Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 April 5

= April 5 =

Unpledged
I'm a bit confused. "Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016" lists "pledged" and "unpledged" delegates for both candidates. Further down, it has a table that sets out "pledged and super" in one column, and "total" in another column, with different numbers. "Delegate" doesn't help to clear up the mystery, because it says the Democratic Party doesn't even use the term "unpledged" delegates. So what, respectively, are "pledged" and "unpledged" in the primaries article, and why is the "total" different in the table? Who are the mysterious category of delegates who are neither pledged or super, which the Delegate article suggests shouldn't exist? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference between pledged and unpledged delegates is that pledged delegates are obligated to vote for a particular candidate in the Democratic National Convention (during the first voting round); unpledged delegates (or superdelegates) can vote as they please. Thus, the exact number of unpledged delegates voting for a particular candidate is determined at the convention, whereas the pledged votes are determined during the primaries. The pledged and super numbers in the table do add up to the total values. - Lindert (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The article you refer to makes it very clear - there are pledged delegates, elected through the primaries or caucuses, who have to support the candidate they are pledged to (at least initially), and there are superdelegates who are senior party officials and politicians. They are not pledged to a particular candidate - they can promise to support someone (and most have backed Clinton) but are free to change their mind (and might well do so if Sanders was ahead in the popular vote). 217.44.50.87 (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In OP's defense, it's only clear to me from the article because I already know a bit about it. I can easily see why our presentation is a bit confusing to anyone who doesn't keep up much with political party practices in the USA. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me spell out the two points that confuse me, as it seems to have gotten lost in the way I asked the question:
 * 1) . The Delegate article says that the Democratic Party only uses "pledged delegates" vs "superdelegates", so why does the primaries article talk about "pledged" vs "unpledged" delegates? There is a contradiction there. If Lindert is saying that unpledged delegates are the same as superdelegates, then why does the primaries article use different terminology to what the Delegate article says is the right terminology?
 * 2) . The table says this for Hillary Clinton: (on the first row), under "Pledged and Super": "Pledged delegates 1266 / 4051 (31%) ", under "Totals": "Total delegates 1739 / 4765 (36%) "; (on the second row) under "Pledged and Super": "Superdelegate endorsements[a]  473 / 714 (66%)", under "Totals": "Needed for nomination 1739 / 2383 (73%)". This seems to be saying, the left column is listing the pledged and superdelegates: so out of 4051 possible pledged delegates, Hillary Clinton has "won" 1266 pledged delegates. And out of 714 superdelegates, she is predicted to get 473 total delegates. That's all fine. BUT then next to that, in the "total delegates" column, there are two different numbers: i.e. 1739 out of 4763 or 2383. So if the left hand column is already counting "Pledged and Super", who is in the "Total" column that's not in the "Pledged and Super" column? The answers above suggest that it should be no-one, so why do the rows of that column list different numbers to the "Pledged and Super" column? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The terminology might be a bit confusing - but the fact is quite simple - superdelegates are unpledged. In the end it makes little difference what you actually call them. You have failed to grasp the meaning of the final set of numbers. Out of a total of 4763 delegate Clinton currently has 1739. To be elected she needs a majority - which means that she needs 2383 in total. The second number compares what she has so far to the number she needs to win, rather than to the total number of delegates. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: Superdelegates = Unpledged. They are perfect synonyms.  The term "Superdelegate" is peculiar to the Democratic Party because that's what they called them in the initial bylaws that created them back in 1982 (here is the background of why they were created: ).  Republicans ALSO have unpledged delegates at their convention.  However, they don't use the word "Superdelegate", so that term never appears in discussions of the Republican convention.  But they exist and have the same role, they're just called "unpledged delegates".  Also, since the Republicans have created MUCH less superdelegates only 7% of total votes at the convention, compared to the Democrats (about 15%, or twice the proportion), the Superdelegates play a much larger role in the Democratic Party convention than in the Republican Party convention.  -- Jayron 32 15:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jayron32, that's very clear. It's still odd that Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 doesn't use the party's own terminology though, as if "unpledged" is more meaningful than "super", when both are made up jargon. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (To Anon:) Okay, I think I've understood the numbers. You are saying that the right hand column is the total of the entries in the left column, right? So 1739 = 1277 + 473? If I have "failed to grasp" the meaning, I think it's because the column headers are misleading, in that the left one says "Pledged and super", and the right one says "Totals", which, in this context, should have been synonymous. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The column headers are correct. The left hand column shows how many pledged delegates and how many superdelegates Clinton has so far. The right hand column shows the total number of delegates committed to her (1739) - and compares that to both the total number of delegates at the convention, and to the number of delegates she will need to win the nomination (which is 50%+1 of the total).217.44.50.87 (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * They may be "correct" but the table is bad. The logical way to present this information would be to have first column, headed "Delegates by type", then first row, pledged, second row, super. Second column, headed "Total", with the 1739 / 4765 figure, then third column, "Proportion of delegates needed for nomination". Both of the second and third columns count up delegates of both types, so it's misleading to arrange the table as if the first "Total" somehow aligns to "pledged" and the second "Proportion of delegates needed for nomination" aligns to "super". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus peace process and international arms sales
I recall that in the late 1990s the analysis of the failure to find a negotiated settlement of the conflict on Cyprus included the idea that if the negotiations were left to the two communities on Cyprus they could solve it, but that 'big power' politics interfered with any attempt to localize the peace process. In particular there was a narrative arguing that international weapons trade was a disincentive that impacted Cyprus, because some countries used the conflict to illustrate the utility of certain weapons systems, and that some weapons sellers (states?)...were powerful vested interests working against peace in Cyprus. Can anyone help me find academic or media references that explain or describe this dynamic, with specific reference to Cyprus? Thanks if you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.130.103 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Not specific to Cyprus, but what you describe sounds like a proxy war. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Or also possibly war profiteering. -- Jayron 32 20:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * A conflict that ends but never quite becomes peaceful is called a frozen conflict, and it's often used to weaken a country that would otherwise ally with your enemy. It's a strategy mostly associated with Russia (see Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Donbass...), and indeed Russia was a major player in the Cyprus Missile Crisis (where Russia sold Cyprus a weapons system), but it's also useful for Turkey to weaken Cyprus, a natural ally of their historical rival Greece (just as it was useful for Greece to weaken Cyprus' Turkish community by sponsoring the 1974 Cypriot coup d'état). To answer your specific question, see this paper, "The Cyprus debacle: what the future holds". A relevant quote: "The Russian motivations, however, are more varied. It seems that through its new ties in the Middle Eastern region—through Greek Cypriots—Russia is trying to carve a new role for itself in the post-Cold War era. To do so, it is using its military technology and arms trade as an effective tool. Russian motives for its involvement in Cyprus are strategic. For example, “Pridhodko, the Kremlin aide, stated that Russia’s military–technical cooperation with Cyprus was an integral part of Russia’s foreign policy”". Smurrayinchester 08:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Geo coors
According to this, the coordinates of Lələ İlaqi (orange-tagged hill) are roughly 47.26869°N, 39.40851°W upon clicking on blue i icon. However, Google Maps shows location in Russia and when I tried Azerbaijan's first two-digit coors 40.26869°N, 47.40851°W, I got seemingly somewhere else. Could someone clarify the coordinates of Lələ İlaqi? Thanks in advance. Brandmeistertalk  19:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The first set of coordinates seems to have north and east the wrong way round. Try 39.40851°N, 47.26869°W.  Google Maps doesn't have the feature marked, but those coordinates get us to about half-way between Nuzgər and Qazaxlar, which, differences in transliteration aside, agrees with the Azerbaijani map. Tevildo (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)