Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 3

= January 3 =

troops volunteered when they enlisted for Vietnam
Someone told me that 2/3rds of the troops volunteered when they enlisted for Vietnam, while it was only about a third for World War 2. Is this true? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds about right for WWII. According to the WWII museum, 38.8% were volunteers, 61.2% drafted. And for Vietnam, this source says 25% were draftees. Thing with the Vietnam draft is that the way it was structured, it was highly advantageous for men to volunteer once they'd found out they were likely to be drafted. `--jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 06:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * JPgordon is right. Many volunteered in anticipation of being drafted. By volunteering, one maintained a certain level of control (or at least a feeling of being in control) by being able to choose which branch of the military and list their choice(s) of M.O.S. (they, of course wouldn't always get their requested job, but the goal was presumably to avoid the Army/Infantry). This PhD thesis addresses this, particularly starting at the end of page 40.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I presume the question and answers all relate to USA only. If the original questioner reads this and is reflecting on other countries too, please do say so. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * With regard to Australia, 15,381 conscripts were deployed to Vietnam out of a total of about 60,000 Australians who served in the war, so about three quarters were professionals. See Conscription in Australia and Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War. Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 25% were conscripts: they did not enlist. Of the enlistees, many did in fact volunteer to serve in Vietnam, but many of us who volunteered to avoid the draft explicitly did so to avoid going to Vietnam, as William said above. The tradeoff: draftee serves two years, volunteer serves 3 years. Volunteer has a very good chance of not getting shipped to Vietnam. However, there were lots of guys who genuinely wanted to serve in combat, which meant serving in Vietnam, and they volunteered to do so. -Arch dude (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Cultural upheaval
Hank Green recently said We are in a time of cultural upheaval.

Is there truth to this?

Benjamin (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear of a time when there wasn't cultural upheaval. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly a large early chunk of the paleolithic. Though that could just be us hoping for the best out of an era that didn't leave much that could be considered records.  Then there's also the debate of whether they have the sort of culture necessary to qualify as not having cultural upheaval.  Otherwise, yeah, you can always find doomsayers in any era, and Hegel-influenced historians (not as explicitly common these days) assume that history is just a series of cultural upheavals.  See Oswald Spengler for an example.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is Hank Green and do you have a link to where he said it, ? Do you think that everybody is on the same wavelength as you? Here you refer to a "Dan Howell" and a momentary mention in a longer video that you do not link to. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We have articles on a Hank Green and a Dan Howell, both being internet personalities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, that is the way to pose a question. A question should be posed to facilitate those responding. Some feeble attempt should be made to clarify an area of inquiry. I don't mean to discourage the editor from using the Reference boards. And I am sympathetic to the difficulties of participation here. But there was already mention made of problematic question-posing in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If the poster actually is a teenager, he may have the notion that "everybody" knows who these internet characters are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion. This is the video I'm reffering to, but I didn't include it because I know a YouTube video probably isn't a good source, and I'm looking for other sources. Benjamin (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The full quote in the vlog is "We are in a time of cultural upheaval. That's probably true of everyone who has ever lived but it seems particularly strong right now."


 * So I suppose you are asking if the rate of change in culture is on the rise. I also assume you are asking about Western culture.


 * Wikipedia has interesting articles on Transformation of culture and Accelerating change. There are reasons to believe that culture is evolving faster than it did in the past. It is also possible that we simply attach more significance to cultural changes in our own time because we are witnessing them first hand. Schnitzel8 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Most everybody thinks things are more volatile in the here and now, especially the younger ones who weren't yet alive during previous "upheavals". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no measurement of culture change therefore any answer is as good as any other answer. You could say culture is evolving rapidly or you could say culture is evolving slowly. There are no increments for measuring cultural change. Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Taking the long view, yes there has always been change and upheaval, and there is nothing new under the sun. But if you care to delve into prehistory, fully modern humans created an art of astonishing cultural continuity over tens of thousands of years.  The history of history books is still too often of monarchs and generals, and the life of court and capital, where fashions have always changed and churned. The lives of the peasants and artisans of any given period would have changed much less from one generation, or indeed century, to the next: the food they ate and the implements they used are there to be examined, in documents and museums. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The control of fire by early humans was a significant cultural moment. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I realize that our perspectives are colored by our generational perspective, but it's also pretty reasonable to suppose that some years, or some decades see more cultural change than others. Benjamin (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on what evidence? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * —there is the article Sociocultural evolution. I'm not sure how relevant it is to your line of inquiry but I just thought I'd mention that article. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Baseball Bugs, that is exactly my question. Benjamin (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The question is unanswerable because there is no measurement of cultural change. How would it be measured? By conjecture? I am aware that this is the "humanities" reference desk but doesn't your question fundamentally require "science" or "math"? In my opinion it would be a mistake to attempt to measure cultural change by reference to external factors. We could very easily wax loquacious about computers or airplanes or nuclear power but what matters is the subjective impact on people of those external factors. How can that subjective impact be measured? If for instance the arrival of the "information age" is taken in stride by humanity, can it be said to have cultural impact? Bus stop (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For example, wouldn't it be reasonable to say 1848 was a year of cultural upheaval? Benjamin (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on what, and compared to what? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think one can quantify culture, . One certainly could say that "1848 was a year of cultural upheaval", but only to make a point. I don't think there could be any objective reality to such a statement. One might say that as an introductory comment before mentioning the cultural changes taking place at that time. But in my opinion this would be little more than a literary or oratorical device. Would there be any objective reality to the assertion that "1848 was a year of cultural upheaval"? How do we know? Have we measured the level of cultural upheaval applicable to that year as opposed to other years? Culture by the way is a thing created by humans. If a meteorite hits the Earth that is not a cultural event. Culture is not only created by humans but it is regulated by humans. While there are cultural impulses that may seem vastly transformative there are always humans trying to rein in and productively harness those impulses. When we say "culture" we are largely talking about technology. Technology is never allowed to run amok. The control of fire by early humans was a cultural event. Our article says "The control of fire by early humans was a turning point in the cultural aspect of human evolution." Nuclear power is certainly controlled. Air flight is controlled. And the use of computers is controlled too. I think that maybe it is unlikely that there could be cultural upheaval because we are controlling cultural events. And also I don't see how we could measure the amount of change culture is imparting to society. Culture means many things but I think when we talk about cultural upheaval we have in mind cultural changes brought about by technology. Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of policy is that Wikipedia is not concerned with "objective reality", but rather, what sources say. I would be quite surprised if there are no sources so bold as to call a time one of cultural upheaval. Benjamin (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes,, concerning policy, you probably could speak of "cultural upheaval" in article space. This is the first mention you've made of Wikipedia policy and the editing of an article. What is the article? Can you tell me more about the edit? Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * None in particular yet. What would be most appropriate? Benjamin (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Appropriate article in which to use the term "cultural upheaval"? Is that what you're asking? Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The article Women's suffrage in Japan uses the term. It reads: "Whilst experiencing marked cultural upheaval, women's suffrage became a feature of the changing society of Japan." Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for sources talking about the level of cultural upheaval in the current time. Benjamin (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Compared to what other time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The past, mainly, I suppose. Perhaps the future, but I would think that'd be a bit uncertain. Benjamin (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * —how can there be a "level of cultural upheaval" without the ability to measure cultural upheaval? Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * DEFCON 4? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you know of a similar system for classifying cultural upheaval? DEFCON measures the level of readiness of the US Armed Forces. Would there be a corresponding system for measuring and classifying the level of cultural upheaval? Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you have the causality mixed up. DEFCON does not measure the readiness of the US Armed Forces, it indicates what level of readiness they should be at. The DEFCON level is set top-down, by the President, hopefully with the Secretary of Defense and the Chiefs of Staff in the loop, based on an assessment (not a measurement) of the overall threat situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi —what does DEFCON have to do with "cultural upheaval"? We were discussing cultural upheaval. Please explain. Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I offered DEFCON as an example for a system where non-measurable circumstances are nevertheless organised into a scale of distinct steps. The same can be done for the rate of cultural change. I'm not aware if historians and sociologists have done that, but there is no question that there are more quiescent time and times of faster change. WW1 had a momentous impact on Europe. In Britain, society and culture in 1925 were massively different from society and culture in 1910. Change was much less pronounced in the time from 1895 to 1910. Similarly, the 1960s are generally seen as a time of massive cultural change, with anti-establishment movements and the effects of cheap and reliable oral contraceptives. The 21st century has seen the rise of the smart phone, internet-based e-commerce, near universal acceptance of same-sex relationships and even marriages in the West, and so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It all depends on one's focus. It is entirely subjective. If what you think matters is changing you will call it "cultural upheaval". But if that which is changing is seen through one's own personal eyes as being of limited importance, that period in time is called "quiescent". There is no objective measure of cultural change. I think that change is always taking place. But the term "cultural upheaval" is merely a literary flourish used to embellish one's own narrow interests. I feel that a term such as "cultural upheaval" is a little misleading. Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I'm not looking for you to provide me with objective truth, just sources, and I would be surprised if none make such a claim, even if it is an overly bold claim to make. Benjamin (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you a question. Do you think it makes sense that certain periods of time undergo considerable cultural transformation while other periods of time undergo little cultural transformation? If so, why? What leads you to think that, ? Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I think that, for various reasons, but that's beside the point. This is the reference desk, not a research institute. I am not equipped to answer that question, and I am specifically asking you to provide me with sources that do answer that question. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the purpose of this reference desk, but when I ask my question, I want you to provide sources. I don't want you to answer it, and I certainly don't want you to just ask me questions, as if trying to get me to answer my own question. Benjamin (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * When I ask you a question, I am not trying to get you to answer your question. That would be condescending of me. I respect you. I am engaging in dialogue. Dialogue can help to sharpen the thinking of both of us. I happen to think that dialogue is seriously underrepresented at the reference desks. Many problems arise, in my opinion, from trying to "answer" questions without what I see as the requisite dialogue. By the way, while we are speaking, anyone else is free to join the conversation. Everything is cool and groovy. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, enough dialogue. Any sources? Benjamin (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * —the word "culture" refers to a wide range of things but the term "cultural upheaval" refers to a small subset of those things. A Google search for "cultural upheaval" will show you that small subset of things. The problem as I see it is the selectivity involved in the Google hits returned for the term "cultural upheaval". The 1960s is seen as a time of cultural upheaval. But the 1950s was the time of Abstract expressionism in New York City. Painting would definitely be considered to be within the realm of "culture". Why does the term "cultural upheaval" fail to identify the flourishing of painting in New York City during the 1950s? The term "cultural upheaval" is actually somewhat parochial in that it lacks any rigorous correspondence to the entirety of "culture". You can use the term but beware of its misleading aspects. Bus stop (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you know about MCLR, and how MCLR is different from the base rate?
After reading many articles I gained knowledge about MCLR and the difference between MCLR and Base Rate. I am sharing my views here on MCLR and Base Rate, if I missed some points so please let me know about it,

MCLR means: The Reserve Bank of India has brought another approach of setting loaning rate by business banks under the name Marginal Cost of Funds based Lending Rate (MCLR). It has adjusted the current base rate framework from April 2016 onwards.

The MCLR ought to be updated month to month by thinking of some as new components including the repo rate and other borrowing rates. Particularly the repo rate and other borrowing rates that were not unequivocally thought to be under the base rate framework.

According to the new rules, banks need to set five benchmark rates for various tenure or time periods ranging from overnight (one day) rates to one year.

'''Now the point come that How MCLR is different from base rate? '''

The base rate or the standard lending rate by a bank is calculated on the premise of the following factors:

1. Cost for the funds (interest rate given for deposits),

2. Operating expenses,

3. Minimum rate of return (profit), and

4. Cost for the CRR (for the four percent CRR, the RBI is not giving any interest to the banks)

'''On the other hand, the MCLR is comprised of the following are the main components. ''' 1. Marginal cost of funds;

2. Negative carry on account of CRR;

3. Operating costs;

4. Tenor premium

It is obvious that the CRR costs and operating expenses are the normal components for both base rate and the MCLR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhushbooGupta07 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not (as far as I can tell) have an article about MLCR (Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate). See Your first article. Alansplodge (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatives to AFF
Are there any alternatives to AdultFriendFinder that are free or lower cost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.147.246.88 (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A bar? -- Jayron 32 16:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you tried Tinder? uhhlive (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * FetLife may be of interest. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think PlentyOfFish claims to be the world's largest "free" (in reality, "freemium") dating site, but it's not specifically adult-oriented, so it may not be what you're looking for. Though, to be honest, if you take the right approach (don't be a sleaze or a creep, ok?), I think you'd be just as likely to meet a potential sexual partner there than on adultfriendfinder? They do have categories as to what people are looking for, so you can screen out those explicitly seeking a long term relationship.
 * AdultFriendFinder's behaviour in some regards in controversial, and I'd like to see any data, or even estimates, as to how many of the male users of the site seeking female partners ever successfully meet a female off the site in real life. Any studies or estimates on the matter? Or any stats released by the site which may give some guesses? (The nature of such sites is that they're obviously more attractive to the average man than the average woman, so a significant sex imbalance is probably inevitable. But that does not excuse unethical behaviour to make it look like there are more active female users than there actually are). Eliyohub (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ashley Madison gives a good outline of the pitfalls. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that "The info that the hackers published contained about 31 million accounts apparently belonging to men, and about 5 million apparently belonging to women." There have been questions asked about how many of these "female users" were real (as opposed to fake profiles created by the company) and actively meeting anyone off the site. So your chances would not be that high on such sites. I suggest reading online reviews of any site from people with experience using it before spending any hard-earned money, and beware of shill posts and astroturfers, even on "publicly posted review" sites. But I do not assume that the OP is married or in a relationship, so what happened to Ashley Madison in terms of the leaks may be less of a concern. And besides, he is only asking about free sites, so the sites' financial integrity may not be an issue. But I strongly recommend familiarizing oneself with spotting and avoiding falling victim to Romance scams (in this case, the promise may be sex, not romance, but the danger is the same). NEVER send money via western union or moneygram to anyone you have not met IN REAL LIFE. EVEN if you've spoken on the telephone! Break this rule, YOU WILL BE SCAMMED, GUARANTEED. Eliyohub (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ingersoll on Moses
Mark Twain said "I wouldn't give a cent to hear Ingersoll on Moses, but I'd give ten dollars to hear Moses on Ingersoll." Moses I know about, but what is Ingersoll? Was he talking about The Ingersoll Lectures on Human Immortality? 208.95.51.72 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Must be Robert G. Ingersoll, a contemporary writer and orator and personal acquaintance of Twain, who had published a work called "Some mistakes of Moses". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * One wonders what Twain would have thought of Oolon Colluphid. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * One wonders what Twain would have thought of Vermin Supreme. - Nunh-huh 20:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ingersoll was pretty much a blowhard, although he does still have his fans among certain anarchists. His militant atheism gained him publicity, if not infamy in his day. His reputation was damaged by his connection with the Baron of Arizona land-claim fraud.  As a modern atheist myself, I find him long-winded, self-important, and not entertaining. In part, that may be the style of the times, but I agree with Gompers. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think one of the many benefits of atheism, modern or otherwise, is relief from the requirement of having to listen to sermons... - Nunh-huh 23:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC) :)
 * Like atheists don't also deliver sermons? Or are you being funny? I tried to watch a Richard Dawkins talk on youtube and it was a lot like a sermon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * By "sermon" I meant sermon, not a boring speech one could analogize to a sermon. As to funny, it amused me, but apparently not you. - Nunh-huh 22:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Atheism was a good thing till the SJWs latched onto it. Now it's just a tool in the American Culture war and a vehicle for globalists (for example wrt Palestine.) Dawkins himself has been a victim of this development. Asmrulz (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean Social justice warriors, there's no shortage of them in the right wing either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, but you rarely see outright hong weibing-ery from the Right nowadays. And words have definitions. An SJW is someone specifically informed by Cultural Marxism (which is neither cultural nor Marxism) Asmrulz (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is not SJW's per se, but militant anti-theists. I am an atheist.  Literally, without god.  I don't believe in Santa Claus either, but neither incenses me.  Many of the New Atheists and Freedom From Religion Foundation types have their own radical ideology, which they do not realize is itself a religion, given its crusading fervor and desire to convert.  The are not without God.  They are actively against your religious freedom.  It's about as insane as Santaphobia.  Camille Paglia is an exaample of an atheist who is not an antitheist. μηδείς (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

US constitutional definition of treason - "declaring war on the US"?
Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution contains the definition of treason. To quote, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or (rest is irrelevant here).

But in my earlier question it was generally agreed that A non-State cannot declare war. Acts such of those of the Symbionese Liberation Army, or less likely, Timothy McVeigh (I don't think he made any statements of the sort the SLA did of a "declaration of war" type?) would be limited to being classified as Seditious conspiracy (putting aside "common" criminal charges for individual acts such as murders, including Federal charges of "Murder of a Federal Official", or terrorism charges). So is "levying war against the U.S." only grounds for a treason charge if done as part of an action by or on behalf of a country at war with the U.S.? Could non-state-aligned "acts of war" or, put another way, "warlike acts" ever qualify under this definition?

(My guess is, reality, the Government wouldn't bother with Treason charges if they were in any way doubtful in such cases, when there are clear alternatives for things like this, like the alternative charges I mentioned. But I'm still curious about the theory). Eliyohub (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To levy war means to make war. It doesn't necessarily require a declaration of war. And in theory they could have tried McVeigh for treason, but there was already sufficient grounds for the death penalty. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * citation needed on the theoretical possibly of charging McVeigh for treason. And how courts would define the word "war" in this kind of situation, where war has not been "declared"? Eliyohub (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Kevin James, the ringleader of the 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, confessed to "conspiracy to levy war against the United States", so (presumably) could have been charged with treason if the plot had succeeded. Tevildo (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sounds like law does recognize "war" in this case, although a plea of not guilty would have forced a judicial definition of the term, as it applies to these situations. Eliyohub (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Read what the Washington Post had to say about McVeigh's condemnation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I followed the link and read it. Interesting mixture of analysis and comment, but not really relevant to the specific legal question I'm asking. Does not contain any legal opinion on this point. The prosecutor's use of the term hardly counts as a legal opinion that his act fits the constitutional definition. Eliyohub (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A treason charge is pretty rare in America. You might want to read about actual treason cases in America and get the drift of what circumstances lead to such a charge. As for McVeigh, what would have been the point in an actual treason charge if he were already being charged with a capital crime? He can't be put to death twice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This article may be more enlightening. The theme is that treason charges are frought with politics, and if the perp can be charged with something that can be factually established, why bother with a treason charge? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)