Humanities desk
< September 15	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 17 >

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.

September 16

PDFA and tobacco and alcohol money

The WP article on PDFA cites the following statement: "The Partnership recently announced it will quit its alcohol and tobacco habit but will continue to mainline pharmaceutical checks (Village Voice, 3/12/97)." Is "Village Voice" referring to www.villagevoice.com? That seems to be an entertainment magazine. My ultimate goal is to find out whether PDFA still accepts tobacco and alcohol money or not. A8875 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Village Voice is not limited to entertainment, they also report news: [1]. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Guess I'll head to Resource Exchange, though I doubt anyone still has that 15 years old piece of dead tree. If anyone has a a more recent source on the topic please chime in. A8875 (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a slightly more recent story from them: [2]. StuRat (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the PDFA's annual report for 2010, with a list of donors on page 23: [3]. I see lots of big pharma on the list, but no explicit listing of alcohol and tobacco companies. However, since many on the list are other charitable organizations, like state versions of the PDFA, you'd need to research each of those to be sure. They also have an anonymous donor and donors which can't easily be identified, like "Grey" (as in a grey area ?). StuRat (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the 2011 donor list: [4], which looks about the same. StuRat (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A8875 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

US Marine guards at embassies

Are US Marine Corps guards at US embassies merely ceremonial, or are they expected to fight to defend the Embassy? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are expected to fight, but only when it's actually possible to win. There is also the difficult judgement of when using force will incite the mob even more. StuRat (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any Marine will tell you that he or she is always prepared to fight, whether on active duty, ceremonial duty, or off duty. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 01:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "ceremony" is displayed by Marines is simply to improve discipline and esprit de corps (greater ability to fight as a unit) in short almost everything Marines do is aimed at being better strategic fighters. StuRat had it right, that doesn't always mean fight since the Marines by mission are "expeditionary" they are fully capable of fighting 5:1 or even 10:1 or 20:1 odds in the right circumstances but the reason for this is they are one of the most elite fight smarter not harder organizations on earth. In a way however as expeditionary no strategist or politician would expect them to hold out for more than a day or two under a full mob, but the embassy assigned Marines are fully capable of repelling almost anything until reinforcements are sent by Washington--or hopefully the native government. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just silly. Of course the marines at embassies are more than just fighters. They are obvious parts of the image of an embassy. Most embassies are in friendly countries. The image needs to be a positive one (and is, in my country), showing passers-by that the US does things well and professionally. And those at the US Embassy in my country are highly unlikely to ever be asked to fight the locals. The ceremonial bit IS important. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is saying ceremony isn't important, just that with the Marines it's not just for the sake of ceremony. Friendly countries do allow for the Marines to be viewed more as symbols but even in the friendliest nations terrorists, extremists and even the random crazed criminal is still very much a threat to an Embassy. Even in the most hostile, chaotic nations there will still usually be a token effort by the native police to assist a U.S. Embassy if for nothing else as a signal that they don't wish for all out war/invasion or U.N. armed response (realistically remote but always in the back of the mind of national leaders anywhere). Bottom line if the Embassy is in Ottawa or in Tripoli all it takes is a handful of determined individuals (be it a pseudo government or just a team ala Oklahoma City bombing) Marines and the Foreign Service Protection staff are always ready to repel. Plus even if your stationed at Paris or Ottawa next month you could be reinforcing Tripoli or Beirut, so the training and mindset can't slack. Marketdiamond (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, the local police will defend embassies. In the UK, for example, that role is performed by the Diplomatic Protection Group. If the visiting security personnel need to do any actual defending, then something has gone seriously wrong. Article 22(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations says: "The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity." The duty of protecting the embassy is very clearly with the host nation, not the visiting nation. --Tango (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility of winning isn't really relevant. If they are forced to fight, then they'll be doing so to buy time to evacuate the embassy (it's rare to try and stand your ground in an embassy - what would be the point?). They'll fight until either everyone has got out or they are dead, as is the duty of any military personnel. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases surrender is the better option (at least for those inside the embassy). For example, the hostages in the Iran Hostage Crisis were eventually released, while they might have all been killed if the it came down to a firefight. Of course, those not inside the embassy might think "death before dishonor" is the way to go, but people actually in that position don't always agree. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the attackers are interested in taking prisoners, then yes, that can't be a sensible move. In the recent attacks, I don't think there was any intention to take prisoners - when you are faced with a mob like that, the best strategy is generally to run away. --Tango (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps land mines. If it's posted that the grounds are full of land mines, and they climb the fence and get blown up by them, they can't very well get upset at Americans for escalating the event. StuRat (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

By the way, the consulate in Benghazi had no Marines, no bulletproof glass, no reinforced doors. [5] Wnt (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Romney missed a golden opportunity. He should have said "In a Romney Presidency, all of our embassies will be fully protected", rather than criticizing Obama for trying to take a balanced approach in condemning both the attacks and the movie. Unfortunately, he chose to go negative, rather than look like a visionary. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Queen Emma and King Kamehameha IV

Are Queen Emma and King Kamehameha IV really Anglican saints? If so, why is Father Damien considered Hawaii's first saint?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say they are in our article, where did you get that information from? --TammyMoet (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of England hasn't really had any official method of making saints after the 16th century; if you look in "The Calendar; with the Table of Lessons" section of the Book of Common Prayer, none are listed. Wikipedia article Saints in Anglicanism... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Book of Common Prayer in the Anglican Church is something of a historical relic. Each separate part (or "Province") of the Anglican Communion has its own replacement and each has an up-to-date list of saints and those thought worthy of commemoration and the day on which they should be specially remembered. They are collectively called Saints and Heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion. This calender includes saints who were canonized before English Reformation and a number of other Christian worthies; many of them, like Óscar Romero or Dietrich Bonhoeffer (both commemorated in England) were not Anglicans. The inclusion of these post-Reformation names was a result of the 9th Lambeth Conference in 1958; the calendar for each Province will be similar to any other but will have names of particular local interest. You can see the list for the Episcopal Church in the United States of America at Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America). Kamehameha and Emma, are commemorated on 28 November in the US but not elsewhere as far as I can see. So not saints but people whose Christian example is worthy of remembrance, at least in the USA. I believe that the lede of our "Calender of Saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America)" is in error in this respect. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could qualify that last comment. Our Saints in Anglicanism suggests that the term "saint" refers to any spiritually saved person". In that sense, exemplary Christians, like Martin Luther King or our Hawaiian monarchs, may be regarded as saints but certainly not in the same way as biblical saints or in the way that Father Damien is regarded as a saint by Roman Catholics. Those on the Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism often accept the validity of recently canonized Roman Catholic saints, however. Alansplodge (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of seats of lower house of the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium, and Knesset

Is there some websites where they show the names of the constituencies of each lower house of each European nation and Israel? I am interested in who represents which riding or constituency in those nations and by which political party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.31 (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does. While the naming can get hard if you try to guess what each article is located at, you can usually start at the "Politics of <whatever>" article and get what you want in one or two clicks. For example, starting at Politics of Israel, I find the navigation box on the right with the blue menora in it. I click the "show" next to Knesset and find the "Members" link which brings me to List of members of the eighteenth Knesset. Likewise, on Politics of the Netherlands, I click the "show" link next to "States General", and there's a link for the "Current members" of the House of Representatives, and that link brings me to List of members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands (2010–2012). Since every one of those countries organizes and names their legislature differently, the easiest method is to repeat what I just did for each country you want info on. --Jayron32 03:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli Knesset doesn't have any geographical constituencies, by the way... AnonMoos (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One problem you're likely to come across here, is that many (if not all?) of the countries you listed, have proportional representation, rather than first-past-the-post, so there is not one MP who is responsible for each constituency, but rather several MPs for each constituency. Norway's constituencies are the same as the 19 fylker, each is represented by several MPs, none of whom respond specifically to a certain geographical area, but rather all represent the same geographical area. Another way of finding a list of current MPs would be to look through the articles named, such as Norwegian parliament, Swedish parliament etc. (There is even a specific template for them.) V85 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be another Ted Bundy in these times with all the technology and criminal profiling?

I mean, at large. Timothyhere (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't ask questions asking for opinions - and obviously there cannot be a factual answer to this. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Of course there can be a factual answer. We know it is possible, because it happens. List of serial killers in the United States includes plenty of modern serial killers, including quite a few that killed over a period of several years. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A recent thread on serial killers on the ref desk pointed out that the basic problem in such cases is the "randomness" of the homicides. The Category:Unsolved murders in the United States seems to contain a number of unsolved cases of multiple homicide.

Of course, it is unknown if the associated criminals are at large or dead (or possibly "cured", whatever that may mean in the context).

The article Serial killer furthermore has sections on potential motives and theories. It points out that "the law enforcement system in the United States is fragmented and thus not configured to detect multiple similar murders across a large geographic area" (admittedly, a reference from 1998). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's still a problem today. Let's say there was a serial killer with a unique MO, say dressing his victims up in giant chicken suits. I don't think there's any system set up to check to see if any similar murders have been performed with that MO in the rest of the US, much less the rest of the world. We'd just have to "get lucky" and have one cop who knew of such a murder happen to read about another such murder. Then, when you get murders with nothing that obvious in common which jumps out as unique, the chances of linking them up is even lower. You can also get serial killers who intentionally change their MO, making linking them up the most difficult of all. StuRat (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inherent randomness of the victims would presumably make it more difficult to figure out who a serial killer is, compared with a family member who would be targeting a specific victim or victims. If a serial killer leaves evidence, it allows the police to tie a series of victims together, but it doesn't necessarily reveal who the killer is. There has to be something to cross-reference, such as DNA or fingerprints that are already in a database somewhere. Otherwise, it just depend on the killer doing something stupid and giving himself away, as with the BTK guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luck also plays a part. If your home is repossessed and your crawl space is full of decomposing bodies, that can be downright inconvenient (for both the old owner and the new one). StuRat (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repossessions don't happen without warning. It's never in a bank's interests to repossess; they'd much rather you worked things out and resumed paying your mortgage to the very last red cent (now with extra interest included, to make up for the hiatus). I'm almost sure^{[citation needed]} most formal repossession warnings come with a clause saying: "We want to give you time to clear out any decomposing bodies in your basement, because if push comes to shove and we have to repossess, we don't want to have to clear up the mess. Please use this time wisely to also sort out your finances". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 attacks, did the hijackers carry firearms?

Retractable blade knife with replaceable utility blade.

Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read September 11 attacks and the linked articles? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overread, sorry, I'll get into the details. Thank you and sorry again.Timothyhere (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no, they used boxcutters as weapons, which, for some strange reason, were allowed to be carried on board by passengers (I never quite figured out why). StuRat (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought the boxcutters they were using were more like Xacto knives, which could easily be disguised as pens in a shirt pocket. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This report suggests that the boxcutters "may have been prepositioned by accomplices for use by others" (presumably hidden on the aircraft in advance). This article says that a "Leatherman-style utility knife" might be the weapon in question. But apparently we only know that boxcutters were used from a single telephone conversation, so probably we'll never know what they were like and how they got there. Alansplodge (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem too spectacular in a pre-9/11 scenario and in a national flight. It could also have been a simple, innocent looking cut-throat razor. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to really understand a box-cutter if you haven't used one. The blade is basically a razor blade, but it is protected so that only about half an inch is exposed, so it can be used to slash but not to make a deep stab wound. Because of that, they were not considered a deadly weapon -- but they are definitely intimidating. Looie496 (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(For our UK readers it's called a Stanley knife. And it can cause a very nasty wound indeed.) --TammyMoet (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I flew with a common folding knife in my pocket in July 2001. (One way. On my return, screeners at a much smaller airport disapproved of it, so I checked it, in my laundry bag – which had a defective zipper. Oh well.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before 9/11, knives with short blades were allowed on airplanes, including box-cutters. I flew dozens of times with a Swiss army knife in my pocket before that time, with no particular problem. The rules were changed rather dramatically after the attacks. --Xuxl (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anybody who's been cognizant for the last dozen years probably knows the answer to this. Shadowjams (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

How many people died on board the flights on the September 11 attacks before the planes crashed

I mean, the pilots died before the crash right? Timothyhere (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on each flight, which spell out the exact sequence of events on board each one in as much detail as is available. See: American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93. --Tango (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Foreign interventions

My intuitive sense is that the United States has performed the most foreign interventions of any nation in the 20th century (with maybe the Soviet Union as a close second). By "foreign intervention," I mean not only the classic "start a war with another country" or "overthrow a government you aren't fond of," but also things like "find ways to overtly or covertly influence elections," "impose economic sanctions upon," and "line up coalitions of other allied countries to punish/invade/condemn/etc. other nations." (I would consider the Iraq War to be a primarily US intervention, for example, despite the fact that there were other countries that participated in it; it was obviously something pushed for primarily by the US, and the US bore the weight of the cost, lives, and credit.)

Obviously with such a qualitative list of things, it's hard to know how one would approach such a thing quantitatively, but that's the question, I guess: has anyone come up with any kind of sane quantitative way of weighing foreign intervention? I'd be curious to see how the actual numbers worked out per decade (the US, for example, was quite different about its patterns of intervention in the first decades of the 20th century in comparison to the later decades), and I'd love to find a way to think about this for the 19th century as well as thinking about who else would be in the top tier. (How does the Soviet Union of the 1940s line up, say, with the U.K. of the 1880s?)

I'm not looking for a big debate about who was or wasn't interventionary, unless there are some good facts and figures to back it up! (If you want to argue that we should consider France as the great interventionary power of the 20th century, go ahead, but please back it up with some reasoned analysis and not just spouting of knee-jerk opinions.) And I'm imposing no moral order here — I am explicitly not caring about whether interventions are justified, unjustified, good, bad, whatever. I'm just curious about the levels of intervention. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would doubt you would find more than the U.S. during the 20th century, it is not a negative thing it is simply the reason the U.S. is thought of as the only Super power from 1991-2000 and one of two from circa 1950-1990, one of maybe five 1915-1949, and from 1901-1914 the major hemispheric power. As far as lists try:

Again during 1901-1914 possibly 1949 I would say the U.S. had at least the U.K., France and Japan tied or ahead of it. The period from 1950-2000 puts the U.S. far ahead of any other power, I say this as a very educated guess, I'd personally be shocked if the global power from 1991-2000 and 1 of arguably 2 for the last half of what was the 20th century politically was somehow eclipsed in all categories of foreign intervention. Again like OP, I don't see this as purely a negative, a large chunk of these may even be viewed as humanitarian or assisting "freedom fighters" etc. Interesting question, given this was my field of expertise for about a decade I would be extremely curious on a list that exceeded that of the U.S. 1901-2000. Marketdiamond (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the kind of thing where you can come up with a definition that will give any result you want. If you are including covert operations, then it is extremely difficult because even the ones we know about tend to be unconfirmed. --Tango (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course — I fully own up to that. But people have managed to come up with weirder indices in the past, e.g. everything at List of freedom indices. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the less sensitive covert operations eventually gets declassified after a few decades in democratic countries. This almost never happens in undemocratic countries. Hence you will always underestimate the hostility of undemocratic countries.A8875 (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the many parameters to determine a "sane" metric will be the military expenditure budgeted by various nations. On another level, foreign investment can be a tool for intervention. Budgets for relevant branches of the Intelligence agencies may be a further indicator of a specific nation´s interest in "foreign" affairs.

Of course, these metrics (and there are many more) have to be weighted in complex ways. For all I know, the RC church in the Vatican is the most interventionalist entity in proportion to the Holy Sea´s size and population. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Soviet Union would have the most, considering how almost every nation in Eastern Europe was controlled by them during the Cold War. The control was usually achieved just by the threat of violence, but they did use actual force when the threat was insufficient, such as in the Prague Spring. StuRat (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm looking for are metrics, not just blah blah blah opinions. I tried to make that somewhat clear. Let's not turn this into trivia night just because I said "United States." I think it can be taken for a given that I am pretty well-versed in Cold War history. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the US is the most interventionary nation in the 21st century and one of the most in the 20th century when the Soviet Union was a major interventionary power too, Cuba is an example of that, our country was in the front-line of the Cold War, however nowadays Cuba is an example of regime change support policy adopted by US government in recent years, following this objetive they apply to our nation several measurements like the embargo and the inclusion of Cuba in the List of Countries that support Terrorism(¿?)CubanEkoMember (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba has done several interventions of its own, starting with Angola... AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just look at all the innocent people America has killed: 12 Million Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and Homos in the Nazi Holocaust; 6 Million in the Ukranian Holodomor; 60 Million in the Cultural Revolution; a million in the Armenian genocide; 60 Million in WWII, including the 27 million soviet citizens murdered by the US; a million in the Rwandan Genocide; the 2 million dead when the US started the Korean War by invading the Communist North; the 2 million dead in Vietnam when the US attempted to annex the Communist North, like they had subjected the Phillipines to brutal colonization; the 200 Germans shot dead at American hands trying to cross the Berlin Wall; the 1.7 million personally strangled by Richard Nixon in the Cambodian Genocide; The 116,708 American soldiers dead in WWI sacrificed to kill 10 million Europeans in the name of Making the World Safe for American Interventionism; the 19,000 American soldiers, 25,000 Cuban freedom fighters, 45,000 Grenadian soldiers and 24,000 Grenadian civilians or so, by three factors of ten, killed by Reagan's order in the Invasion of Grenada, the 30,000 dead and 30,000 raped in the Yugoslav wars when Bill Clinton decided to stop Slobodan Milosevic from protecting the Muslims, Croats and Albanians; The 8 dead at Jimmy Carter's order in Operation Eagle Claw attempting to make Iran the 57th US state; and, of course, Kent State. </sarcasm> μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I am not sure your response helped the OP find the answer to a very reasonable question. These aggressive and rude answers of yours are starting to become a disruption. Please stop. --Jayron32 02:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "question" itself is a rather longwinded and personally offensive POV soapbox attack based on moral equivalence and equivocation between conquest and self defense. The OP, who challenged his opponents rather coarsely ("if you want to argue") to outright debate, could simply have asked in a neutral way, how many military actions or covert actions was the US involved in in the 20th century. See the MOS. Why didn't you shut this down in the first place and suggest a properly worded query? If he wants to reword his question neutrally I will be quite happy to hat mine. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he did the exact opposite of that. He's asked several times if anyone has come up with a scholarly metric to measure the concept of intervention, and has stated several times he's not really interested in debate. So, I'm not sure what words you are reading, because the words the OP posted didn't invite the sort of vitriol you have posted here. In fact, the OP has asked a very reasonable question, and worded it quite neutrally. You're tilting at windmills here. --Jayron32 03:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody to my knowledge has come up with a sane method of quantitative weighting of foreign interventions. As you already know, the standard methods of dealing with these issues are non-quantitative. Attempts to produce quantitative metrics in political science or political history for the large scale actions of states are often dodgy as all hell (democide anyone?). The unit of analysis for large scale state caused premature human mortality has shifted to the individual massacre, and this is being held forth by persons working in the area as superior from methodological and theoretical perspectives (and they're liberal-enlightenment instrumentalists generally in terms of theoretical background). Given the particular attention given to mortality studies, I would expect that areas such as state interventions have an even less well developed critique of large scale attempts at quantitative analysis. Obviously, you're aware of theoretical and methodological fallacies associated with poor quality qualitative coding issues. My personal experience has been that qualitative categories are often poorly developed prior to use, and are less well structured to analyse complex human social interactions (particularly aggregate ones), than methods rooted in the analysis of large volumes of discursive primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the entire 2,000 byte query, and we obviously disagree, Jayron. I think "if you want to argue" is inappropriate, but argued with supportive links as requested, and you think it isn't, unsw. I have made myself clear, am sure no one misunderstands what I have said, will be happy if the thread as a whole is hatted as intentionally attackatory, and am otherwise entirely uninterested in further discussion. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the dismissive or "My way or the highway"-type response. The "if you want to argue" was a request that any such arguments be supported by reason and not the knee-jerk utterances we see far too many of around here. In Ref Desk-speak, we'd interpret that as a request for referenced statements rather than unreferenced opinions. A perfectly reasonable and appropriate request. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, "my way or the highway"? Who is screaming whose contribution shouldn't even be read? Mr98 invited debate and I gave it, with plenty of articles, whose information I read in each case (see my figures) and am happy to stand on. Anyone who wants can read the links I gave and determine for themselves the impact or not of American "interventionism". (The word itself is meant to blur the distinction between conquest and defense; but I already said that; and you already know it.) I mean, really. Frankly, Jack, you are the last person I would expect to defend someone's right to explicitly invite debate, and then, instead of criticizing the invitation, attack the person who took it up. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't invite debate. He asked for scholarly studies. And your response was to be rude and combative and sarcastic and snide. --Jayron32 04:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I saw that statement as an attempt to keep rhetoric and polemics to a minimum and stick to the facts. It was the exact opposite of an invitation to debate, except for those who choose to interpret things uber-literally when it suits them. And you dare to insist the ref desks stick to the rules about "no debates", not even if requested, or you'll have us shut down. Please. This is what I mean about "my way". You justify your debating on the (spurious) grounds that it was requested, but nobody else can ever use that defence. Where's the "pestilence" now? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These datasets for 1946-2005 may be helpful, googling on the two pairs of scholars involved should help too. The omitted earlier part of the 20th century is easier, I think. The two great wars of course. But many might not realize how much the USA was only potentially a great military power in the interwar years - although of course still the hemispheric power - with something like only the 15th largest army in the world, able to be treated with rather less respect than nowadays as in say the USS Panay incident. So with the interwar isolationism, the main interventions would be Latin America, and I think at a lower level than any other time in the century, while this was not true of the other powers at that time.John Z (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To endorse what Fifelfoo said about the coding difficulties and because the OP mentioned Britain in the 1880s, I'll just point out that the standard response of the British to the first hint of trouble was "to send a gunboat". How do you classify interventions pre-empted by threat? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Alemayehu

What religion was Prince Alemayehu raised in? His native Ethiopian Orthodox faith or in the Protestant faith of his country of exile? And what has been the United Kingdom's response to the request of Ethiopia for his reinterment in Ethiopia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The royal household were "considering the request" in 2007 [6], since when there seems to have been silence. I'd also be interested to know about the prince's religious upbringing (but the Church of England is not a Protestant faith). Marnanel (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That last clause (the part in brackets) is highly contentious. I don't want to derail this discussion though: our article on Anglicanism is a good place to see the different POVs. Matt's talk 10:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find anything definite, but here is what I did find in case it’s of interest or suggests better search terms.

1. The Church Of England Magazine, 1 Jan 1870, says “They were being conveyed to the coast, with a view to their proceeding to Bombay; but the queen died on the journey. One of her last acts was to commit her son to the especial charge of captain Speedy, and make him promise that the child should be brought up in the Christian faith. Her majesty queen Victoria, having heard the circumstances, intimated her desire that Alamayu should be brought to England.” (Unclear if the magazine meant a specific denomination by this, or if Alemayehu’s mother did…)

2. Colburn's United Service Magazine and Naval and Military Journal, Volume 38, page 267 includes a protest against the idea of Alemayehu being sent to a Presbyterian school: “It was at first proposed to send him to Bombay to be educated by the Rev. Dr. Wilson. But we are pleased that this scheme was never carried out, convinced as we are that it would have ended in the youth being sent when older, to proselytise his compatriots in a Calvinistic direction.”

3. In the end, Englishman Tristram Speedy was the guardian and the prince lived with him in England and India until going to Rugby School. I haven’t found anything about Speedy’s own religion, but Allen’s Indian Mail, 16 July 1868 says that Alemayehu had an Ethiopian companion, Shellika Kassa, with him at least in the early days in England.

4. I couldn’t find whether the prince at Rugby might have been excused from chapel.

5. This is fiction, but the author is contactable and might reveal her source. In The Prince Who Walked with Lions, she wrote “I sometimes wonder if [Speedy] knew as much about Abyssinia or our Coptic religion as he thought he did.” It could be totally made up, but she seems to have reason to believe the intention was to raise the prince in his own religion, but the execution was not really possible.

NB for other googlers: the spellings “Alamayou”, :”Alamayu”, “Alamaiou” are all variations from the actual period. Taknaran (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of historical North-South conflicts?

Hi, I'm wondering if there is an archive of conflicts/tensions between the North and South parts of regions. This can be at a local, national, or even continental level. Some examples of North-South conflicts/tensions include: North and South Korea, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, cultural differences between North India and South India, Sudan and South Sudan, the American Civil War Nkiita (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to be a rather arbitrary way to categorize conflicts. I don't know that there's anything special about North-South compared to other directions, per se. I imagine one could find conflicts between easts and wests or conflicts where the direction doesn't play into it at all. --Jayron32 23:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the division of East and West Germany, or currently Western Sahara and Morocco. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although Western Sahara is located south of Morocco... --Xuxl (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, North Vietnam versus South Vietnam. Gabbe (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though Morocco controls the Western parts of Western Sahara, and the Polisario Front controls the Eastern parts. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North–South Centre might be of interest. If you search for "north-south dialogue" you'll find some other links. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Harrying of the North, which goes a long way towards explaining the North-South divide in England. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the north-south divide in England was entrenched through till the Tudors, with a separate Privy Council. And Scottish nationalism is gaining in strength (Welsh too, so it's an east west thing too). Medieval France also had separate governmental structures in North and South (langue d'oc and langue d'oil). North and south of Italy don't always get on well, and there is a party called League of the North. In Belgium the division between Wallonia and Flanders is sort of north-east south-west, I think. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Québec nationalism (although geographically that's kind of "in-the-middle-but-somewhat-to-the-east" vs. "most-of-the-middle-and-west-plus-a-small-bit-east").

Or the Partition of India; being the "middle vs. the outside". --Jayron32 18:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]