Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 October 1

= October 1 =

historians similar to Niall Ferguson
are there any other historians that share a similar viewpoint with Ferguson on European colonialism? Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're aware he is a discredited racist? -- 09:53, 1 October 2017‎ (UTC)‎
 * He holds a number of top academic posts, so presumably not discredited by his employers. Note that your edits here must be signed and must conform to our Biographies of living persons policy. Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The unsigned IP is right though, just look at Niall_Ferguson to see some of thoroughly discredited and odious ideologies he adheres to. Fgf10 (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So anyone who's a holocaust denier, for example, might be said to "share a similar viewpoint" with this guy? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Fgf10 is saying it is odious for a historian to give his expert opinion on what is currently happening. Dmcq (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

His acceptance of the discredited Eurabia theory is only a minor detail of his life though. His views on the British Empire may be highly controversial but not discredited I believe. Uncle dan is home (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that his article, THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: 4-4-04; Eurabia? really says that he embraces the Eurabia theory. I'm not saying he's right, but let's get the facts right. Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyways I think it would be good if we could stay on topic with my question. Uncle dan is home (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ayaan Hirsi Ali, presumably...although she's not really an historian. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * But she is married to a historian, a certain Niall Ferguson. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Western European colonialism and colonization, his views are not particularly out of line with others. There were some particularly nasty regimes but in general the main problems have been after the colonial powers have left because they left the countries with really stupid borders. If they had had the sense to rearrange the borders before they had left the world would have a lot less wars now. Dmcq (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are all the good historians rightwing? suggests David Starkey and Michael Burleigh as Furguson's fellow historians of the right, but Starkey is only known to me for his work on the British monarchy and Burleigh not at all I'm afraid. Small Wars, Far Away Places by Michael Burleigh: review says that "Burleigh faces up squarely to the less than glorious episodes that stained the British [Imperial} record". Alansplodge (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Belfast
On the Belfast article's historical population table it listed the 2011 population at 286,000 and 2015 population at 600,000. Is this correct? Seems crazy that the population can double in just 4 years. Or did its city limits expand during these 4 years? Mũeller (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the Republic of Ireland's capital city is Dublin every year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This chart has some population trends. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a table there, but 600,000 is approximately the population the Belfast Metropolitan Area. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Search for the word "Historical population" and there's a collapsed table in that info box. Or visit the mobile version of the article which always show the table by default. Mũeller (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This has now been corrected.  D b f i r s   11:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh right. Yeah it's already been corrected - according to the page history, looks like someone added some fake numbers in May, and when they were recently reverted, the wrong number was accidentally left in the collapsed table. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not "fake" but a confusion between the Belfast Metropolitan Area and the City of Belfast proper, which is one of 13 boroughs which make up the Metropolitan Area. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP in question has been blocked by Materialscientist for "persistent addition of unsourced content". 81.147.142.152 (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Conscription in the United States
1. From the Cold War section: "A February 1953 Gallup Poll showed 70 percent of Americans surveyed felt the SSS handled the draft fairly. Notably, the demographic including all draft age men (males 21 to 29) reported 64 percent believed the draft to be fair." — Isn't this formulation misleading with regard to the word "reported", if "demographic" – as I presume – refers to "demographic group" here?--Tuchiel (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Grammatically, it should be "Notably, it was reported that of the demographic including all draft age men (males 21 to 29), 64 percent believed the draft to be fair." Is that what you're asking? Loraof (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I meant! Unlike the present one, your version seems perfectly understandable to me. Would you mind improving the article text or shall I take care of that?--Tuchiel (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and correct it there. Thanks! Loraof (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Although it has become common, I think that the use of "demographic" as a noun is a bit sloppy. We should probably use demographic group". -Arch dude (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Online Etymology Dictionary says "demographic" has been used as a noun since 1967. However I agree that "demographic group" is a bit more precise.  CodeTalker (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

2. From the Vietnam War section: "Besides being able to avoid the draft, college graduates who volunteered for military service (primarily as commissioned officers) had a much better chance of securing a preferential posting compared to less-educated inductees." — What exactly is meant by "preferential posting"?--Tuchiel (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On 2: It generally meant being posted as far from the war as possible... to a base in Germany, for example. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A volunteer was guaranteed the AIT (Advanced Individual Training) of his choice. you could choose any AIT that had an opening and you got to choose before you signed up, not after. If you had the (relatively minimal) prerequisites, and if you passed the final, you had the MOS (Military Operational Specialty) of that training. If you volunteered to train as a 72F, you ended up as a DSTE operator and you served in a strategic communications center, so even if you ended up in 'Nam you were quite safe. If you got drafted, the Army chose your MOS (e.g., combat infantry) and you could easily end up in a rice paddy getting shot at. Volunteers had to serve for three years, draftees for two years. All troops (volunteer and draftee) stated a geographical preference, but there was no guarantee. Since almost everybody picked cool places or tiny places near home, these were massively overbooked and few people got their wish, so they went to 'Nam. Anyone who picked the Washington DC area was assigned there because of the enormous number of troops there, but almost nobody knew this trick. -Arch dude (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Failing that, you could get an overseas scholarship on the condition that you joined the Reserve Officers' Training Corps and then avoid joining, or you could join the Air National Guard but not complete your commitment. Can't think who would stoop that low though :-)  Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to get that right: "Can't think who would stoop that low though" — Is the irony meant in the way that in fact many people "stooped that low" or rather that you are sympathetic about that in reality, or even differently? Sorry if this seems too silly to you, I was just wondering about the meaning of that smiley... Best--Tuchiel (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, see Bill Clinton for the first method and George W. Bush military service controversy for the second. Please let me know if I am misrepresenting either of these gentlemen and I will tender a fulsome apology. Alansplodge (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, now I got it! ;-)--Tuchiel (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You could volunteer for the Air Force or Navy, but that was a four-year hitch. Joining the Air National guard was very difficult as they had more people than they needed. You could only get accepted if you had some political influence, for instance if your father was the governor of the state. -Arch dude (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in how the rich and influential managed to avoid National Service in the United Kingdom; see Dodging national service: a dishonourable tradition. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Which has less IRA-likeness, Scotland or Wales?
Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Neither Scotland or Wales has any organisation remotely resembling the Irish Republican Army. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "likeness", perhaps you could clarify? Alansplodge (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Not even one with just a handful of militants? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to look near the end of the Welsh nationalism article. And Scotland had the Scottish National Liberation Army. But there's no real comparison to the IRA. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are less organized or militant than the Animal Liberation Front. The IRA has disbanded in Northern Ireland except for some small breakaway bits. Dmcq (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One more, Meibion Glyndŵr ("The Sons of Glyndŵr") were a militant group who were opposed to English people buying holiday homes in Wales, and used to set fire to them (the houses) while the owners were away. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That reminds me, members of the Mebyon Kernow ("Sons of Cornwall") used to deliberately drive faster than the speed limits, on the grounds that the signs ought to have been written in Cornish miles per hour. Alansplodge (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's pretty cool. Unfortunately America has not been settled by Rome-aware folk for long enough to have developed indigenous miles (i.e. Dixie mile, Western mile, Alaskan mile, Hawaiian mile, Texan mile, Midwestern mile, Californian mile, Vermont mile, Floridian mile, Ohio mile, Mormon mile..) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Though there is a "country mile", and a "New York minute". If you drive a country mile in less than a New York minute, presumably you're going pretty fast. --Trovatore (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Our article, Mile, lists some of the variants but doesn't mention the Cornish mile. The Cornish Nats argument was that the Weights and Measures Act 1824 (which swept away the old local units and replaced them with Imperial units) doesn't apply to Cornwall because of rights granted to the Stannary Courts and Parliaments in the 16th century, which has been proved to be bollocks. By the way, the fact that British units weren't standardised until 1824 explains the odd US pints and gallons, which are different to everyone else's. Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Astonishingly, we have an article New York Minute (I already knew what it was because it featured in an ad campaign in the UK a few years ago, I forget what for). Alansplodge (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It was an American Airlines advert with James Gandolfini  Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One wonders if a country minute is about 3 minutes and a New York mile is about 0.8 kilometers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It would help if the question actually made any sense. As it is-! &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  21:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * . Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"Milk must be pure to drink No Tests"
I'm watching Ken Burns's documentary on the Vietnam War and it episode 2, they show a photo of protesters. Most of the signs the protesters hold are anti-war. But one of the protesters is holding a sign saying "Milk must be pure to drink No Tests" with a skull and crossbones. Anyone know what that's about? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the "tests" would be atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons, known for introducing strontium-90 into the environment. Strontium is especially dangerous because it is chemically similar to calcium, and therefore gets taken up into bone tissue, where it can irradiate the body for many years.  Presumably it gets into milk for the same reason. --Trovatore (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * See:
 * —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E19A:1892:B4DC:8315 (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E19A:1892:B4DC:8315 (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The unfortunate residents of Belarus still have milk which contains "a radioactive isotope at levels 10 times higher than the nation's food safety limits", more than 30 years after the Chernobyl disaster.  Alansplodge (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * See Pure and Modern Milk: An Environmental History Since 1900 by Kendra Smith-Howard (2017). "The intense concerns about fallout-contaminated milk came to a near half" following the Partial Test Ban Treaty (1963). This treaty ended atmospheric nuclear explosions. Concerns about the purity of milk then switched to antibiotics and pesticides, after the publication of Silent Spring (1962). What particular tests the protester is referring to, I have no idea: it may depend on the year and the state (assuming this is an American protest). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm old enough to remember when my elementary school would collect pupils' fallen-out baby teeth so that the levels of strontium-90 therein could be determined. Yes, it was because of concern about the contamination of milk by atmospheric nuclear tests. It did not, however, put the tooth fairy out of business. Deor (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For all I know there may have been protests as early as '63; there were already Americans getting killed. But it's true that the Timeline section of our article Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War starts in '64.
 * I don't think that rules out the nuclear-test interpretation, though; I still think it's the strongest one. Maybe the protestor hadn't gotten the memo about the treaty, or maybe he/she wasn't convinced that underground testing sufficiently addressed the issue. --Trovatore (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)