moral objectivity implies that certain moral rules are universally valid, but this is not implied by Aristotle's statement. His point is, rather, that those who govern should do so in an orderly fashion, according to rules laid down as law, and not by haphazardly following their whimsies. These laws need not be universal but may vary between states. Aristotle is arguing for the rule of law. --Lambiam 08:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Lambiam what did he mean by "unaffected by desire"? Grotesquetruth (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is from Aristotle's Politics, book 3, chapter 16, which you can read at wikisource in a rather old translation from 1776. You may be able to find more modern translations online or in a library or a book shop. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no 1 has mentioned conflict of interest and separation from emotional arguments. How bout when Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty for killing 2 men and shooting a 3rd, the vast majority of Americans were happy, but, not the family of the 1s he killed? Or how about when someone is killed by the police, while almost everyone else makes the "thank you police for your services" the person's family does not? So, emotional appeals seem to override strongly. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I very strongly doubt whether "the vast majority of Americans were happy" about the events or outcome of the Kyle Rittenhouse case. AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, Biden tweeted, "the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included". --Lambiam 15:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ironically it was very racially divided too. Most White people were happy that Rittenhouse beat the case but most AAs were not. And Wikipedia did give some statistics as to what % of Republicans and Democrats were happy/unhappy about it. So it seems more Republicans were happy about it. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

A source for "Most White people were happy that Rittenhouse beat the case" please. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From seeing the comments, on Facebook. I'm an active commenter for at least 2 years. For example, every time the news report a police shoots someone, it's an automatic White commenters vs. Black commenters, even more the police-shooting story details is given. So for Rittenhouse, full of White commenters happy about it, reacting like to it, full of Black commenters upset about it, sharing the post in anger, etc. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

What evidence do you have that social media are an accurate cross-section of American opinion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watching Democrats and Republicans arguing against each other back and forth for years. Even on Internet forums. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

would you explain the portion of what Aristotle meant by "unaffected by desire"? Grotesquetruth (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

socio-legal affairs

are there any paradoxical yet pressing socio-legal challenges/issues of the time? any specifics/deliberations on some pressing subject matter in question of interest? Grotesquetruth (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which time? Ours, or Aristotle's (in view of your previous query)? {The poster formerly known as 87.81..230.195} 90.193.128.129 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as of current. Grotesquetruth (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of an example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the abortion debate qualify? There, two principles, that of the sanctity of life and that of a woman's right to choose appear to clash. --Lambiam 08:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

would you elaborate as to the contradictory forces in question? Grotesquetruth (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are those who consider abortion to be murder. That is an obvious clash with the concept of sanctity of life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion Gun control Death penalty States’ Rights Affirmative action DOR (HK) (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from perhaps the last, all those seem particular to one country with less than 5% of the world's population. So the clarification needed is not just when, but where. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]