Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 June 26

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.

June 26

A guy where I work contends that CSPAN is actually harming democracy and functioning of usa legislature.

He says because of cspan, politicians can't make deals, and can't have personal friendships across party lines. Is this true? Also, are there political scientists and journalists who have discussed this claim, either pro or con?65.103.249.243 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(Question transferred from the Science Desk by 76.71.5.114 (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC))

In the wake of the shooting of a Republican congressman, I heard some members of both parties talk about how they all get along personally, they just differ over policies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

“Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity.” —Tamfang (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC) (The poster formerly known as Tamfang)

C-SPAN seems like an odd thing to blame, as they remain neutral and just broadcast US Congressional votes, etc. Highly partisan broadcasters, web sites, social media, etc., are more the problem. Back under the Fairness Doctrine, everyone was at least exposed to the opposite opinion, but now they can completely avoid it, and this leads to radicalization. If all you ever see and hear is that person X or group X is evil, then you may believe it. I am reminded of the radio broadcasts in Rwanda just prior to the Rwandan genocide. StuRat (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The Fairness Doctrine didn't require an opposite opinion, merely a different one, generally well within the Bipartisan consensus. —Tamfang (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

C-SPAN#Public_and_media_opinion have ref to critics.

I have few trust for "political scientists and journalists", but for sure ZERO trust on the matter. Obviously, this kind of people say that media is good for democracy, but [insert names of particular media they have grudges against] does its job so badly, it hurts democracy for this or that reason, so you better trust [insert names of media they work for/with].

The fact is, any media (gov-backed media not the least) can be broadcasting propaganda, lies, very biased information etc. with dire consequences ("manufacturing consent" to stupid politics or economics, war, genocides, etc.)

Gem fr (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is not a request for references, we have no idea why "some guy at my job" would spout any opinion--ask him. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • • Yes I was requsting references, Medeis. I suspect the guy at work heard about it somewhere Why are you such an elitist pain-there's "lots of "guys at work" way smarter and more sensible than you(or me)!208.114.101.230 (talk)

  • Of course it's a request for references. The original poster asked "Is this true?" and asked for discussion of the claim. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I remember some robust discussion in college concerning the effect of the Government in the Sunshine Act on politics in general. The idea is that since everything is now out the the open, politicians can't do the hard "wheeling and dealing" of compromise because all of their actions are now essentially campaign fodder. Part II of this article entitled "We reformed closed door negotiations" is worth a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.225.116.25 (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is the source of the problem. After all, we could always see which Congressman voted for what, and who added which amendments. And closed-door negotiations are still possible, as in the most recent would-be replacement for Obamacare. Just read the Congressional Record. The transparency part has more been a change in what government departments do. StuRat (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it quite possible that CSPAN is good for democracy and bad for the customs of the legislature. —Tamfang (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There's some philosophical mistake that says the way things should be is the way things are. But just because we hope that the "sunlight" cspan puts on congress will help the legislating doesn't prove it actually will. I no sure one way or another but i would like to find out.208.114.101.230 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Rosie inspiration artwork

I was looking some Rosie the Riveter images on Internet. When I looked at some images, this particular one [1] caught my eye. The only problems is I can't make out the artist's signature. Could somebody help me, please? Thank you.2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your link: http://www.gothamgal.com/2014/12/women-entreprenuers-3 goes to "page not found"; however, there is a page for /women-entreprenuers-2 which shows the image "We Can Do It!" by J. Howard Miller. Is that it, or ... can you find another link to the image you are referring to? — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:90BF:36D1:C424:982A (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Odd, that address also gets me "Page not found". On the other hand the slightly respelled http://www.gothamgal.com/2014/12/women-entrepreneurs-3 does take me to a picture, which however has a signature that I can't read either. --Antiquary (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. The file name is we_can_do_it__by_abranime-d7atri5-600x580.jpg; "abranime" search leads to a number of hits related to DeviantArt, e.g.:(image on pinterest) -I hope this helps. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:90BF:36D1:C424:982A (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to confuse things, it looks like ABR is an abbreviation for Anime Brasil, which has a Facebook account: ABR (Anime Brasil), a website: anime-brasil.com, and multiple accounts using abranime and abranimebrasil. What I cannot tell is if ABR is really short for "A"nime "BR"asil or if ABR is a person who works for Anime Brasil. They way they use it, it looks like it is an abbreviation, not a person. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) Information on Norwegian immigration to America (2) Norwegian whaling industry

Hello, I'm trying to gather some information for a family project. My father's side of the family is Norwegian, and I was really hoping to learn more about the history of Norwegian immigration to America. Also, my great great grandfather who came to America in the late 1800's was a whaler, which is why my family's last name is Hval (Norwegian for whale). So, I was also hoping to see if someone could gather information for me about the history of whaling in Norway. I would really appreciate it if someone could either send me some information on these subjects or refer me to other books, articles, or resources that could help me understand these topic better. Thank you very much. 2601:640:4000:ABF8:6085:2B80:3C3C:9D0 (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen Norwegian Americans & Whaling in Norway articles yet? The 'Sources', 'See also' and/or 'External links' sections might be useful. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:90BF:36D1:C424:982A (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Has it ever taken this long to form the UK/British/English government?

It took a week longer than the time between the election and when the Queen's Speech was supposed to happen. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The government was formed after Theresa May became PM in 2016. Under the U.K.'s (uncodified) constitution, an incumbent government remains in office until the PM resigns or the House of Commons expresses no confidence in it. The Conservatives don't necessarily need DUP support to stay in office; for as long as they can survive votes in the House of Commons, they can remain in charge. 211.23.25.61 (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between coalition governments, where the ministry arguably isn't fully formed until the coalition agreement has been reached, and minority governments with a confidence and supply arrangement, where the government will be formed already and the confidence and supply agreement is only to shore it up. This particular government is of the latter kind - there was even a Secretary of State already negotiating the future of the nation in Brussels before the confidence and supply agreement with the DUP had been agreed.

The amount of time required to negotiate either type of agreement will vary. The 2010 coalition agreement took 7 days. In this case, there was no realistic prospect of Labour commanding a majority in the House of Commons and even if they could the Tory minority government would not have been brought down by a vote against them until around 28 June (because of how long it takes to debate the Queen's Speech), the two parties had some time to play with. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Note that Theresa May visited the Palace the day after the election, when the Queen invited her to form a government (which she did). 94.195.147.35 (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Secondary question What is the longest governmental hiatus since the Civil War? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm presuming you're not interested in the wartime Coalition? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

TammyMoet I probably don't understand your point, Chamberlain resigned on 10 May 1940 and Churchill was confirmed as the new PM on the same day - thus the hiatus was a few hours at most. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh I get you, I thought you'd be talking about time between elections rather than time between an election and one party forming the required Commons majority. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)