Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 October 2

= October 2 =

How does the United States withstand droughts?
I've read in the news that the reason why the Middle East (Syria) is so violent and unstable lately is due to a drought. I also hear of droughts in the United States, and the only result that happens is a minor increase in prices of a few types of items in the supermarket. But then, Americans have been struck by hurricanes, and the city would go wild and lawless quickly. But at least it still seems to be better than the situation in Syria. During natural disasters, how do societies maintain order? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In the United States, only a rather small percentage of the overall population is directly engaged in agriculture, and many aspects of agriculture are highly mechanized, and farms are often consolidated into "agribusinesses". Most of the time, a drought means that fewer itinerant farm laborers are needed and farmers or farming businesses take a financial hit, but there aren't too many problems for the general population beyond food-price rises and occasional (but usually highly-localized) water-supply problems.
 * However, there was plenty of social turmoil back in the 1930s Dust Bowl... AnonMoos (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In terms of the Middle East, define "lately". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Syrian Civil War, Section 1.4 Drought is relevant. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.210.199 (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The US is physically large with variety of fairly independent climatic regions, so a nationwide drought is highly unusual. We also have a comprehensive transportation infrastructure and almost no internal trade barriers. This means a localized drought is compensated by moving food in from other areas of the country. Individual farmers can be really hurt economically, but there are mechanism to mitigate this. -Arch dude (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Programme partners and delivery partners in major capital projects
I have noticed that in many major capital infrastructure construction projects, clients will appoint programme and delivery partners who provide programme and project management and project delivery services. This to me just sounds like the client is just bringing in more people to help do their client side job in managing the supply chain and other stakeholders, without recruiting hundreds of people themselves. Is this correct? In fact, in some cases I've seen staff from these partners sit in client offices and represent themselves to stakeholders using the clients name. 94.10.178.193 (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Its called Subcontracting. Sometimes you hire an employee to do your plumbing. Sometimes you hire a company that does plumbing. And sometimes you do your own plumbing. Sometimes you hire an employee to do your project management. Sometimes you hire a company that does project management. And sometimes you do your own project management. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Also known as outsourcing, intimately related to the division of labour. 81.147.142.152 (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Pied-Noir
In Origin of the term it says: The actual origin of the term "pied-noir" is unknown and therefore debated. — Howsoever, the information given after the sentence beginning with The Le Robert dictionary states… seems to relate solid facts as opposed to the claimed uncertainty. Or are there just missing the relevant qualifications – as made for Le Robert before – with regard to the references cited subsequently?--Tuchiel (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it would be clearer to say there are competing theories, since that is the content of the section. Made an edit, let's see if it stands. FYI, if you need more references, the Oxford English Dictionary also includes the steamship stoker origin: "Etymology: < French pied noir stoker on a steam ship (1901), former nickname for an Algerian (1917), French person born in Algeria (1955) < pied foot (see pied-à-terre n.) + noir black (see noir adj.). Stokers on Mediterranean steamships, often of Algerian origin, used to walk barefoot in the soot." 70.67.222.124 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Now, my question would still be: Can it be regarded as a given fact that the term pied-noir was used for (mainly) Algerian stokers by the French and later became adopted to French born in Algeria, as stated in the article? (cf. "In the Mediterranean, this was often an Algerian native, thus the term was used pejoratively for Algerians until 1955 when it first began referring to "French born in Algeria." (Shepard, Le Robert) This usage originated from mainland French as a negative nickname." (OED)) — I'm asking because in this case the origin of the expression in fact wouldn't be controversial anymore, would it? Otherwise, as I already tried to imply, one would actually have to add qualifying phrases for each statement, such as "According to the Oxford English Dictionary…" etc. – similar to the one referring to Le Robert, right?--Tuchiel (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Now you're beyond my pay grade. If you are concerned about the reliability of the sources, I believe the procedure is to bring it up on the article talk page, or the reliable sources noticeboard. Whether Wikipedia articles have to insert "according to" or simply include the reference footnote is a style question and I don't know enough to know the answer. There is a Help desk that could maybe answer that one, since you're not getting answers here. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Tuchiel, for a secondary source discussing the various supposed origins of the phrase, see Remembering French Algeria: Pieds-Noirs, Identity, and Exile (pp. 9-10) by Amy L. Hubbell. She dismisses the black boots and grape-treading theories as "myths". Alansplodge (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)