Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 March 14

= March 14 =

2015 UK Election predictions
Hello Editors. What are the likely outcomes for the 2015 UK General Election? --Petridgos (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Some will win. Some will lose. Some were born to sing the blues. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election but there's a long way to go yet. Alansplodge (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has two related articles on the topic:
 * Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election
 * Opinion polling in United Kingdom constituencies, 2010–15
 * Or, you can look at top-line predictions by poll aggregators such as ElectionForecast or May2015 (New Statesman); or consult Betting markets. Abecedare (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This top Google result for "who will win the 2015 election?" doesn't even string the reader along, before declaring "ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN!" (their caps, my exclamation mark). I tend to trust that logic more than predictions. If we knew, we couldn't bet. But if I had to pick one prediction, it'd be from the reigning and defending most accurate pre-poll prophet. Go Labour and go Rafael dos Anjos! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So Ellie Goulding is the winner for now. [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's debatable. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As for likely things, look at 25-1, then 50-45. Rolled the forerunner frontrunner up and smoked him. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Some say you can tell who's going to win by just looking at their faces. But even then, it's only significantly better than flipping a coin. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Party A will have 70% of winning the election and Party B will have 30% chance of doing so. Now go ahead and prove me wrong. Here is the problem. The election will only occur once and only once. So my probability value is hard to disprove as probability is defined as the percentage of success calculate by dividing the number of successful trials over the total number of trials as the limit of the number of trials approaches infinity. Now if only I have a TARDIS. 220.239.43.253 (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a common but mistaken criticism of election forecasts. See this useful summary page of methods for verifying forecasts in general (see in particular the section on Methods for probabilistic forecast). There is also a rich literature about election forecasts and methods used to evaluate them; Election Forecasting: Principles and Practice by Michael S Lewis-Beck, or the publications of J.E. Campbell (example) are good entry points. Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You still have not answer my question. How do you show that forecast X for an event that will only occur once is more accurate than forecast Y? Since the event cannot be repeated, you do not know. Both forecast allows the event to have two different outcomes. So no matter which outcomes occurs both forecasts can claimed to be accurate. 175.45.116.65 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're just looking at that one outcome, then yes, a study that shows Labour has a 1% chance and that Labour has a 99% chance are both accurate, if Labour wins. Only those who gave them no chance would be wrong.
 * To weigh accuracy, you need to look at the details. How many seats did they guess? How many districts voted as expected, ratio-wise? Have more of their "more likely" guesses come true than "less likely" ones?
 * Takes a real psychic to play the proposition bets. I was 100% right about dos Anjos winning the belt, but made $550 instead of $2000, because I was 100% wrong about the finish. But he did only start passing guard in the fourth. I think he was betting on himself. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If mathematics is the language of quantitative thinking, what exactly is the language of qualitative thinking?
I always try to classify disciplines into three groups; the qualitative, the quantitative, and amalgam of the two. Whenever I think of qualitative disciplines, or those that involve value-judgments, literature, fine arts, and law come into my mind. What fascinates me about these “qualitative disciplines” is that they are not as objective or structured as quantitative disciplines like chemistry or physics in that they don’t measure the properties of things. Instead, they study the invisible and non-calculable properties of an object. Hence, while scientists can profess the use scientific method and mathematics in re-evaluating their calculations should they find their conclusions somewhat doubtful, qualitative scholars like lawyers can only rely on their unstructured and abstract interpretation of facts.

How, then, can we show that qualitative reasoning can also be systematic? In other words, if we can say that mathematics is the language of the natural sciences, then what is the language or tool used in qualitative disciplines?Rja2015 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * English works best. More words for more ideas, subtle or not. Absorbs terms from other languages without even trying, particularly in law. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As has been mentioned above, concepts are the mode of thought. Concepts are normally expressed as words, and words come in two types, catergorematic and syncategorematic terms.  Categorematic terms include words that can express the subject or predicate of a proposition; snow, falls, white, roof.  Syncategorematic terms cannot be the subject of a proposition unless they a referred to (e.g., "What the meaning of 'is' is."), rather than used; very, is, if, on, not.  See H. W. B. Joseph, An Introduction to Logic, Chapter II.


 * μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Another way into this might be through looking at qualitative research methods. You can find many textbooks that deal with this. If they're any good, they will linger on the interface between qualitative and quantitative. If in a research project you are using a mainly qualitative approach, through interviews for example, you may still want to quantify. "Nearly all interviewees stressed that...". Software for qualitative research, like NVivo, helps researchers organise and structure their data. Coding responses is often important, even in ethnography. Discourse analysis necessarily has a subjective aspect, but can also take the form of a systematic content analysis. You mention the example of law, which is highly codified, split into statute law and common law, statutes with numbered clauses and agreed interpretations, organised chronologically and by various other criteria. There are right and wrong answers in the examinations that lawyers take. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The language of qualitative thinking is qualitative thinking. When you say that the language of quantitative thinking is mathematics you are using qualitative thinking. What is qualitative thinking? It is logical. It is understandable. It provides credible insights.wp:or Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Early Spanish contacts with Japan
This says the first Spaniard to reach Japan did so in 1587, after the Portuguese. According to Age of Discovery, the Portuguese got there in 1543.

But in 1930, "Prince Takamatsu traveled to Madrid to confer the Great Collar of the Chrysanthemum on King Alfonso XIII of Spain. This honor was intended, in part, to commemorate the diplomatic and trading history which existed long before other Western nations were officially aware of Japan's existence".

So, exactly how early was Spain engaged in relations with Japan? What does it mean for a nation to be "officially aware" of the existence of another nation?

Interestingly, we have many articles on Country A–Country B relations, but Japan–Spain relations is not among them. That's a curious omission, for a relationship that supposedly predates all other Western contacts with Japan. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not predate all other Western contacts with Japan, as the Portuguese got there first, via their colony in Aomen, which is usually called Macau.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  06:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Macau is Chinese. It's nowhere near Japan, and was rented to the Portuguese by the Ming Dynasty from 1557. RomanSpa (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a lot closer to Japan than Portugal, and it is possible to establish a colony on rented land. A large part of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong was leased from the Chinese, who got it back in the end. As a reference for Macau's colonial status, try Macau, China: A Political History of the Portuguese Colony's Transition to Chinese Rule. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I stand corrected. "The Portuguese administered the city under Chinese authority and sovereignty until 1887, when Macau became a colony of the Portuguese empire." Macao Country Study Guide Volume 1 Strategic Information and Developments (p. 12). "Trading settlement" might be a better description then. Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See Tenshō embassy. The first European power to have diplomatic relations with Japan was Portugal in 1584, followed by the Papal States and Spain. The Portuguese Francis Xavier visited Japan as a missionary in the late 1540s, which was probably the first high-level contact between Europeans and Japanese, as opposed to traders and explorers. Mogism (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Xavier worked with the Portuguese but he was personally a Basque from the Kingdom of Navarre (which was never part of Portugal, but is now part of Spain). --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  17:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's also important to note that contact between cultures doesn't require one to meet the other on one of the other's territory. They could meet through an intermediary culture.  For example, a Spanish envoy could be introduced to a Japanese envoy in another nation, and that could establish diplomatic contact, without having had a Spaniard set foot in Japan, or vise-versa.   Also, if Portugal had established its first diplomatic relations with Japan in 1584, that means Spain did the same, at the same time, as from 1580-1640 Spain and Portugal shared a monarch.  While technically still separate nations with separate institutions and governments, it seems unlikely that Spain would be said to have been ignorant of Japan if Portugal were simultaneously negotiating diplomatic relationships with them.  -- Jayron 32 01:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I wonder why Prince Takamatsu honoured the Spanish king in 1930 but not the Portuguese who'd done most of the exploratory work in the Japanese region.  Maybe because by then the Portuguese monarchy had been abolished, and a Prince would not lower himself to associate with commoners.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Corruption in the UK
Police forces in the UK, such as the Metropolitan Police Service in London, will have anti-corruption units, with the Met's being the Directorate of Professional Standards. How big are these kinds of units in the 'other agencies' of the UK, such as the National Crime Agency, MI5, MI6, and GCHQ? Where do they train their anti-corruption workers? Do they recruit from experienced members of the police? Will these departments make up a sizeable proportion of their respective agencies, given the importance of ensuring the integrity of the agencies? Does anyone have any further details to offer? Thanks. asyndeton  talk  12:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See this recent RefDesk thread about the Directorate of Professional Standards. More details of the DPS at Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary - Inspection of Metropolitan Police Service Professional Standards, which says that in 2006, "The DPS has an authorised strength of 421 police officers and 260 police staff..." (p. 7). See also BBC News - How the Met investigates its own. Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

First from the Right
If we have a row of people, does the phrase 'first from the right' mean the person on the right end, or the person next to the person on the right end? Thanks. asyndeton  talk  12:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In English as commonly spoken the 'first from the right' is the person next to the person on the right end. In a very small number of scientific or technical papers an alternative definition may be used, but if so this will be clearly indicated in the paper. RomanSpa (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not agree. A random sampling from Google, such as this, indicates that in a series of items, second from left is the second item, the leftmost being the first item; and second from right is next to last (sometimes called "second to last"), the last being rightmost. First from left or first from right would mean first and last, but it's easier to just say first and last. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Because of the ambiguity, the phrase 'first from the right' seems a very strange one to use. Isn't it more usual to say something like 'extreme right' or just 'on the right'?  Perhaps RomanSpa was thinking of a phrase such as 'first in from the rightmost' which would mean the same as 'second on the right'.    D b f i r s   13:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wonder if this differs from country to country. RomanSpa (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * English is my second language but I have never (to my knowledge) heard of 'first from the right' not meaning the rightmost. That was the meaning in all ten Google hits I examined. They were all ordinary photos of a row of people, and none of them found need to explain the meaning. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm utterly astonished. I'll have to do a straw poll of my friends and relations! RomanSpa (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never heard "first from the right" either, but that's anecdotal. But it sounds functionally identical to "second on the right". Mingmingla (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We would normally say 'first on the right' to mean the person sitting/standing on the farmost right. 'First from the right' would mean the 'second on the right', meaning the person sitting/standing next to him. This, however, I have not heard. We would actually say 'second on the right'.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  17:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a native English-speaker and would only say "second on the right" in a context where "second" did not mean numbering from the end of the row. "Second from the right" means the person next to the end person on the right.  "First from the right" is unusual but it would never occur to me that it means anyone except the end person.
 * For similar disagreements in other areas, see floor numbering, year numbering, natural number, and of course array data structure. --65.94.48.86 (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I interpret "first from the right" as "first, counting from the right", ie the rightmost. Didn't even realize that not everyone sees it that way! Abecedare (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hemisemidemiminim
Hi all,

I've come across this in the score to Gilbert and Sullivan's The Sorcerer. I've been playing piano for years but I've never seen this notation before. The time signature is 2/4 but the bars are filled with what appear to be hemisemidemiminims (no idea if that's the right word!). Can anybody explain this to me? Thanks! Thelb4(talk) 18:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A minim is a half note in the UK. Hemi, semi, and demi all indicate cut by half. so a hemisemidemiminim is a 1/16th note, also called a semiquaver (half of an 1/8 note). --Mark viking (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks an odd notation to me too, but I'm not a musician. Can anyone explain why Arthur Sullivan wrote it this way?    D b f i r s   19:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually I think it's shortcut notation for 32nd note (demisemiquaver) tremolos to be played alternating between two notes each during an entire bar. See List_of_musical_symbols. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sluzzelin got it. It's a fairly common notation device in orchestral notation and piano accompaniments, where such repetitive patterns occur frequently and would visually bloat the score if written out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that must be it. We have an article on tremolo notation.  Isn't it at semiquaver speed (sixteenth), or have I got my arithmetic wrong?    D b f i r s   21:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the triple beams have the same meaning as in regular notes, so they are nominally semidemiquavers. In practice, a pianist might substitute a free, unmetered tremolo instead though, just playing as fast as practically possible to get the effect of a dramatically pulsating background sound in a passage like that. Real 32nd-notes would probably be rather too fast to do here, by the looks of the vocal melody and the tempo likely appropriate for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ... but they are unfilled, not solid black, hence my confusion about the arithmetic because they would logically be semiquavers. I accept that the notation may not be what I would call "logical", so your interpretation is probably correct.  I'm not a musician!    D b f i r s   22:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not an obvious standard, admittedly, but the sum of the two minims actually is supposed to equal one minim, or one bar in 2/4 in the example we're talking about. If the tremolo were written with dotted minims, for example, it would imply a length of three quarter notes (crotchets), or one 3/4 bar. I guess the idea is that both notes of the tremolo sort of ring or are played during the entire length of that note (and also of a whole bar in this case). ... and I completely agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise: This kind of shortcut tremolo notation is also often used for any kind of fast tremolo, whether within meter or not, at the performer's discretion. ---Sluzzelin  talk  00:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata is another example of this. The first measure of the Allegro of the 1st movement is written out in eighth notes alternating octaves, and in subsequent measures the same pattern is abbreviated as half notes alternating octaves joined by a single bar.  (At least in Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms and the book of Beethoven Sonatas edited by Artur Schnabel.)--Wikimedes (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Neo nazism and young earth creationism
Are there any Neo nazis who are also young creationist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can fully answer your question but I just thought I might link to the articles on Neo-Nazism and Young Earth creationism. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No bio on Wikipedia is categorized as both, at least. Just Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 3, User:Aarononsori/Books/Ransom for Faith and this page from a Google site search. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Christian Identity groups are white supremecists who could be labelled neo-Nazis. They have had various forms of creationist/fundamentalist beliefs. Paul B (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana Demographics: or how to surf census data
I'm trying to find the median income of Louisiana residents who are also homeowners. This is different from the widely published median household income or median family income, as households and families could be renters. Is there any way to select for the variable 'homeowner' with census data? Or is there some place that publishes the data I require? Thanks, -Andrew c [talk] 22:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The best I can find is the American Housing Survey, though I'm not sure it will give you more than an estimate. If this doesn't answer your question try posting again. It seems to give both the entire USA and cities (but I can't find States). Still, the New Orleans data pdf gives at least the median household income for owner-occupied units ($41,508) - not sure if more digging in that doc would bring up incomes for individual owners. Taknaran (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * U.S. Census Bureau Data can be found through the website of the American FactFinder, here. If the U.S. Government has data on it, you can find it there.  It is a very deep database, and searching it is pretty intuitive, but takes some playing around.  If it can be found, you'll find it there.  -- Jayron 32 01:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)