Humanities desk
< February 22	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 24 >

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.

February 23

Soviet women's national teams

Why the USSR had no women's national teams in football, ice hockey, etc? Ain't woman's business? :) --93.174.25.12 (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just the USSR... in those days, no one had national women's teams in those sports. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's correct.

First I presume the OP who is apparently from Poland is referring to Association football since they are from Poland and very few other forms of football have any significant widespread involvement of national teams even in mens tournaments to this day, or are otherwise unlikely to be called football unqualified in a case like this by most people.

The European Competition For Representative Women's Teams as it was then known has existed since 1984. The England women's national football team played it's first international match in 1972 (depending on what you count), the team was under the WFA, since the FA had only just allowed women to play on their football fields again, I don't think this is particularly surprising or discounts them being a women's national team. And there were unofficial European championships in 1969 and later years, as well as a Nordic championship since 1974 [1]. The United States women's national soccer team played their first game in 1985 (again possibly depending on what you count).

However the OP isn't quite correct. The Soviet Union women's national football team did exist albeit only for a very short time. Still it's clear it was quite late compared to a number of other countries hence why it could only exist for a short time.

For ice hockey there was the unofficial 1987 World Women's Hockey Tournament. Even the official first IIHF World Women's Championships was held just before the dissolution. So the possibility for a national team was there as other countries did have one at least a few years before the dissolution.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secrecy of execution statistics

I'm aware that I have asked about this topic several times over the years, but after reading a Listverse article, the topic again caught my attention. China is believed to execute more people per year than the rest of the world combined. According to several sources (including my own Reference desk questions; check the archives), they keep their execution statistics a state secret, which to my knowledge is highly unusual in current history (according to my previous questions, China is currently the only country that keeps execution statistics secret, although some sources online suggest that Vietnam, Belarus, and historically Mongolia also follow this practice, although in the case of Belarus, there does not appear to be an official policy regarding secrecy of execution statistics).

My question is no longer about what other countries keep execution statistics secret (although further answers to this topic are also appreciated). My questions are: 1. At least in recent history, is the practice of keeping execution statistics secret by countries common? Was it common in the 20th century? This obviously excludes executions that were done in secret, or executions that were denied to have happened, only publicly confirmed executions. 2. If only China (and perhaps the aforementioned countries) keep executions secret, then why has the practice of secrecy regarding execution statistics not caught on elsewhere? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it hasn't? If it was truly secret, you wouldn't know about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your last question, execution statistics have generally not been kept secret because execution, like most punishment, is intended to have a deterrent effect. As our capital punishment article notes, historically, executions were often carried out in public. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good reason to keep some executions secret would be if their legitimacy might be called into question. The deterrent factor would be that of people disappearing without a trace. Which is by no means limited to a place like China. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The military dictatorship that ruled over Argentina in the late 1970s and early 1980s was infamous for "disappearing" people. See Dirty War. --Xuxl (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 -- the obvious reason why it's not spreading to more countries is that it not only violates basic principles of democratic transparency, but also the desire to see justice be done. The Japanese government famously keeps the dates of executions secret until shortly before they are to take place, and even that's aggravating enough in its way... AnonMoos (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays when an American is sentenced to death, a date is set, but then a long, drawn-out appeal process can begin which tends to reset the date many times. Does Japan take years to carry out a death sentence, or does it happen fairly quickly? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we have an encyclopaedia at our disposal. Let's look at .... oh, Capital punishment in Japan and head for the stays of execution section to discover more! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the Rambling Man, that the encyclopedia you linked is absolutely amazing. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a minor note - or so I hope. There is another way of looking at secret executions. For most of history, and until too recently for comfort, especially in less literate societies, executions were seldom written down. There was no official policy of secrecy, executions where simply not always considered noteworthy enough to write about. Even after WWII, Indians in South America were persecuted and killed in great numbers without any official statistical records about it. This was easily done, since they had no birth records, no social security numbers, no officially written way to identify any individual Indian. The same may well be true, even today, in some areas of the world. Is every individual person in the world today registered by birth, death, and cause of death today? If not, there is still room for executions or state murders not being known, and still not being officially "secret". DanielDemaret (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is possibly yet another reason for the importance of that amazing encyclopedia that The Rambling Man mentioned above. To record things like this, so people do not forget what has happened. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare

I have a book titled The Works of Shakespeare. It was published my T.Y. Crowell and the glossary was prepared by the Rev. J.M. Jephsen. There is no year in the book and I am trying to find out when it may have been published.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.154.203 (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may help. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montrose Baptist Church in Rockville, MD

Montrose Baptist Church has a fascinating and convoluted history. At least one of its pastors, whose first sermon I heard in person, turned out to be even worse than I suspected at that time, though the church members seemed to be taken in. SOMEONE SHOULD RESEARCH and WRITE an ENTRY on that church. Identify it here: http://www.montroseministries.org/ I never did join and have no connections there, but it would be very helpful for people new to the Rockville/North Silver Spring, MD, area, to be able to read its history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.61.96 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it would. If the subject is notable and there are enough reliable sources, why not write the article yourself? Just remember to always use a neutral POV and remain disinterested. Matt Deres (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not publish exposés, because they are by definition WP:original research. If there is reliable published material about the Church, then Wikipedia may have an article summarising what those sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 tax and fraud convictions are verifiable.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/pastor-sentenced-to-3-years-for-tax-evasion-fraud/article/93626

An article author would need to address notability

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine peacefully coexist with both European Union and Russia

Is it possible for Ukraine peacefully coexist with both European Union and Russia or is it already doom?

I for really want to know because to me this is the best of both worlds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 22:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most things are possible, but this is in the realm of speculation and we don't do that here. Sorry. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine can certainly "peacefully coexist" with both, but it can't be strongly aligned with both at the same time -- EU membership would be incompatible with a strong Ukraine-Russia alliance... AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect there is a possibility Europe will invade the Ukraine? Do you expect there is a possibility the Ukraine will attack Europe? Do you expect that the Ukraine will attack Russia? Do you expect there is a possibility that Russia will invade the Ukraine? Which of those seems like a possibility to you? We cannot offer predictions, but we can answer more specific questions than the one you have asked. μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there was some possibility Russia might have sent in troops "at the request of the government of the Ukraine". However, the timing being during the Winter Olympics in Sochi, they really didn't want to launch an invasion at the time, and now that Yanukovich has been booted out, it seems the window for an invasion has passed, as there would no longer be the pretext of having been asked to help "fight terrorists". So, the Ukraine may owe it's independence and democracy to the Olympics StuRat (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source please stu. Shadowjams (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Limited support for Stu here: Op-Ed "Don’t Let Putin Grab Ukraine" TIMOTHY SNYDER http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/opinion/dont-let-putin-grab-ukraine.html --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries that have land borders with the Russian Federation are neutral or have close western ties, and co-exist peacefully with Russia, such as Norway, Finland, Estonia and Latvia (also Lithuania and Poland that border Kaliningrad Oblast). Most are full EU members. They are all smaller than Ukraine. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term, if they join the EU, I'd expect Russia to cancel contracts, reduce diplomatic contacts, etc. But, in the long term, they are likely to see that a strong trade relationship would be mutually beneficial and restore full relations (this might have to wait for Putin to leave, though). StuRat (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Eastern half of what is now Ukraine was formerly Russian, including the Crimean peninsula, which is a huge sticking point for Russian nationalists. It's no coincidence Yanukhovich fled to eastern Ukraine when he was deposed. Russia has long had hegemony of Ukraine, so much so that the name itself means borderland. Historically what is now eastern Ukraine was Russian, Cossack, and Ottoman, and the Crimean War was fought by Moscow to wrest the land from the Turks. Even after the 1991 Revolution it was a matter of pride for Russia not to give up the Black Sea port of Sevastopol. No KGB agent in power wants part of his legacy to be the loss of historically Great Russian land to the Little Russians. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your answers to my question here. In which some of them were what I was looking for and others weren't. Of course didn't mean with all out war, but meant with all out peacefully or whatever its called.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on current events, it looks like Ukraine may well split up, with Crimea going back to Russia. This also happened with Transnistria breaking off of Moldavia, and could bring in Russian intervention, say if the Ukraine won't let the Crimea go, and Crimea then asks for Russian help to achieve independence. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]