Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 31

= December 31 =

Historical Nixon-to-China Moments
Which historical events could be considered Nixon-to-China moments besides the ones that I already added to that article? Also, please provide sources if you are able to. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One that comes to mind, though I'm not so sure it exactly fits your premise, is the Reagan-era Surgeon General of the USA, Dr. Everett Koop, who was a Republican and might have been expected to take a moralistic "it's their problem" stance about AIDS, but instead insisted on treating it as a major health problem to be dealt with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That would probably fit. Futurist110 (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Bill Clinton and Welfare reform. See Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.  -- Jayron  32  03:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jayron. I tried finding a source that compares it and Nixon going to China, but couldn't find anything. It might or not might fit, but I'll need to find a reliable source linking them. Futurist110 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a dozen or so reliable sources at least in this google search explicitly linking Nixon going to China with Clinton signing welfare reform into law; several of these articles also list other candidates. -- Jayron  32  06:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jayron. As for some of the other ones in that Google search, I think that I already have them but if I missed any events please let me know. Futurist110 (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Futurist, remember to resist the temptation to add any old thing you think would fit. We need to find events that are reliably sourced as having been described as "Nixon goes to China moments".  -   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I made sure that all of the info that I added was reliably sourced. Let's hope that the sources I used were good enough. Futurist110 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the ultimate "Nixon goes to China" moment was the treaty between Hitler and Stalin. Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that counts, since it was purely pragmatic and did not represent any real or perceived change in perspective. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it counts, for a different reason. I don't think Hitler and Stalin were ever that far apart, fundamentally.  Except of course on the question of who was to be the ruler. --Trovatore (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In regards to Hitler and Stalin, I don't think that Stalin minded Fascism too much (but I could be wrong on that) and Hitler merely signed that treaty for his own benefit, with plans to double-cross Stalin later on. Therefore, I think that Duoduoduo is right when it comes to this. Futurist110 (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that "Nixon goes to China" sounds to me like something that is unexpected because of deep philosophical disagreement. As I think that Stalinism and Hitlerism were never really very different in any way that matters, I don't think it's a Nixon-goes-to-China situation.  --Trovatore (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Hitler and Stalin (arguably) were different when it came to economic policy, since Hitler allowed private property while Stalin did not. Futurist110 (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the people were all property of the Reich, what did it matter whether they could have their own "property" or not? --Trovatore (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It matters in the same way that the Chinese and North Korean dictatorships and their economic systems matter. In one of them one can create his/her own business and make private (financial) profits, whereas in the other ones the opportunities for this are extremely limited or virtually nonexistent. Futurist110 (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is that it's not up to us to come to a consensus on this. A certain event either has been described as a Nixon-China moment by commentators associated with reputable publications, or it has not.  That's all there is to it.  Otherwise, all we're doing is engaging in the debate, speculation and OR that we're famous for avoiding like the plague (cough).  Let us not start out a new year on the wrong track, esteemed comrades. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  05:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but unfortunately this is an inherent problem with this sort of article, and frankly I would prefer that the article did not exist, for this precise reason. Gathering together a bunch of things that have been described as such and such &mdash; by wildly varying observers who may mean significantly different things by it &mdash; is very likely to amount to original research by synthesis.  I won't bother taking it to AfD, but I would generally suggest that it is better not to write articles of this sort.  (I have not actually looked at the article in question, by the way, but I would be very surprised if I have not analyzed the situation correctly.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You might be right on this. However, I'm not sure if having various people label various things Nixon-to-China moments would qualify as original research by synthesis, since one is not saying that it is universally considered that this event was a Nixon-to-China moment, only that someone in the media labelled it this way. For the record, I did not create this article or the similar historical events section. I merely expanded the historical events section. Also, I asked this question partially to expand my own knowledge of this topic. Futurist110 (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then that means there are 2 very different discussions that should be taking place. One discussion about whether the article should exist at all; and if it's OK to continue, another discussion about how we decide the content.  Here is not the place for either of those discussions.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  05:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I heard Ariel Sharon and Israel's unilateral disengagement plan for withdrawal of settlements from Gaza described as a Nixon-China moment. Sorry no source. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I already added that event to this article, with a source. Futurist110 (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any online sources for this one (and therefore I can't add it to this article), but would Oliver Cromwell allowing the Jews to return to England despite being a Puritan fit the bill of a Nixon-to-China moment? Futurist110 (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a point of principle: Can events that occurred before 1972 (very much before, in this case) be reasonably characterised as Nixon-China moments?  To use this terminology retrospectively sort of offends my sense of the arrow of time proceeding in only one direction.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, since people write about historical events after they occur, and can thus apply modern concepts and terms to them. Futurist110 (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on just when the Klingons came up with the proverb. --Trovatore (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Think it was a Vulcan proverb -- the Klingons claimed that Hamlet was originally written in Klingon... AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I keep forgetting the Ref Desks are a Trekkie convention that's permanently in session. The boys from Big Bang Theory would be right at home here.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If a "Trekkie" is someone who comes to science fiction through TV or movies, and has little interest in forms of science fiction other than TV shows or films, or novelizations or comic-books of TV shows or films, then I most definitely do not consider myself a Trekkie... AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Futurist110 -- some types of puritans were actually more inclined to look more favorably on certain aspects of Judaism than the Church of England was. The sermons of many puritan preachers were filled with Old Testament rhetoric and references, and some puritan ministers intensively studied Biblical Hebrew.  The first book published in the British colonies, the Bay Psalm Book was translated from Hebrew, and an address in Hebrew was delivered annually at Harvard commencements for many years until 1817.  Of course some puritans were violently prejudiced against Jews, and the great majority of them thought that the Jewish religion was in some way obsolete or superseded, but many puritans were passionately interested in traditional Jewish knowledge about ancient times, and a few of them were willing to seek out Jews to discuss such matters.  AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for clarifying, AnonMoos. The impression that I got of the Puritans were fundamentalist, massively religious, old-fashioned, and superstitious. It's good that some of them actually had more positive views when it came to some matters, such as certain aspects of Judaism. Futurist110 (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn’t include in the article’s list President Obama supporting Social Security Reform, since he didn’t have a long political career focused on the issue. Same for President Clinton and welfare reform: '''the “Only Nixon. . .” meme is that someone who has spent much of their career on one side of the issue becomes the champion of the other side of the same issue.'''

What I would add is Deng Xiaoping promoting liberalization, reform and opening in China and Thein Sein on a similar track in Burma. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In regards to Clinton and Obama, I included them because reliable news articles included them. As for Deng Xiapoing and Thein Sein, I agree with you but first I'll need to find some reliable sources for them. Futurist110 (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

US book
I'm looking for a book that kind of has information about all 50 states of the United States like an encyclopedia. It should has information like economy, politic, geography, population, demography, history, culture... of each state. I would appreciate if someone give me the book title and author name that has all the listed above.174.20.15.246 (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for printed books as opposed to wikipedia articles, you could start with something like The World Almanac, and see if that fits your needs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I want a printed book not Wikipedia articles. I only care about information about 50 states of the United States. The World Almanac is not what I want, it has too many facts that I'm not looking for. It only talks briefly about the 50 states of the United States. I want a detail book contains detail information about 50 states like I listed above!174.20.15.246 (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an annual book called Almanac of the 50 States, though it seems rather pricy, and I can't find one published since 2010. You might check at your local library.  216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Vote compass elections
So far, I know that Canada had an election where people did their vote compass online and found which party they were similar to. Are there any other elections that had people do a vote compass online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The link is Vote Compass. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  18:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an "educational tool" and not part of the election system. Similar on-line tools have been around for many, many years. This particular one seems to have received more publicity than most.--Shantavira|feed me 10:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)