Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 June 6

= June 6 =

State historian
How many U.S. states have an official state historian? And in how many of those is it an honorary part-time thing (like poet laureate) rather than a full-time job? Neutralitytalk 01:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * this is what I found. Might not be 100% accurate or true, but I hope it helps

This list is possibly inaccurate. I only spent about 3 minutes looking for each state. The ones that I am least sure about are marked with a question mark. I am aware that many of the states listed with no state historian have an archivist, or something similar. The honorary column is only used when I specifically saw it in a news article. If you find a mistake, please correct it (Eddie891 (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC))


 * You've omitted the states of Alleghany, New Jersey, and Ozark. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

- wow, thanks! This could be the start of a brand-new list article, if you feel so inclined. Neutralitytalk 23:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin Barber jihad and mcworld democracy
Barber said that jihad has more possibilities of developing democratic strategies. How? Or is it the other way around? Donmust90 (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at our articles on Benjamin Barber and Jihad vs. McWorld? —Tamfang (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Four dynamics of McWorld
What are the four dynamics of the McWorld? The McWorld concept made by Benjamin Barber. Donmust90 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Green Movement in Confederal Option
How can the Green Movement play a role in Confederal Option? Donmust90 (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Market not free nor perfect
Why does Leslie Sklair say that the market is not free and not perfect? What does he mean? Donmust90 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Because Leslie Sklair is a Marxist, and Marxists don't believe that free markets exist. See Transnational capitalist class. BTW, nobody believes that perfect markets exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you name anything humans do that could be called "perfect"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Nation-states connected Complex Interdependence
According to Complex Interdependence, nation-states are connected in the present. How? by linkage or something? Donmust90 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Bakery and baking
Why is the bakery associated with bread and pastries, even though a bird carcass can be baked in the oven? Pizza is often baked in the oven, but somehow it's not in the bakery? Are "baked goods" all sweet treats? What do you call something savory that just happens to be baked in an oven? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * EO says that the term "bakery" dates to the early 1800s and was specifically about "baked goods" especially bread. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This does not explain how the term, baking, is used for anything that can be baked under the sun or in an oven. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the terms are used imprecisely and may differ according to local variants. The term "roasting" also refers to a cooking process in an oven for main and side dishes. Differences may involve ingredients and preparations: e.g. "baked potato" (in its jacket/skin) vs. "roast potato" (peeled before cooking) both by dry oven methods. French has the separate words boulangerie and patisserie - for the establishment baking bread vs. pastry (savory vs. sweet) and their associated professions. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Liberal Democrat election propaganda
An election leaflet, apparently delivered to every voter in the country, provides this alleged quote from The Observer of 25 February:

"Labour is not a functioning opposition, leaving Mrs May free to act as she pleases"

The Observer didn't publish on 25 February. Is there anything else they've got wrong? 81.148.187.1 (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The article is online here - dated 25 February and presumably in print copies on the following day. Hardly the most egregious piece of misinformation in the campaign.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And if it appeared on the website on the 25th, then it is correct to say that it was "published" on that date. So this may not even be "misinformation". Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But if it only appeared on theguardian.com on 25 Feb, did it actually appear in The Observer on 25 Feb? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Observer is a Sunday newspaper, so it would have first appeared in print on 26 Feb. However, online versions of articles that appear in print in the Observer appear on theguardian.com (there is no separate Observer website). So yes, it is correct to say that it first appeared in the Observer on 25 Feb. --Viennese Waltz 13:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If paper A does not have a website, and the article appeared on the website of paper B, then it was published on that website, not paper A. I think it was published on theguardian.com on 25 Feb, and then was re-printed in The Observer on 26 Feb. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a category within the website, though. Since they're both just different brands for the same organization, I don't think it's incorrect to say that an Observer article was published on the day it went up on a website officially affiliated with the Observer. It's not perfectly clear, but who would waste ink over-explaining a slightly confusing one-day discrepancy?ApLundell (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) The Observer has a separate dedicated section on theguardian.com. How thin do you want to split that hair? I'd rate the claim that The Observer published it on February 25th as "Substantially true". Also, aren't most Sunday papers available late Saturday night? I remember newspaper boys (well, mostly men) hawking them in pubs and restaurants.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ObPers: I concur with Stephan Schulz: when catching a late evening train (on any day of the week) from London termini, for example, one usually finds the early editions of the next days's papers being sold. This is a byproduct of the distribution process that allows national papers, traditionally printed in London, to be on sale and delivered by breakfast time nationwide.
 * The same date discrepancy can arise with weekly publications, such as The New Scientist and The Economist: They are usually on the newsstands in London on Wednesday night, ditto nationwide on Thursday, subscription copies usually arrive by post on Friday, but they are dated on the cover from Saturday (to the next Friday). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.208.38 (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Why isn't it "Labour are"? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Because "Labour" is shorthand for "The Parliamentary Labour Party" which is the official opposition. Wymspen (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you then say that "Chelsea" is shorthand for "The Chelsea Football Club"? So "Chelsea is in the Premier League." or any other sentence that starts with "[football club] is" shouldn't be ungrammatical. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In UK English, references to an organization as a whole (rather than its members), take the singular. BTW, the URL has 'observer' in it, which indicates that it was published by the Observer. LongHairedFop (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference is the difference between notional agreement vs. formal agreement. Two things should be noted: 1) UK English and US English deal with these two forms of agreement differently and 2) It's also inconsistent within each dialect.  -- Jayron 32 20:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually the URL only has "Observer" in it because it is "the Observer view". In this context it is because the article was intended to appear in the Observer, but it is not a logical necessity that an article headed "The X view" is an article published by X. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The poster could have found the article by a Google search and checked for themselves. As it is Labour seem to have come back quite a bit since then. Also I think the Guardian got it wrong in its attitude as if Jeremy Corbyn cares much about parliament - he is more of a grassroots politician saying populist things like Trump, the papers got that wrong too. He won't get elected this time but it certainly is looking like populism and divisiveness is going to be the way in politics for a while yet. Dmcq (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is Corbyn really more like Trump than Bernie? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, his politics are much closer to Sanders on pretty much everything. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Bernie Sanders also tended towards populism, but that's not the same as saying his or Corbyn's aims are the same as Trump's! America is very badly divided and currently Labour and the Tories are heading towards doing the same in the UK. Dmcq (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The website is "theguardian.com".  The Observer section appears to be "theguardian.com/observer".   This piece was on the main section under "observer-view-on-labour-and-jeremy-corbyn".   Whether the words attributed to the Observer actually appeared in the paper or are just the Guardian summary of the editorial I don't know.   The fact that the word "observer" appeared in the URL doesn't mean that the Observer published them, any more than if "donald-trump" appears in a URL that means the piece was published by Donald Trump.   As for dated content being referenced by the date it was accessed, you could cite an almanac for 2017 as 2016 as that was when it was published and then nobody would be able to find the material.81.148.128.200 (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like you will never knowingly be wrong so why on earth raise the matter in the first place? Dmcq (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just had a look with Google at 'Liberal democrat election leaflet' under images for the last month and I can't see anything like what you say. In fact they all look very different which is I believe in line with their general way of doing things which to have loose internal control and concentrate on local issues rather than be strongly driven by ideology. Dmcq (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It may not be quite obvious to outsiders, but The Observer is the sister newspaper to The Guardian. Both are published by the Guardian Media Group. Their relation is analogous to the one between The Times and The Sunday Times or the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday. Both The Observer and The Guardian publish on https://www.theguardian.com, where The Observer's section is under https://www.theguardian.com/observer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Zoologist, non-academic
To the List of people from Pittsburg, Kansas I'd like to add Marlin Perkins. I'd like advice regarding the appropriate category, though. He's not actually an Academic as it seems he worked his way up to the position of zookeeper. He was involved in nature conservation and gained prominence as presenter of "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom on television. I not good with "Television" because it's under the heading Arts & Entertainment. What's a proper category, even if it requires adding to the page? -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything Is Miscellaneous... -- Jayron 32 17:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that putting him under "Television" would be fine, since the two TV shows are what he's best known for (and a zoo is, at least partly, a form of "entertainment" in any event). Deor (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Eighth Route Army
Where does the term Route come from?--Erdic (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See Route Army: "A Route Army (路軍/路军), was a type of military organization during the Chinese Republic, and usually exercised command over two or more corps or a large number of divisions or independent brigades." Scala Cats (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, but unfortunately, also in this article it does not really become clear to me what "Route" exactly refers to here. I also wonder, whether "Route" is a literal translation or a term deviating from the Chinese designation and coined by anglophone historians in fact.--Erdic (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Route Armies" were first formed in 1929. Before the "Nth Route Armies" of the National Revolutionary Army were formed, there were various military units called the "X Route Armies", e.g. the "Left Route Army" and "Right Route Army" in Guizhou. The Communist Red Army, before they became part of the National Revolutionary Army, also had a "West Route Army", "South Route Army" and "North Route Army" (or "Left" and "Right"; "East", "Middle" and "West", etc). In ancient China, an expeditionary force that is marching to battle along three different routes might be organised into a "North Route Army", "Middle Route Army" and "South Route Army": examples of such names can be found from the civil war immediately before the establishment of the Han Dynasty to the Ming resistance against the Qing Dynasty. I can't find any sources form an internet search as to why Chiang Kai-shek adopted "Route Army" as a unit in 1929, but I think the terminology probably derives from the traditional division name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So, did I get you right that the term "Route" would then be indeed a translation of a Chinese equivalent?--Erdic (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Route = 路, lu, the Chinese word for "road". In Shanghai's French Concession, for example, roads called Route X in French were literally called X Lu in Chinese. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much!--Erdic (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a RL analogy to leaving separated, surrounded units too costly to rescue,
and telling them to not try to fight through the somewhat more powerful force blocking them from the main friendly force hoping to get lucky but only to fortify till the enemy decides to attack and then kill as many attackers as they can to weaken the enemy? Basically either making them a sacrificial enemy weakener if they're attacked or tying up enemy troops if they're content to just keep escape unlikely? It might work better in real war than in Risk® since a force is stronger per capita defending their lives than attacking (especially if they had time to fortify) but Risk defenders get fewer dice. This sounds like something the Japanese or Soviets might've done in WWII where surrender wasn't an option. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Last Stand.
 * ApLundell (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also e.g. Battle of Stalingrad. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds exactly like that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Battle of the Alamo. However, note that this strategy requires an incompetent enemy.  In both the Battle of Stalingrad and the Alamo, the enemy forces should have just bypassed them, in the first case going on to attack other targets in Russia, and in the second case, going directly on to the Battle of San Jacinto.  StuRat (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's called a Siege and it has been an important part of warfare since prehistoric times. Basically, you fort up and hold out until you die or until there is an external change. See also pocket. A fixed fortification or city is built in advance with the idea of defending itself against a siege, while a pocket usually occurs dynamically and the defenders must hastily fortify. -Arch dude (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you're missing the element that this Q is only about it's use as a diversionary tactic, to get the enemy to attack a small force of defenders, while the main force is free to fight elsewhere. StuRat (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the defenders will attempt to goad the other side into attacking. See Come and take it. This is also an annoying habit of some experienced Wikipedia editors; goad a newbie into breaking the rules then report him. [ Citation Needed ] --Guy Macon (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, the strategy of sacrificing men and materiel in order to cause the enemy to waste more (or more important) men and materiel is Attrition warfare. Delaying the enemy by forcing them to deal with multiple strongpoints rather than bypassing them is an element of Defence_in_depth, although I'm not sure this specific case is an example of that.  Iapetus (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Does the Battle of Thermopylae match the OP's requirements as well? -- Jayron 32 23:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's pretty much it. I had forgot about that. (why didn't the Persians try to see if there wasn't a sneak way to Greece first before attacking the pass? scouts are cheap) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * They never thought they could be delayed significantly by only 300 soldiers. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It was 7,000 at first. One would think only 100-150K vs 7K guarding a cart-width path would be at least worth a quick look around first. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There wasn't much else. Greece is a pretty rugged and inhospitable terrain.  -- Jayron 32 01:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There was a way around, which a traitor eventually showed them. However, delaying the attack to take the time to look would allow the Greeks time to organize a defense, so the direct path was worth a quick try, too. StuRat (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Australia's online sales tax changes
I'm reading about Australia's new online sales tax changes and am pretty confused.

One article says: "Under new laws slated to come into effect from July 1, overseas businesses with an annual turnover of $75,000 or more will be required to register with the ATO to collect GST on all goods sold, including purchases under the current low-value threshold of $1000."

But another one says: "Overseas retailers have no obligation to comply with Australian tax laws..."

So do these new Australian tax laws affect overseas retailers or not? Scala Cats (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The second link is a quote from Tom Godfrey, spokesperson for Choice (Australian consumer organisation). He is doubtless a fine fellow but he is not a recognised authority on Australian tax law, so what he says is essentially an opinion.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The two are not necessarily inconsistent. An Australian tax law could require overseas businesses to do so-and-so, but the extraterritorial effect could only exist under Australian law and not be recognised anywhere else, and the Australian government could have no practical way of enforcing it against them. Unless there is a way to enforce it, it would be like the old rhetorical example of a British statute criminalising literring on the streets of Paris. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)