Humanities desk
< July 3	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 5 >

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.

July 4

Approximate number of STANAG magazines manufactured annually in the US

I'm trying to find the approximate number of STANAG magazines manufactured annually in the US. Alternatively, the number of such magazines sold annually would also suffice as an approximation, since imports and exports are essentially negligible. I found some excellent data[1][2][3] regarding the number of firearms manufactured, but can't seem to find any useful data regarding firearm magazines.

I asked this question previously. My other car is a cadr (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing the floor

Have there ever been (recorded) instances of an MP changing party affiliaton in the midst of a debate and literally crossing the floor?--The Theosophist (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill crossed the floor publicly, to the applause and boos of the appropriate sides; I don't know if this were in the middle of a debate, but it was a literal floor-crossing. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You sure about that? Source I'm looking at says Churchill "entered the Chamber and, without prior notice, sat on the opposition benches with the Liberal Party." On the other hand, "In 1981, Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler concluded a speech by crossing the floor to join the Social Democratic Party from the Conservatives." Traditions and customs of the House: House of Commons Background Paper. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been several years since I read of the incident; apparently I misremembered. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's happened numerous times in the Australian Parliament (the relevant section of the House of Reps Practice is here). It can be a career-ending or -limiting move, but some pollies still have principles. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct term for this relationship?

I am trying to identify a cousin-related term for the daughter of the sister of my mom's brother's wife. Can someone help me on this? 221.13.204.254 (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presuming the relationship is between you and her? I'd consider she was your cousin-in-law, but there's no blood or legal relationship between you. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

|

Adam

Agatha

Luke

Laura

Betty

Ben

Charles

Corinda

Mark

Maud

David

Emma

Nicola

[ec] See Cousin#Additional terms, and the diagram under "Maternal cousin". The relationship you describe is that of "David" and "Nicola" in that diagram, who, according to the article, "would only be related if they share a common ancestor." To spell it out:

Your mom's brother ("Charles" in the diagram) is your uncle.

Your mom's brother's wife ("Corinda") is your aunt-by-marriage.

Your mom's brother's wife's sister ("Mark" in the diagram - a brother rather than a sister, but it doesn't affect the relationship) is not related to you by blood or marriage (although it's reasonable to call her an "aunt"). Neither is her daughter ("Nicola") related to you; it's reasonable to call her a "cousin", but she'll only be something like a twenty-sixth cousin, and finding that number will mean tracing back your aunt-by-marriage's family tree until it rejoins yours. Tevildo (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Step-cousin ? StuRat (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to tell from the chart how far back the connection could be. The ones at the top could be siblings or first cousins or whatever. Lacking further info, in cases like this they're "in-laws of in-laws", and it's convenient to consider them "cousins" as the term "cousin" covers a lot of ground. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mother's family (quite large and complicated) jokingly uses the phrase "the in-laws and the out-laws" when collectively referring to those who have no direct blood relationship, and yet are considered part of the extended family. When referring to these "relatives" individually (or when addressing them) we simplify things by using the catch-all "cousin"... as in: "Good to see you again, Cousin Fred". Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am missing something, Nicola is David's cousin's cousin. This situation came up often when I was young, and that's how we always expressed the relationship. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but if we take Emma out of the picture, i.e. if Charles and Corinda were childless, where would we be then? No cousin to be a cousin of. ReverendWayne (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find the SET-plan budget

On Energy_policy_of_the_European_Union#SET_Plan, the article (before my edits) mentioned that the SET plan budget should be out in late 2008. I searched EUR-Lex but I could not find it. Can somebody tell me how to find something like that in EUR-Lex? --Ysangkok (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of 61 Communards shipyard in Odessa

There is a shipyard in Mykolayiv, Ukraine, named during the Soviet Union for "61 Communards". I've just read the Communards and Paris Commune articles, but I can't find any reference to a group of 61. Guessing they might have been victims of a summary execution during the reconquest of Paris by the regular army, but can anyone confirm that? 213.205.251.251 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of order, or something like that, since starting to learn Russian it's always annoyed me that we translate names involving "imeni" as such awkward Boratisms. The meaning is clear, and it's not like we don't name things after heroes or events in the West. Written from fairly close to "square in name of great battle Trafalgar", London. 213.205.251.251 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might be better on the article talk page, but the most official name of the shipyard is "State Enterprise 'Shipyard named after 61 Communards'", according to their website. Other sources use more reasonable translations, such as "The 61 Communards Shipyard", which might be a better title for our article. Finding information to answer the OP's question isn't proving easy - would it have been announced in Izvestia? Tevildo (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! According to this article (which calls it "the 61 Communards Shipyard"), it was named after "strikers who took it over and closed it down during the 1905 Revolution." So, no connection with Paris apart from the name. Tevildo (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, "When on July, 14th, 1905 [ OS ] the rebellious battleship [ Potemkin ] has lifted mutiny, workers of Nikolaev have supported the risen seamen mass strikes." This may have been the incident that Stalin decided to commemorate. Tevildo (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, while I have nothing to contribute to this, I just NEED to exclaim that I toured part of this shipyard yesterday. Amazing coincidence. 217.76.196.150 (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the Monument of the 61 Communards here, although they seem to have only got around to two of them. Alansplodge (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do illegal migrants have good reason to head for the UK, as opposed to other stable countries?

Another one! :-) There are now several thousand illegal migrants hanging around the ferry port in Calais, desperate to get into Britain by any means available. Regardless if they would all qualify as proper refugees, I'm not disputing that they had sensible reasons for wanting to get into Europe. But by this point they are in France, and presumably most have come through other European countries to get there. Are they completely deluded in holding out for Britain, or does it make sense for them to resist claiming asylum somewhere on the Continent? 213.205.251.251 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English is the international language of business. They might figure they'll fare better immersed in that than French, German or whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous, unsourced piece of guesswork. Try this article instead for some actual answers, e.g. admiration of British society, perceived less racism, existence of ethnic communities that they can fit into, perceived better state education, number of minority ethnic MPs, etc. --Viennese Waltz 22:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source, less ridiculous now. Immigrants to the UK must pass an English test. French immigrants must pass a French test. If there's more English in the global media (and it seems there is), it stands to reason more people could more easily pass the English one. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But who says they're "illegal migrants"? You have to actually cross the borders of a country, and do so contrary to the laws of that country, to become "illegal". If all they're doing at this stage is contemplating migrating to the UK, there's nothing illegal about thinking. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The French and UK governments say they're illegal as they have entered France (and the EU) illegally and wish to further enter the UK illegally. Nanonic (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing illegal? Seriously though, have we considered whether they think snow's a real good thing? Britain's a bit colder than Africa and South Asia, but nothing compared to mountain Europe's chilling effect (literally, not this). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons, chief amongst those reported is the lower unemployment rate compared to France (that is, they believe they would have better job prospects in the UK). Tied in with this is that a lot of them know a small amount of English but no French at all so the UK is more attractive. A third reason is that it is seen to be easier to declare a wish to seek asylum in the UK. Some also mention the hostile attitude to them in France. See [4], [5], [6] and [7]. Nanonic (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a very general and possibly useless answer, consider everything's tendency toward the path of least resistance. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually it's the path of MOST resistance, because France and most other EU countries are in the Schengen Area, so once you're inside, there are open borders; however, the UK won't be doing with any of that malarky and still has border controls at the English Channel which serves us "as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands". Alansplodge (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the easiest path, geopolitically, but not as hard as trekking to Northern Scandinavia. Particularly if they don't like snow and prefer speaking English. Also remember, any path that doesn't lead to the right destination is a dead end. Water is fine flowing that way, but humans are far needier. They'll take the easiest path to where they want to go. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that once you get inside the Schengen Area, you can legally go where you like, however to get to the UK you have to conceal yourself on a lorry somehow, a process that has killed several wannabe Britons. Examples: Sudanese migrant crushed on M25 after hiding under lorry, Two migrants burn to death while hiding inside lorry bound for Britain after it bursts into flames in France, Migrant crushed by lorry; at least 17 killed this year and the worst example from 2000; 58 dead in port lorry Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood your point, generally, but thanks for the specifics. My general point was just that if the place you'd like to go isn't in the Area, you can't go where you'd like. Sometimes stowing away makes things easier, but yes, sometimes much harder. Tricky to generalize what's easier for everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it known how many percent try for Britain and how many say the Continent's enough? Why don't the strongest wait for the point of maximum temperature and then swim to the Channel Islands after midnight on a moonless night and navigate by the North Star, lol. I'm sure the French coast and Jersey is less well guarded than Calais. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBC article on the relative merits of Britain v France for migrants: [8]. 04:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Long time later and this may have been mentioned in one of the refs but doesn't seem to be mentioned here, another advantage the UK has over France and some but not all other EU countries, that I saw mentioned on a news report earlier today, is the lack of ID cards. (Not because they are super concerned about civil liberties but because it makes it easier for such an illegal/undocumented migrant to work and live when there's no expectation you'll have such a card when you obviously won't have a real one.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]