Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 March 28

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 28

Examples in history.

What are some examples in history where, a country/region/local leader did something (like make a new rule) and it turns out to be a problem, but he doesn't want to reverse it, because, doing so would make him look bad. Made him seem like a contradiction. Or even for corporations. And so, possibly his future replacement, reverses it.

For example, the Chicago mayor approves to spend millions on a police building, but his term is almost over. The next mayoral candidates currently a tie between 2, both of them have spoken out against this project and asks the mayor to back down. In 2 months 1 of them will be a mayor, but the current mayor refuses to back down, and continues to forward with this project, despite opposite from the future mayoral candidates.

In Chicago it is legal to video-record a police officer, but not audio-record. In the 1990s, the district attorney is pressing charges for someone for it, but when his term is up, he lost his election to someone else, and that someone else dropped charges, but I don't know if it was like the above example situation.

Anyways, this is my real example: Chicago gangs: this gang leader makes a rule for his gang to shoot at cars that are driving in the opposite direction of a 1-way street, for the possibility that they are rival gangs. But 1 year after it took effect, they accidentally killed the leader of a allied-gang. The irony is that caused that allied gang to be enemies, but the rule did not dismiss, it continued to take into effect. But if anyone has political examples for countries/cities or corporation, I'd like to hear about some. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC).

Just remembered the Tiananmen Square incident of 1989, where the China government killed a lot of their people overnight, and the future presidents never apologized for it. Even as late as 2004, the president of China in France still backs their decision. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC).

No, not that. It isn't kept going to save political face. It was a policy that was needed to keep the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship in power, and would probably have to be repeated if a Chinese president apologized for it, thereby encouraging people to try a similar pro-democracy movement again, which presumably would have to be similarly repressed. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Brexit? 67.164.113.165 (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No, not Brexit. It isn't kept going to save political face, but out of fear of being punished by pro-Brexit voters for abandoning it.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

And maybe a democratic principle that people ought to get what they voted for. Alansplodge (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, probably that too among at least some of those supporting it (tho probably relatively few, because of belief among many MPs in Edmund Burke's view of an MP as a representative but not a delegate, etc), as well as other possible reasons, such as believing Brexit is a good idea, etc. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

War on drugs and equivilent in other countries. Lots of drug-related problems are either caused or exasperated by the fact that they are illegal, but lots of politicians refuse to change the law (or even adjust the classification schemes in line with scientific advice) on the grounds that drugs are illegal so legalising them would send the wrong message. (I think I remember Ann Widdecombe using almost those exact words, but our article doesn't include anything about her views on drug laws). Iapetus (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

s/exasperated/exacerbated/ All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC).

This is only true if the most-loudly-voiced reasons for the policy are the same as the actual reasons, which isn't necessarily always the case. (And the earliest drug prohibitions in U.S. history were often quite openly about racism. Opium and "marijuana" were banned because they were foreign poisons introduced by Chinamen and Mexicans, according to the people who pushed for those bans.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

And cocaine was largely demonized due to its association with blacks, after which crack cocaine was demonized as being even worse, also due to its association with blacks. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Except there's no reason to suppose that the racist aspects are also any more than another kind of excuse to 'justify' the law to a constituency, in this case consciously or subconsciously racist (or at least prejudiced) voters. Long - lasting laws tend to exist because they benefit vested interests that then ensure they stay on the statute books. In the case of addictive drugs (so marijuana is a bit of a complicated exception), and as presumably most economists know, but few dare say (and their views usually go unreported or misreported if they do), making the drugs illegal makes extraordinary profits for investors in organized crime, by having the state artificially reduce the supply of drugs to below the demand for them, thus sending the price and profits sky high (because demand for addictive drugs is very hard to reduce in the short term, which is what would happen with a normal product thereby eliminating extraordinary profits). Without this state interference market forces would increase supply to meet demand, and the excess profits would disappear. And there are plenty of other vested interests who are indirect beneficiaries and thus also support the law (money-laundering banks and lawyers, a prison industry that needs prisoners, drug treatment professionals, those who get paid to fight the war on drugs, and get bribed to fight it badly, and so on). But for the purpose of this question the main point is that this is not really a law that is kept in place to save face.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The law of the Medes and Persians cannot be changed. But that is from a Biblical or deuterocanonical fable that likely didn't happen. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Brexit is a biblical fable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

See Book of Daniel, chapter 6. Alansplodge (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

We have no way to know if it happened or not, or if it sort-of happened but not exactly in the way the Bible describes it. Seems like the king could have issued his new decree right away instead of waiting until after the lion's den test. It also seems unfair to throw the connivers' entire families to the lions. That's why the US Constitution forbids Bills of Attainder, which that kind of was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

But even if the story were true it would not be obvious that the policy was kept in place to save face. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

One possible example might be the Catholic Church's ban on contraception (and perhaps also divorce and perhaps even abortion). But as with almost any other policy that's going to get suggested here, it will be hard or impossible to show that it's a stupid policy kept in place to save face. For instance some may support the policy out of fear of going to Hell if they don't, others because they think it will lead to more Catholics in the world, others because they genuinely think non-procreational sex is wrong, and so on.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh! And speaking of the Catholic Church, how about that they don't allow priests to marry, and still refusing to revert that. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC).

Possibly, but isn't it more likely that it's not about saving face but the result of the self-perpetuation of the priestly celibacy meme through self-selection? The continuation of the policy is a decision made by celibate priests, few of whom would have chosen to become celibate priests in the first place unless they believed a celibate priesthood was a good thing. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was about money. That when priests die, and they have kids, their kids may inherit the church or so. Or at least, want a claim. But these issues don't arise when priests don't have kids. Does anyone know? 170.76.231.162 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC).

If that were true, there would be no married Catholic priests at all. But there are some, as noted in Clerical celibacy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That's what it was at least supposedly about originally (except that I suspect that quite likely it wasn't really about that even then, and that version may be partly or mainly an attempt to claim that the Church doesn't have some pretty weird phobias about sex), but it's unlikely to be why it keeps going now, when other churches (and other religions) with married clergy have no such problem (and, incidentally, seemingly had no such problem in the middle ages either, which was when the Catholic Church supposedly had the problem). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Some other candidates (all of which inevitably suffer from the problem that one can't prove the leader knew it was a bad policy that s/he was sticking with to avoid loss of face) might arguably include Margaret Thatcher's decision to continue with the poll tax, leading to her fall in 1990 (after which her successor John Major scrapped the policy and soon narrowly won the 1992 general election), Richard Nixon's decision to stick with his (and/or Henry Kissinger's) 'decent interval' policy on Vietnam, resulting in the 1972 Christmas bombing of Hanoi that arguably seriously damaged his domestic power base thus arguably making it harder for him to survive the Watergate scandal, and Charles de Gaulle sticking with his 1968 decision not to devalue the franc (whose economic costs may or may not have contributed to him losing the 1969 referendum that led to his resignation, and which was promptly abandoned by his successor Georges Pompidou).Tlhslobus (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that even if a leader later 'admits' they were only trying to save face, this may simply be a lie (or self-delusion) to avoid the possibly even more embarrassing admission that they were just too stupid or too deluded to see that they had made a mistake. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that this applies to everything. I see zero evidence that it doesn't applies to any of the OP's original examples. In fact, in the OP's case mayor case I presume we don't even have what would probably be the best possible evidence, an apparent admission that it's the reason they are doing it in a way where it does not appear they are lying. (As you mentioned, we can't be sure that such an "admission" isn't in itself a lie. But it would help if it's situation where a lie doesn't seem likely. E.g. a contemporaneous audio recording or document which doesn't seem to be a plant.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The outstanding example of this is, of course, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on the orders of Pontius Pilate. 2A00:23C0:7D00:FB01:7DE6:1C66:AA2E:AFE (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that Pilate lived long enough to see the Christian churches be developed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I find that example actually far more questionable than some of the others given. AFAIK and seemingly supported by Pontius Pilate according to the sources we have which being the bible aren't very good (as they were written and then re-written with religious and political motivations), Pilate did actually want to (and tried to) stop the crucifixion of Jesus but in the end didn't because he couldn't get enough others to agree. It's generally believed he had the authority to do so regardless, so precisely why he didn't is not unclear. Perhaps not wanting to look 'bad' was a factor, but it seems there's a fair chance he feared losing control and the political cost which would make his role more difficult as much as anything so it seems way too simplistic to say he didn't simply didn't want to look bad. Potentially the fact that ultimately, no matter him washing his hands of it, he didn't really care that much if some random dude was wrongfully executed if it benefited him may have been a factor (since it seems he ended up being unpopular anyway perhaps due to other decisions he made which he knew were unpopular but he did care) but again that's distinct from simply not wanting to look bad. Also as I understand it, most of the stuff happened before Jesus had been condemned anyway. I.E. While likely he could have reversed it at any time until it was carried out, in reality it's not like a decision was made and then more information came to light or perhaps the effects of the decision, showed it was bad but despite this he refused to reverse the decision. On the contrary, that it was 'bad' (in the sense that the crucifixion may not have been justified by Roman law), was known at the time the decision was made. And as said at the beginning, all this is assuming that the info we have is even correct. There are good reasons to doubt it, especially given the Jews vs Romans issue which our article mentions. Nil Einne (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There's also the question of whether it was a 'bad' decision. Christians tend to condemn it, just as they condemn Judas's 'betrayal', while simultaneously telling us that the Crucifixion was a necessary part of God's plan for our Salvation, so that 'logically' it looks like a 'good' decision (except that we are presumably too stupid to understand God's 'logic', or whatever). With complications like that, on top of the difficulty in accepting the Bible as a reliable source, and the lack of any evidence that Pilate was trying to save face, it hardly seems like a useful example here. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

If you really want to mess with a Christian's mind point out to them that not only is Judas being loyal to God by turning Jesus over to the authorities but that by sending Jesus to Earth, knowing that he will be killed, God is basically committing suicide. Which is a sin. Which God should not be able to do. --Khajidha (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

God cannot sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

William Sims

Why is William Gilmore Sims known as William S Sims? Or is that not his real middle name? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC).

See William Gilmore Simms and William Sowden Sims. Note that you misspelled WGS's last name. 12.207.168.3 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added a "See also" to William Sims (disambiguation) and William Simms which might help future confusion (say not the struggle nought availeth). Alansplodge (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks also to User:92.8.219.133 who corrected the middle name in William Sims. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC).

I've just created William Gilmore Sims as a redirect to William Gilmore Simms, based on this question. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Uknown acronym

Hi Folks Anybody know what FFPS means in relation to Fellow of FPS of some kind of medical society re: Thomas Kennedy Dalziel. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 22:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of the source [1] says: "During this period he became a Fellow of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons in 1887". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE: Fellow of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons Glasgow. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)