Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 January 27

= January 27 =

Backyard of a nation
Latin America is the backyard of USA, Francophone Africa is France's backyard, Central Asia is Russia's and Southeast Asia is China's. What about Saudi Arabia, Iran, India, United Kingdom and Australia? These are major powers. Which region is their backyard? Donmust90 (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure about this terminology, but as an Australian, I'd say Australia's "backyard" wouldn't generally be the small Pacific island nations. Australia is generally "expected" to help when things go wrong there. For perhaps the most obvious example, consider the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, which was largely Australian., my fellow Aussie, what are your thoughts on this?


 * I'd say Saudi Arabia's backyard is the rest of the Arabian Peninsula: Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Especially Yemen. What else could it be? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Why is it not the Outback? Almost everyone lives in the front of Australia, near the coast and mostly only south Queensland to southeast SA or the southwest corner. If someone lives in the Outback their whole life maybe they don't see it as "out back" though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * According to the always-correct internet, Australia's backyard stretches from the Pilbara in Western Australia, to Kakadu and Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory, to Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, and as far east as French Polynesia, particularly Mururoa Atoll. It seems to be an ill-defined term. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Why are we assuming that the question is even meaningful? --184.144.97.125 (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The more formal name is Sphere of influence -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or possibly Satellite states. -- Jayron 32 13:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * can we say that the US is Canada’s back yard? Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In terms of most objective social science measures, Canada is certainly the more advanced society. I'd say the math checks out.  -- Jayron 32 18:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * More like the crazy old uncle we keep in the basement and avoid talking about are embarrassed of [obligatory eh]. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Y'all were good kids in the '80s, but look how you've turned out! fiveby(zero) 04:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

website that list which books are social or "soft" science fiction
Is there a website that shows a list of books that are categorized or considered as social of "soft" science fiction novels and which elements of social science do they involve in and as well as how are they considered as social science fiction in which way?Donmust90 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If "hard" science fiction is that which focuses on gadgets and physical-science theories to the detriment of character development and most other characteristics of good literature, then hard SF has been in decline since the days of Hugo Gernsback and "Skylark of Space", and most science-fiction these days is "soft". However, Soft science fiction does not necessarily mean that it explores social-science theories.  Most tales of utopias and/or dystopias are in fact relevant to social sciences... AnonMoos (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's article titled Soft science fiction both explains the concept and has a list of works. -- Jayron 32 17:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also an easy-to-make mistake (a form of category error?) to think that any work can necessarily be categorised as only "soft" or "social" or "hard" or "whatever" science fiction. In reality, a great many works contain elements of two or several such conceptual labels.
 * The same sort of over-analytical thinking results in the laughable metal music sub-genre wars where someone argues endlessly over which sub-genre a particular band "is" and even complains when the band produces music supposedly outside his/her chosen designation, forgetting (or not realising) that all such categories are merely a convenience, not a rule to be obeyed, and that any musician or group may produce anything they want to and over the course of a career (or even within a single album) will likely work in (or even invent) several different "genres." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.224.157 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a long-standing debate in many fields over categorization. See Lumpers and splitters.  -- Jayron 32 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite so. In some fields (e.g. Biology), it can be both useful and necessary to categorise things to some degree or another (and we can all argue about the degree), but in others, such as Music, it achieves little or nothing beyond satisfying a near-OCD obsession. What does it matter whether The Taphronic Vampire Gerbils' last album was more Symphonic Death Metal than Melodic Death Metal? The music is the music – just listen to it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.224.157 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It does help people find music they may also like. If you like the band "Horned Toads", which is categorized as Danish Death Folk, and you find other bands also categorized as Danish Death Folk, you may find you like those as well.  It's useful for those sorts of things.  Where it isn't useful is in telling people they are wrong.  Which is where people misuse such categorical systems.  -- Jayron 32 11:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Knowing whether the music to be played at a concert is classified as Renaissance music or as new-age music provides me with a valued prediction regarding my expected enjoyment if attending. The distinction between "hard" SF and mushy SF has a similar value. --Lambiam 12:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)