Humanities desk
< November 24	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 25

Landslide victory

Our article doesn't really nail a definition. Is there an accepted and specific definition that would apply to UK elections? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can find, there is no precise definition. It is an imprecise term that falls in the "you know it when you see it" camp. Certainly, 51%-49% would not qualify, and 90%-10% would qualify, but finding an exact threshold for what one needs to cross to claim a "landslide" is not determined by any international standards organization. See here and here for some discussion of the issue. The first one cites a 15% margin-of-victory, which is about 57.5%-42.5% in a two-candidate race. The second one contains a post in a forum that claims 70% as the threshold, but does not explain where that number came from. --Jayron 32 15:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If used correctly, a landslide grows over time. It might start as a rock moving along, which picks up momentum and mass, then more rocks and dirt join in, more momemtum and mass, and so on. So, a landslide victory should begin with a sign that there is a victory. Then, over time, the victory becomes greater and more obvious. Therefore, it is impossible to have a landslide victory if the results aren't known over time. It can be a lopsided victory in that case. But, it all has to do with using the analogy correctly and correct use of language isn't very important. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that claim, 135? It sounds like the etymological fallacy to me. --ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an analogy, not etymological, because both landslides and victories exist in modern language without a change in meaning. A "landslide victory" is an analogy of a victory that is like a landslide. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's etymological; you're applying the rules for one (the geologic) to the other (the other) based on the shared etymology. Matt Deres (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of 100 of the UK's 650 seats would be 57% for the winners. LongHairedFop (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you concerned about Swing (politics) being given so much prominence? OED is just An overwhelming majority of votes for one party or candidate in an election.—eric 16:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Liberal Landslide' probably supports that: swing as opposed to vote count.—eric 16:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I just learned of Purple-state landslide, the US traditionally having red and blue states also has mixed purple ones. It was described as being an upset where the result was simply larger than what was commonly predicted for a tight race. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resources on Soviet law

I'm working on the territorial evolution of the Soviet Union, but I'm running short on places to search for laws that would include things like border changes. I was pointed to www.libussr.ru which has been a very useful resource, but it doesn't have all the laws. For example, one I'm searching for is "on the transfer of part of the territory of the Komsomolsk District of the Kostanay Region of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic to the Troitskiy District of the Chelyabinsk Region of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the partial change of the border between the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic" of 6 December 1965, which apparently was included in the Bulletin of the USSR Supreme Council (1965), no. 48, Article 69. Unfortunately, this law does not appear to be available online, even on libussr.ru. I found some issues of said bulletin (Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR) available at a vaguely local library, but it appears to just be from 1991; I don't know if that would include previous years but I doubt it.

Does anyone know of a more comprehensive source of Soviet law, either online or offline, available in the United States? --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Walker, G. (1982). Official publications of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe: 1945-1980 : a select annotated bibliography., Vsesoi︠u︡znai︠a︡ knizhnai︠a︡ palata (1939), Bibliografii︠a︡ sovetskoĭ bibliografii "A systematized bibliography of bibliographies of over 30 items published in the USSR, separately or in books and journals. Includes bibliographies of official documents; particularly useful for tracing bibliographies in specialist areas. Alekseev, S. S.; Mit︠s︡kevich, A. V.; Pigolkin, A. S. (1989), Sovetskoe zakonodatelʹstvo: Puti perestroĭki, are the two major bibliographies listed for which i see digital copies. At least one step removed from what you are asking but might be a start.—eric 19:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, an official periodical gazetteer also: Soviet Union, SSSR: administrativno-territorial'noe delenie soiuznykh respublik: Na 1 aprelia [year] goda..—eric 19:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming, maybe wrongly, that you have some kind of educational access.—eric 20:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are digital copies of Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR for 1991 and other years, someone at WP:RX could probably help.—eric 20:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artist on La Coquille

Trying to find information on an artist on the expedition of Louis Isidore Duperrey on the La Coquille. His name is written as Jules-Louis Lejeune[1], L F Lejeune[2], and Louis-François Lejeune[3]. Is he the same person was Louis-François Lejeune (which we have an article of) since they have the same birthdate or is it a mistake by NINETEENTH CENTURY NEW ZEALAND ARTISTS: A GUIDE & HANDBOOK[4]. Which is his actual name? Why the discrepancy between the inclusion and placement of François and Jules in his name. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M. Lejeune nephew of M. le général Lejeune [5]?—eric 01:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

also "Jules-Louis Le Jeune, peintre, est le seul civil à bord, privilège qu'il doit certainement au fait qu'il est le neveu du général Louis-François Le Jeune, baron de l'Empire." fr:Louis Isidore Duperrey.—eric 01:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "Jules-Louis Le Jeune, a painter, is the only civilian on the ship, a privilege certainly due to the fact that he is the nephew of General Louis-François Le Jeune, a baron d'Empire." 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is his lifespan then? Because the New Zealand source uses the birth and death year of his uncle. KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Library of New Zealand (1991). New Zealand seen by the French, 1769-1846. might have the most detail, all i can find is the google snipped view, says he was born 29 March 1804 as "Francois-Louis" but used "Jules-Louis", and died after 1851.—eric 13:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bible stories (Copyrighted? by 7th day Adventist Arthur Maxwell) vs Watchtower INC "my book with bible stories"

Please read the restrictions above for use of this desk: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." --Jayron 32 12:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi there, I could compare today the published books of Arthur Maxwell and the book of the shareholder company (I think their copyright is hold by I.B.S.A. international bible student association ?) which is published in yellow, later republished in a blue cover, called "my book with bible stories".

There is really no doubt for me, that the organisation Watchtower has stolen because many pictures have been recovered 1:1, other ones just have some significant marks reprinted (not repainted!) in a new picture and also the full layout and everything else what can be copied, has been copied or let me just say it: STOLEN.
As much as I have found out, the 7th day adventist never suit the Watchtower for stealing their pictures of their book, published by Arthur Maxwell and I am wondering why.
Did they bought the pictures and were allowed to remake it or did the 7th day Adventist just having a good deep sleep and haven't discovered yet that their copyrighted books are abused by another religious cult and foreign printing house? even if there would be no copyright, the adventist must have any right to suit because their "product" is used by another religious cult unless they aren't associated. --46.167.62.33 (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC) This is really boring seeing over and over the question deleted just with the notice "not here", really boring, I am in a literature question area and cant ask what is this?[reply]

Why are you promoting this conspiracy theory? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there is no conspiracy I want to know why one religion has never lawsuit the other one for using their pictures and abusing their copyright.

Why don't you ask them directly? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, not helpful Bugs. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the question correctly, you are asking the Reference Desk why a particular organisation has not sued another organisation. It says at the top of the page "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." --ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]