Humanities desk
< January 16	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 18 >

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.

January 17

Is there a list of red states and blue states (Republican states and Democrat states)?

Does Wikipedia have an article with a list that breaks down which of the 50 U.S. states are considered red versus blue (or Republican versus Democrat)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I already saw this article: Red states and blue states. I am looking for an actual list that says: Alabama = red state; Arkansas = blue state; etc., for all fifty states. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's possible, because:

1) It changes over time, and with the candidates each party puts up.

2) Some are on the fence, so aren't reliably blue or red.

3) It depends on if you're talking about how they vote in Presidential elections, for Governor, or for other local, state, or federal offices.

4) It depends on who did the Gerrymandering last and what voter suppression laws (no article ?) have been put into place. StuRat (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Voter suppression. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm not sure what information a list will tell you that the maps do not. And the question itself is too vague. It depends on how you want to define "red and blue states". States carried by a particular party in the last election, almost four years ago? States which currently have two senators from the same party? Republican vs Democrat majorities in state legislatures? Each definition would result in a different list/map. Take Iowa, for example. Carried by the democrat in 2012 (blue?), both senators are republican (red?), upper house of state legislature controlled by democrats (blue?), republican governor (red?).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamThweatt: You state: "I'm not sure what information a list will tell you that the maps do not." Yes, that's exactly the point. The information is already "out there". I just need it in a list form, as opposed to a map picture. Same information; different way to present it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's imprecise, of course. Perhaps the list does not need all 50 states. I am sure that some states are "notoriously" red or blue. For example, California is a highly liberal, Democratic blue state. Any list -- regardless of how complied -- will declare it such. So, I am sure many states have a "reputation" and are "known" for being consistently red (or blue). No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even California has had many Republican governors, including Ronald Reagan. So it's not as simple as you want to make it. For another example, many of the New England states might be considered liberal, but that blends into libertarian, and the Republican party seems popular with many libertarians, such as Ron Paul. StuRat (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one is claiming this to be "simple" and "clear cut" ("black and white"). But I am quite sure that some states are "known" to be red (or blue). Obviously, there is no "official" designation as such. It's just based on historical data, I assume. If "they" can say so with a map, "they" can just as easily say so with a list. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like that: "Whether a state is red or blue is not a simply black and white matter". I suppose we could also say that "Most formerly gray (Confederate) states are now red, while most formerly blue (Union) states are still blue". And green (environmentally responsible) states tend to also be blue. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

""Known" to be red (or blue)"? But you still haven't told us how you're defining "red" and "blue". Presidential politics in the last election? Current presidential polling? Congressional politics? State politics? It really varies by year and by what people are voting for. And to just simply say "California is a highly liberal, Democrat blue state" is misleading. The two major population centers (the San Francisco metro area and LA) are highly liberal, the rest of the state, including most of San Diego, Orange county, the inland valleys, the foothill communities and Northern California are decidedly conservative/libertarian. If you want a more accurate picture of the US, take a look at this 2004 map or this 2012 map.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, if "they" can create maps distinguishing red from blue (as on this page: Red states and blue states), they can just as easily create a chart/table. No difference. It gives the same information, albeit in different form. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key is the plural "s" in "maps". The are many, not just "a list", each of which are clearly labeled as to year(s) and what specific area of politics they're meant to represent. Unless a list is likewise clearly defined with a title or explanation it is meaningless at best, misleading at worst. If you would simply tell us what year(s) and what criteria you would like "red" and "blue" to represent, we could find you a meaningful list.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to pin down a year, I will say current (2016) Presidential election. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swing state is a pretty good indicator of the states that have tended to fluctuate in recent years. The other states are more solid one way or another, so the presidential candidates tend to focus their efforts on the swing states. A reasonably good indicator of red vs. blue is which side(s) their US senators fall. It's a better indicator than the US House of Representatives, because senators are elected at-large within their given state; the party in power in a given state can't gerrymander the US Senate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, with all the caveats given above, here's a list, from "most blue" to "most red": [1]. This is based on the 2012 Presidential elections. Of course, there are always distortions, and Utah having the highest percentage of votes for Romney might have more to do with him being a Mormon, and Utah being largely Mormon, than Utah being red. StuRat (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting graphic. Thanks. And I see that indeed California is high up on the list for "blue". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that particular election, yes. It's drawing the conclusion that it therefore must always vote Democratic wherein lies the flaw. StuRat (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Can anyone show me a list where California is grouped with the "reds"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_United_States_presidential_election_results_by_state#Chronological_table shows they voted for Republican presidents for 20 years straight, from 1968-1988. StuRat (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To see recent trends, List of current United States Senators has a useful graphic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting charts. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Apostasy in Islam through inaction

Many people have been imprisoned or executed for apostasy in Islamic countries, but I was wondering whether anyone had been punished for inaction rather than explicit actions. The Apostasy in Islam article lists many actions for which people were punished, e.g. converting to another religion, questioning Sharia laws, explicit renunciation of Islam etc, but there's no reference to people being punished for inaction, i.e. no longer praying five times a day. Has there been such a case? That is, someone who was punished for simply stopping praying but did not tell anyone about his inaction nor explain why he's no longer doing what he's supposed to be doing.731Butai (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be apostasy, which is converting to another religion. I suppose one could argue that not attending the mosque shows that they have converted to some other religion, but that would mean attacking lots of people who are just lazy, etc. StuRat (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's my understanding too, but then the first sentence in Apostasy in Islam says otherwise: "Apostasy in Islam is commonly defined as the conscious abandonment of Islam by a Muslim in word or through deed." So "stopped praying five times a day" definitively falls within this particular definition of apostasy. That's not what I understand apostasy to be, which is why I'm asking the question above. 731Butai (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how not attending the mosque constitutes "conscious abandonment of Islam", anymore that not going to church constitutes "conscious abandonment of Christianity". The term "nonpracticing Christian" is often used in this case. StuRat (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New Testament says nothing about mandatory church attendance on Sundays, but the Quran does make praying five times a day mandatory.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I'll wait for a third and fourth opinion on whether no longer praying constitutes "conscious abandonment of Islam" or not. 731Butai (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violating the rules doesn't mean they have abandoned the religion. Does violating the Ten Commandments mean one is no longer a Christian ? StuRat (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat you are wrong. The source of your error is that you think you can apply universal logic to answer the question. But the question is a question of jurisprudence, not one of logic. Mahmoud Mohammed Taha was executed in Sudan for apostasy in 1985. Yet he never explicitly renounced Islam. He simply advocated that Medinan suras be given a different status than Meccan suras. Ok, this does not answer the OP's question as that wasn't exactly "inaction" but that wasn't renouncing Islam either, so at least that shows StuRat is wrong. Contact Basemetal here 08:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that demonstrates that Islamic justice, like all systems of justice, are run by men, who misuse those systems of justice to settle scores, hurt their enemies, and aid their friends, rather than illuminating a philosophical point about apostasy. - Nunh-huh 14:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the judgement of that Sudanese court was flawed and you know Islam better than them. Dismissing the judgement of a court just because it does not fit your idea of Islam is not proper methodology and if you think that "philosophical" speculations, whether by Muslims or non-Muslims, trumps the decision of Islamic courts, then you've got to learn about Islam a bit more. Contact Basemetal here 15:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like those people were thrown out of power, so the public passed their own judgment on it. It's odd that the article doesn't state the means of execution, although hanging seems to be implied. It's also worth noting that this kind of thing is what Catholic leaders did to "heretics" a few centuries ago. Silencing dissenters is not unique to any religion or other powerful entity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, is it that becoming an atheist is not considered apostasy? Surely a Muslim who would become atheist, would just stop praying five times a day and do nothing, he would then not be considered a Muslim anymore, although the reason he's not a Muslim anymore is not that he chose another religion? Akseli9 (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming an atheist is certainly apostasy, but may not be actionable unless made public. Not following all the perceived requirements of a religion is not apostasy. Many christians are in adulterous relationships, many catholics eat meat on Fridays, many jews get bacon and eggs for breakfast or a cheeseburger for lunch, without renouncing their religion. Likewise, there are many muslim people who think they are and claim to be and are accepted by their community as muslim, who don't pray five times a day, but go, maybe, to the Friday prayer at a local mosque every other week. Of course there are some religious communities that are less tolerant, but then we had christian communities which thought that not properly drowning made you a witch that should be burned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen claims that (for example) someone who does not participate in obligatory jihad (defensive jihad), and especially one who is trying to convince others to adopt the same position, should be considered an apostate. Failing to pray five times a day, or not praying at all, that I have not seen declared to be grounds for being considered an apostate. Not every violation of an Islamic obligation constitutes grounds for apostasy. I think the general idea of the jurists is that a private violation of an Islamic obligation, with no attempt to try and convince others to do the same (as opposed to an action or lack of action that is perceived as endangering the Islamic community or as weakening the faith and loyalty of other Muslims) would not be considered to be apostasy. But again, keep in mind Islam is a religion of law and of jurisprudence. When answering questions like this one you cannot just go by your common sense and your sense of what would or wouldn't seem to be logical. Btw, the obligation of the five daily prayers is not quranic. But that doesn't make any difference. Things can be obligatory or forbidden even if they're not in the Quran. The Quran is only one of the sources. Others are Hadith, Sira, Tafsir, and jurisprudence. (Depending on the branch of Islam). Again: in final analysis, it is Islamic jurisprudence, the authorized opinion of an authorized jurist, that determines what is obligatory or not, forbidden or not, etc. Do not rely on your own reasoning (unless you are an Islamic jurist authorized to offer opinions on such matters) because that's not how Islam works. To be sure there are differing opinions even among jurists who are equally authorized (in some community) not to mention differing opinions as to which jurists are authorized, but the basic pattern is the same. Even Daesh relies on a "fatwa committee" or whatever it's called. So let's not complicate matters even more. The bit about the witch is nonsense. What Christian community was that? If you're gonna argue that "Christianity-is-as-bad-as-Islam-or-even-worse" that's fine, but don't do it by taking your information about Islam from honest sources with your information about Christianity coming from Monty Python. Contact Basemetal here 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not "as bad" (although I'd probably argue that too, in a pinch), but "as diverse". As you say, there are different branches and different authorities (and traditions) within each branch. My point is that it's fallacious to generalise from single examples to "Islam" (or even "Christianity") as a whole.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from maybe a few extremists, Muslims would not consider such inaction to constitute apostasty. However, there are some hadiths from respected hadith collections (such as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) that mention something similar to what you are asking: "Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hand my soul is I was about to order for collecting fire-wood (fuel) and then order Someone to pronounce the Adhan for the prayer and then order someone to lead the prayer then I would go from behind and burn the houses of men who did not present themselves for the (compulsory congregational) prayer." (from Bukhari 1.11.617) and "The Prophet added, "Certainly I decided to order the Mu'adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses."" (from Muslim 1.1.626) - Lindert (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lindert. Finally someone who's bringing some sources to the table! A caveat though: the sources are often contradictory. How contradictions are resolved is a matter of jurisprudence. Of course a careful study of the sources can tell us where the jurisprudence is likely to go (in a given historical, cultural, political context, etc.), but ultimately Islam relies on judicial opinions or fatwas. It's a legal religion. It's about the same with the Jews. They always say "Ask your rabbi". No matter how carefully you read the sources you can't rely on your own opinion unless you are yourself both trained and authorized to do so. And if a rabbi feels he is stumped and can't answer he will ask for the advice of a more learned rabbi, etc. There is a huge literature of such "responsa". It's about the same in Islam. Contact Basemetal here 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article in the Economist (which I believe does fact checking) says prosecutions are generally for specifically promoting unbelief. But you should read - it discusses specific laws in specific countries, Quran texts, etc. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what do US troops do with leftover MREs?

The presence of highly industrialized packaging in a Meal, Ready to Eat would seem to give away the presence of US troops who might be trying to avoid being tracked. Do they just stuff their trash in a special part of their knapsack until it can be disposed of safely? Is there a standard protocol? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of paratroopers burying parachutes to avoid detection, so that might be one option, but taking the time to bury everything might not always be possible. StuRat (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC

It's not impossible, but rather hard to come up with a situation where the general presence of the troops is not known, they have time to eat MREs, but no time to handle the thrash. But in general, I'd say the solution is to put the thrash where the food came from unless it can be disposed of safely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if the general presence is known, it doesn't mean you aren't going to give away information by careless disposal of trash, e.g. when out on a somewhat secretive patrol or operation. However I would agree that while you'd normally want to travel as light as possible, the logical thing to do would be to put the trash back where the food came from until it can be disposed of without being a concern. You should still be decreasing weight and volume of your pack as you eat, just not so much. The only time when this may not work would be if supplies are being airdropped or otherwise obtained on the go in a manner where you can't just dispose of the trash when picking up fresh supplies, which would I presume be very rare.

These sources, although not all are the US armed forces or government, do mention trash or litter disciple [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Note that the last one is a bit spammy. The second last is old but does mention burial, however most of the other sources including the government ones seem to suggest carrying it around until it can be disposed of. The first one is particularly interesting, it seems some go as far as to defacate into the used MRE bags and carry that around, in that case I guess there would be an increase in volume and weight of what you're carrying around over time (presuming you're collecting water). BTW, litter discipline seems to more commonly be used by government sources, normally along with noise and light; in particular practice noise, light and litter discipline (the code for some parts of the US military seems to be 071-331-0815).

Presuming you're from an established operations base, once you return it may be disposed of via burning. Or at least this was commonly done in Afghanistan and Iraq [9] Burn pit. For the MRE packaging, not so much for secrecy reasons of course but simply as an easy way to get rid of it. (If you're lucky, they'll dispose of it via incineration or something hopefully a bit safer.)

Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand the rationale for defecating into bags and carrying that around. What we're talking about is not eliminating all traces as it would be in any case almost impossible to eliminate all traces, footprints, etc. so perfectly as to throw experienced trackers off the scent (sorry for this) but only eliminating whatever can help identify them as American soldiers. Unless the enemy is able to carry out lab test on fecal matter (and, note, in the field and in a timely fashion) how could they ever tell it wasn't a local who left that behind? Contact Basemetal here 20:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're presuming that the enemy would resonably expect to find any human faecal matter in the area. If they would not, and they have a resonable belief that their enemy is the only one in the area (or at least the only one that likely to defecate in the wild like that), then yes, finding such traces would give them a fair idea of where their enemy has been and that they're somewhat on the right path. Notably if there is more than one person in the group and they defecate in the same places (perhaps after resting or sleeping), that would give even greater confidence, particularly if the enemy knows how many people they are pursuing. Age may also be a factor, even if it's possible someone has defecated there, how likely is it that it was recent compared to your enemies if you know they are in the area? I'm not an expert on tracking, but I suspect even someone with only limited experience could tell the difference between faeces that's been there for a few hours vs faeces that's been there for a few days.

Depending on the circumstances, it may very well be that it turns out they were wrong, and was actually someone else that defecated. Still being right even 20% of the time would probably be better than no clues. (If it cause them to miss clearer clues than maybe 20% isn't enough, but it's likely to be complicated.)

Note that there's no particular reason to single out out handling faeces in a smart way (whether that's carrying it around or burying it), it's not like ashes from a campfire (presuming you mean simply ashes from wood not burnt MRE containers or whatever) or tent peg holes or whatever else are an automatic sign of being American (or whatever) soldiers either. It depends totally on whether the enemy expects to encounter them there or whether they can take it as a good sign they're on the trail of the people they're pursuing or have come across signs of an enemy. And even is unlikely they'll pursue you, if you regularly patrol similar areas it's risky to give aways clues about what route your patrol takes. And it's not like the source suggested it's a normal thing, simply something some people do sometimes.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy occupation -vs- Rainbow Gathering

It seems like every story I read about the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge tops the last one. Now I am reading they are paving roads on the site. I see this compared to Occupy Wall Street at Zuccotti Park, but certainly the protesters there never did major renovations, nor did they threaten anyone with firearms (to be clear, the stories I have read have been ambiguous about whether the anyone at this occupation has actually threatened a police officer with a gun to make him turn back, or if they simply never attempted to approach the protesters to begin with).

But it seems like efforts to prohibit Rainbow Gathering activities have been vastly more organized - stopping traffic on the roads and turning it away versus delivering mail including a 55-gallon drum of sexual lubricant, for example. This is despite efforts by that group to obtain permits or simply to use the land only in ways allowed to ordinary members of the public, save for attempting to exercise a right of free association.

Is there any legal explanation for this difference in treatment, or is this purely that officials like the Bundy occupiers better than Rainbow Gathering attendees? I picture someone writing out on a blackboard that there's Bundy, there's God, there's the Supreme Court, there's the Governor... waving a hand at the floor saying "five hundred miles of shit, then ordinary people, then another three hundred miles of shit, then the Rainbow Gathering"... Wnt (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the groups you mention has guns and presumably knows how to use them? Are you old enough to remember the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your explainations don't follow from your observation. Even if it is true that the way these protestors are handled is different from the way other protestors like Black Lives Matter protest or whatever may have been handled if protesting in a similar way, this doesn't have to be because there is a legal reason or because they like the protestors more. It could be for a variety of other reasons. Like differing perceptions of how taking action and what not taking action is likely to play out (e.g. what BB have highlighted but that's fairly limited as even without a bloodbath you could believe that whatever you achieve it will be counterproductive). Or differing perceptions of how taking action may be perceived and intepreted and accepted or rejected by others. Or differing perceptions of the political power and clout. Or differing perceptions of the effectiveness of taking action. Okay all of these are related, but the point is they don't require the authorities to actually like the protestors more. Note also that these perceptions by authorities don't have to be accurate (not that we will know if they are accurate), they just have to be their perceptions. Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this investigator?

He's a common sight at many criminology sites (and our own criminal investigation article). But who is he? His flashlight seems to say something about "Nelson". Is he Nelson? Who's Nelson? If there's some sort of policy against IDing an agent, nevermind, but he seems public enough to have a name to me. I'm not planning on finding him or anything, before someone thinks that. Purely curious. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The metadata includes the photographer's name (Jeffrey Castro) and the date (2004 November 6) but googling those together with "Nelson" didn't turn up anything.

I don't think he's public enough. The photo is widely used because it's in the public domain, not because of anything special about the subject. Maybe you could track him down through the photographer or the Army, but I think you shouldn't try unless you actually need to contact him. -- BenRG (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't exactly need to know, I suppose. And certainly don't want to track him down. If I'd contact him at all, it'd just be a short congratulations on looking intriguing in a public piece of art. That's all Lisa del Giocondo did. We should celebrate these sorts before they've been dead for centuries, I think. Maybe I'll tell the Army it's a matter of employee morale. Cops often have thankless jobs, even back in his day. Maybe he needs to know there is something special about him. He's literally the face of criminology, and his father would be proud of his unsloped forehead, symmetrical cranium and ears of usual size. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]