Humanities desk
< July 27	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 29 >

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.

July 28

Clean water act

Per [1], "The Clean Water Act prohibits the Columbia River from rising over 68F (20C)." That is, since the river reached 70F, it looks like the river has broken the law. What happens now? Does the river get arrested? More seriously, how can the Clean Water Act "prohibit" a river from reaching a given temperature? Are there supposed to be human interventions like adjusting flows, and can such interventions possibly help in that type of heat wave? Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably that is to regulate release of cooling water from power plants/industry on the river? Fgf10 (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the actual wording of the act before mocking (further) the intelligence of legislators. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, the act specifies certain regulatory agencies who are empowered to take action against industries to lower the temperature of the river. The law may not actually specify exactly what specific action that is, but rather will leave it up to the regulators to set responses, within certain parameters. The organization charged with enforcing the act is the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the EPA website has a summary of the act here, the act itself is in the United States Code as 33 U.S.C. §1251, which is here. The relevant clause is "Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter in this chapter called “Administrator”) shall administer this chapter." In other words, the Administrator of the EPA is for doing the work of enforcing the policies, of course they wouldn't do it all themselves, they have underlings who they would delegate that to. --Jayron 32 11:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads us back to the original question: What happens? --184.144.99.72 (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently authorities try and do apply the best of their skills in mathematical optimization, with dams and reservoirs. The Washington State Department of Ecology ( article at seattletimes) "has authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate temperature in the river according to standards set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)". --Askedonty (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Made in China

Two questions.

Does all this Made in China production of foreign goods significantly reduce the number of jobs in their respective countries of origin, contributing to the rate of unemployment (e.g. if Japan, for example, licenses the manufacture of its technology to China, does it create a sort of unfair competitive advantage for China in relation to Japan)?

Do various costs of shipping the details/raw materials to China and then the finished goods back to the original country (including VAT, customs fees, etc) offset the incentive of Chinese cheap labor force, making it more convenient to manufacture goods in the original country? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“All else being equal,” (which it never is), when a factory closes in Location A and reopens in Location B, there is very likely to be a reduction of employment in Location At and an increase in Location B. If the displaced workers cannot find new jobs, then one would expect unemployment there to rise. In the case of licensing, the Location B production of a product that is still being made in Location A would cause no change in employment. On the second subject, there should be no issue of unfair competitive advantage because of such a licensing decision … unless one considers owning the rights to a patent, trademark or other intellectual property to be “unfair.” The third question assumes that China is assembling parts imported from abroad, which may be true for a tiny number of items but cannot be considered significant in either domestic or international economic calculations. It also assumes that labor costs are significant, which in the case of something like a microchip are so small as to be little more than zero. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The process of labor being moved from one country to another is called Offshoring, and the effects of offshoring on the labor market are a well studied part of macroeconomics. There is a small section in the Wikipedia article on the subject in the section titled "Impact on jobs in western countries" and there are references you can follow there for even more reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)‎[reply]

In terms of the largest number of workers displaced, the shift of lower end garment production from China to Vietnam, Bangladesh, and other lower-cost locations, is the most important offshoring of the last 30 years. While the OP did not state it as such, the implication is that this is also an issue between China and wealthy economies, which is not the case. DOR (HK) (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women's suffrage in Afghanistan

The article women's suffrage say women's suffrage was introduced in Afghanistan in 1965, but the article 1919 in women's history claim it was in 1919. Which one is correct? I have read before that it was in 1964. Did Afghanistan even have elections in 1919? --Aciram (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1919 in women's history has two citations for the claim. One does not support it at all, the other links the claim to another source which also does not support it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources does not support the claim, then they must be removed. This references claim it was in 1964: [2], [3], [4]. Perhaps the articles should be corrected with these references? I asked the question since I noticed that people on the net referred to Wikipedia when claiming suffrage for women were introduced in Afghanistan in 1919. --Aciram (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aciram: but this source does support the 1919 claim [5], saying it happened under reforms introduced by Amanullah Khan. Our article on him mentions reforms with a source I didn't check, although not voting in particular. However these reforms were short lived as they were undo when Amanullah Khan was forced to abdicate and flee in 1929. 1964 was when a new constitution allowed women to vote again (I guess maybe the first actual election was in 1965 or that's when it took effect), although it sounds like voting right in general were limited in the interim period. Technically since the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan had limited recognition and likewise whatever the Soviets did, I guess some might argue women have de jure had the right to vote since 1964 even if they didn't in practice/de facto. Note I have not touched any article as I'm not sure Central Asia Institute is an RS although I'm sure one could be found. Nil Einne (talk)

That is an article, not a book. I wonder if there were elections at all in Afghanistan in 1919.--Aciram (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want books you should have said earlier. For Wikipedia purposes, there is zero requirements that an RS must be a book although it must still be an RS and as said I have no idea if Central Asia Institute is an RS. Also there were 10 years for elections. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and have been able to confirm that no parliament was established under Amanullah Khan. It was planned but never came into being [6]. There was a state council/council of state and a cabinet but I have no idea how these were selected. (I suspect the cabinet was largely just whatever the emir/king decided.) He also called a few Loya jirga (see e.g. [7]) although I doubt that the participants of these were generally elected. If there were elections during the reign of Amanullah Khan/in the period women could vote in the ~1920s, I think these were most likely some sort of local elections in Kabul but it looks possible the right to vote in the 1920s may have simply be theoretical. Elections or not, it sounds like Amanullah Khan's reforms has little effect outside Kabul, see e.g. this non RS [8] and this [9], so many of the reforms were somewhat more theoretical than having a practical effect on women's rights in Afghanistan. Indeed I see some suggestion the excessive speed and haphazard introduction was part of what doomed them to failure and unfortunately may have helped delay any real reforms (see also [10]) although it's probably a bit of a stretch to blame poor old Amanullah Khan for the mess that still exists. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]