Humanities desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 3

Islam in Europe and Africa

You Wikipedians are not doing a good job of describing whether the majority religion of a nation is whether Islam or Christianity in Africa and Europe. So far, please read my question properly, I know that Albania is a majority Muslim nation in Europe but what about Kosovo and Bosnia? Are they Muslim nations or Christian nations? In Africa, so far I know that Burkina Faso, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria are Muslim nations but what about Guinea-Bissau, Eritrea, Ivory Coast and Tanzania? Are they Muslim nations or Christian nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.164 (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the demographics section, describes the religious situation there. There is no majority religion. There are more practitioners of Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina (at 45%) than any other single religion, but as no single religion has over 50% of the population, there is no majority religion. The Kosovo article, in the religion section, clearly and unambiguously states that Kosovo is a majority Muslim nation, 90% of the population practices Islam. Guinea-Bissau is 35% Muslim (as stated in the Religion section), the largest religion, but as with Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is no majority religion. For every other nation you list, there is information about the religion of that country in either the main country article (see the Demographics section or the Religion section of each article) or in a seperate "Religion in..." article. For a random example, Religion in Nigeria has figures for that country. You can do the rest of your research yourself, I'm sure, now that you know how to find the information. --Jayron32 02:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean there is no majority religion in Guinea-Bissau? According to the article Islam in Guinea-Bissau, it says that Islam is the predominant religion of the nation and making Guinea-Bissau the only Lusophone nation that has Islam as dominant religion. How do you explain that? 70.31.20.164 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.164 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No single religion is practiced by more than 50% of Guinea-Bissau. That means that no single religion holds a majority in that country. The largest single religion by adherants is Islam. Largest group is not a synonym of majority. --Jayron32 04:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious but did you see List of Muslim-majority countries and List of countries by Muslim population. Some of the numbers in the article might not match the country article but they are sourced. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Jatiya Party and Islami oikkya Jote

What is the history of Bangladesh Jatiya Party and Islami Oikkya Jote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.164 (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fictional Bangladeshi political party

Which part of the political spectrum will this fictional political party fall on: promotes immigration from Muslim nations, anti-Indian, anti-Pakistan, advocates Islamic nationalism, Bengali and Bangladeshi nationalism, make legislation that Durga Puja, Krishna's Birthday, Buddha's Birthday and Christmas as no longer holidays and make Islamic New Year and Holy month of Ramadhan as holidays, trade deals with Pakistan for trading Biahris and Bengalis with the nation, have good relationship with Muslim nations but not with India and Pakistan, it is social conservative, national conservative and promotes some components of Sharia law into Bangladeshi society and marriages between Bengali Muslims and non-Bengali Muslims? It is called Bangladesh Independence Party and my friend made it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.164 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would any party be promoting immigration to Bangladesh when the country is arguably overpopulated, and they haven't been able to get rid of the Stranded Pakistanis for 40 years? AnonMoos (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the most significant....

.... event of 1. 19th century, 2. 20th century, 3. 21st century (till now). Is the answer for 2. rise of totalitarianism, rise of democracy, rise of communism? or space exploration (Man in space/Moon landing)? --Pakocat (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of opinion, so there's no "correct answer". IMHO, the invention of atomic/nuclear weapons might very well be the most significant event of the last century, especially if we eventually have a nuclear war. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that happened, there'd be nobody left to tell about it, and nobody left to do the telling, so there's really no point in having a nuclear war. There could be no victors, but even if there were, there'd be nobody for them to lord it over, and having someone else to lord over when the war's finished is the only real advantage to fighting a war. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming a total nuclear war, as was feared in the old Cold War days. I picture a limited nuclear war, when some unstable nation with just a few nukes, like North Korea, Pakistan, and, soon, Iran, decides to use them. StuRat (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of what you're imagining into existence, Stu. Radioactivity does not recognise national borders (witness the still-ongoing international effects of the Chernobyl incident), so a "limited nuclear war" is an impossibility and a misnomer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't want a nuclear war of any size, but I don't understand your logic here. Yes, any nuclear detonation in the atmosphere may end up harming people uninvolved in the conflict, but it doesn't follow that the war is not limited. A nuclear war between, say, India and Pakistan, would be a horrible disaster, but I don't think they have enough total nukes to wipe out humanity, and I don't see any strong enough reason for any of the powers that do have enough to enter the fray. (The closest call, I suppose, would be China.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I might be able to give something remotely like an objective answer, up to a point. There was a survey reported on tv a while back, asking baby boomers what were the most significant or impactful events in their lifetime. Number one, unsurprisingly, was september 11. Number 2, the moon landing. Number 3 -- how about I test your perceptiveness -- three times as many women voted for it as men. Can't remember where Hiroshima was. IBE (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number 3 would have to be "The Pill". Meanwhile, Mel Brooks as "The 2,000 Year Old Man" was asked what was the greatest invention in the history of mankind. His answer was "Liquid Prell" (a shampoo in a plastic bottle). His reasoning was that it was unbreakable: "If you put an iron lung on a shelf and it falls off, it breaks. Not Liquid Prell!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which Pill. The Birth control pill was from the 20th century, and it may have been one of the most significant developments of the 20th century; it has been cited as a key social catalyst for both the women's movement and the sexual revolution. In the 21st century, I assume you are refering to the little blue pill, which has allowed those 20th century sexual revolutionaries to keep fucking long past their testicles' normal expiration date. Perhaps not as significant as the other pill. But still fun... For the 21st century's most significant development so-far I'd nominate social media. --Jayron32 06:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 is number 1? That's extremely surprising. 9/11 seems like a very insignificant event compared to the Vietnam War, the fall of Communist states in Eastern Europe, the Congo Wars, the Rwandan/Darfur Genocide, decolonization of the Third World, The Pill, or many other 20th-century events I'm too lazy to name. It might not be more important than space exploration--what should have been the beginning of a new age of exploration has instead reduced to just sending people to low-Earth orbit for the past 40 years. --184.66.8.204 (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Bugs, Jayron, and 184, it wasn't the pill (keep guessing, next clue, women not only thought it was big, they had to talk to their therapists about how emotional it all was for them, surely you got it by now?); as far as "event" is concerned, I get that the OP is interpreting the term broadly, but I gather that the survey was interpreting it more narrowly. It just happened to be the only objective-y thing I could come up with. Objective in that a large number of people zeroing in on a preference counts for something, at least. For the OP's broad definition, I would say nuclear weapons, because they brought the end of total war. IBE (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about abortion rights, that would be a naive answer. But then public opinion polls don't always reflect wisdom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did respondents to this TV survey have free reign with their answers, or were they choosing from a list? HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember whether they even made it clear - it was just a tv show, and I've rarely seen them qualify these things by mentioning the limitations of their polls. Nothing to do with abortion rights, and remember, the pill, and abortion, are just as helpful for men - think about what happens to a commodity when producer costs fall. As for the event, perhaps I'm taking up too much with this, but it can't be too hard - just think of the magazines women read, and what they go on about, 3rd biggest (afaicr) and in the last 20 years. IBE (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, to cut a long story short without giving spoilers for those who like guessing, it was this event. Start with your jaw on the ground, so it doesn't hit it too hard. IBE (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was kinda huge at the time. Regular TV programming was badly disrupted (or entirely cancelled) for close to a week, and it takes a BIG story for that to happen. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

define 'Event'. the most significant things were not actually events: industrialism, Darwinism, communism, psychology, the development of computers and IT in general. These things changed the world in incalculably dramatic ways that no single 'event' could manage. !a thousand Hiroshimas or 9/11s wouldn't have a fraction of the impact of the simple idea that humans evolved from primates. --Ludwigs2 07:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The unlocking of DNA almost certainly has to be regarded as the greatest effort of the 20th century. But it too is a continuum, starting with Gregor Mendel and his garden peas back in the 19the century. As war events go, surely Pearl Harbor is much more significant than 9/11. Imagine a world where we had NOT entered World War II. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the most significant events of the 19th century were the invention of railroad travel, the automobile, and the telephone and the discovery of how to control electricity to use it for power. It was much easier to get to and communicate with people thousands of miles away in 1900 than it was in 1801. For the 20th century, it never fails to amaze me that we got from Kitty Hawk to the Moon in less than 70 years. Pais (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I will say:

19th century social event: abolition of slavery
20th century social event: civil rights movement
20th century political event: rise of democracy
20th century science: antibiotic, DNA, space exploration, computer --Reference Desker (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who list 9-11 as one of the most important events, two comments:

A) There's still a recency effect. Give it 50 years to take it's proper place on the list.

B) If we are talking about the 21st century, not much has happened yet, so 9-11 may very well top the list, so far. StuRat (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy and totalitarianism already existed to some extent long before the 20th century, and communism doesn't seem to have had much of a lasting effect on world history. Personally, I think the biggest changes of the 20th century were women's rights and decolonization. The change in gender roles in the 20th century had a drastic effect on almost everyone's lives wherever feminism has made inroads. And remember than in 1900, South Asia and almost all of Africa and Southeast Asia were ruled by Europeans, and China was facing a rebellion to end foreign control. As for the technologies of the 20th century, all of our electric communications tools are descendents of the 19th century telegraph, which dramatically shrank the world metaphorically. The automobile is no faster than the railroad, and even airplanes are less important than our later-generation telegraphs, since it's rare that we actually need to be somewhere else to get things done. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cars are faster than trains in most cases, unless your goal is to go from one railroad depot to another. If you want to go from/to anywhere else, you're unlikely to get there as fast by train, once you include the trips to and from the train depots, not to mention all the time spent inside them. Bullet trains and those going through urban areas with stop-and-go traffic may actually be faster, though. StuRat (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tahitian display image

Can someone help me make out the text in this image? It is a display in Musée de Tahiti et des Îles and a collection of photographs taken/compiled by Madame Sophia Hoare around 1885. Can anybody make out the text on the bottom or names for # 17,18,20,21,22,23.24,25?

17 says, I think, "Princesse Teriimaevarua, Reine de ..." it gets cut of mid word, and Teriimaevarua looks to be mentioned at List of monarchs of Tahiti. #18 looks like "Princesse Teriiveratua". 20 says something like "XXXX Ahuni Terakai" Can't read the first word. 21 says "Princesse Taipanu". 22 says "Prince Mainau". 23 says "Princesse Aleuta". 24 and 25 are really hard to read, but I guess something like "Princesse Aripani" for 25. Those are my best guesses. --Jayron32 07:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those names check out except for Princesse Teriimaevarua. I think 20 might be something Ahurai someting.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reference desk on the French wikipedia that the same question may be asked? Maybe they can contact the museum because I have emailed them in English with no reply, after I asked about this on the language desk like two months ago.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FR's Oracle --Saalstin (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone translate my questions on to the site including the request for someone to possibily find a way to contact the museum, thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question posed, including link to this thread --Saalstin (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can contact the museum on its web site : musée de Tahiti et ses îles (site is in french, but I hope they understand english, there are many american tourists...). (sorry for my English...) --Serged (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have two months ago at the recommendation of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 November 5#Help emailing French museum in Tahiti and there has been no reply.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image is low-definition and hard to reand. I can make some of it as follow :

1 Pomare 1er = fr:Pōmare Ier
2 Pomare II = fr:Pōmare II
3 Princesse Te o rito o te rai (?), se(???) femme de Pomare II = Tetua-nui Taro-vahine
4 Pomare vahine IV = fr:Pōmare IV
5 Prince Arrilaute a Hira (?), époux de de la reine Parure (?)
6 Prince Ari'iaue
7 Pomare V = [[:fr:Pōmare V]
8 Prince Tamajoa e Tu (?), roi de Faiasena Tahaua (?)
9 Princesse Moe, femme de Tamajoa (?)
10 Princesse Terii M???? reine de Bora Bora = fr:Teriimaevarua II (?)
11 Mahearau (?)
12 Prince Theriitoumei (?) chef de Mahuna (?)
13 Princesse Te???
14 Prince Terik???, chef de ???
15 Princesse Ter??? Joi???
16 Princesse Hiro(?), Terr???
17 Princesse Tennio???, reine de ???
18 Princesse Te????
19 Narr??? Bo???
20 Tairene Ahurai Taninei (?)
21 Prince Tenaini (?)
22 Princesse Bla?ea (?)
23 Princesse Ainuta (?)
24 Princesse Tei????? (?)
25 Princesse Ai??oea?? (?)

... hope it may help. Biem (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deficit

What was Federal deficit in 2008 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.175.190 (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big. Really, really big. You might start with United States public debt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss some specifics in a subsection of the above article. For FY2008, there was a total federal deficit of $450bn, an on-budget deficit of $640bn (higher due to off-budget surpluses included in the first number), and a total debt increase of $1020bn (once you add in the cost of wars, etc). Quite probably there are other subcategories that can be discussed, but $450bn (the reported "total deficit" and $1020bn (the actual change in debt) are probably the most useful two. — Lomn 15:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's only one country in the world that has Federal deficits. Cool. I must pass this stunning new information on to the Australian Federal Treasurer. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice, gentle way to call US-centrism! :-) HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Since the IP OP geolocates to "United States", it seemed reasonable to assume he was asking about the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we could all be bothered looking up such things, but was it reasonable for our IP OP to assume that there is only one "Federal deficit"? HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Aussies use the term "Federal" frequently? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here are approx 4.25 million ghits for "Australian federal". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two clicks (on the numbers, then on 'Whois' at the bottom tells you OP resolves to New York City, being bothered to respond is far more effort than checking that. Considering the demographics involved, the rest of us might not like it, but it's not unreasonable to understand that OP far more likely-than-not meant the US. Personally, I'd have begun the response with "Assuming you mean the USA, <rest of response as BB and Lomn did>" but I can't fault their logic for getting to that point. --Saalstin (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. Don't take this too seriously. But do think about the reality. No Australian is going to come to a GLOBAL encyclopaedia and ask such a question without clarifying which country they are referring to. But it is the sort of thing that some Americans do from time to time. It's something we get used to, but there's no harm educating folks to think a bit more globally, is there? HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian deficit in 09-10 was A$ 54.8 billion, so I hear. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on behalf of all Americans... we would be pleased to give Australia (or any one else) a chunk of our deficit if doing so will help everyone to think more globally. Blueboar (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo War in the 90s

Hi fellows!

How could it happen that the military underdogs of that war - the Serbs - could capture a US Army vehicle, a US-Humvee? Now, this vehicle is on display in a Museum in Belgrade, Serbia.I looked around in WP but I couldn't find anything about this issue. Has anybody info about this interesting historic event? --91.57.89.244 (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain it was a US-owned Humvee? Serbia itself apparently owned as many as 20 of these, see Humvee#Operators. There are also non-US manufacturers of Humvees, see Humvee manufacturing in China; they have become quite ubiquitous vehicles, and are not exclusive to teh U.S. military. --Jayron32 16:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could this or this is possibly the incident in question? Capturing a Humvee does not strike me as that impossible — they are just very large jeeps. It is not as if the Serbs were fighting with bows and arrows. If a unit strayed into a bad situation without realizing it (which seems to have been the case in the incident discussed in the pages I've linked to), or away from support, they are definitely vulnerable. I am much more impressed with the Serbs shooting down a F-117A than I am in them capturing Humvees. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might simply be the case that it broke down and was left behind. 88.8.76.174 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my Great Britain

What has become of my Great Britain? How many more murders are we going to have before our government comes down hard on murderers? Look at the main page of the newspaper and see how many murders have been reported and it's only the 3rd day of the year. How long will this go on for? How many of these are committed weekly just because the murderers never get the punishment they deserve? A few years in REHABILITATION AND LEISURE centres which we call PRISONS. I hate to say this, but I'm looking forward to a time when murderers spend twenty years in jail on DEATHROW and then brought to electric chairs, maybe then most will think twice before taking other people's lives. DanCollier1200 (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia anyone can edit! We're happy to help you find answers to questions, but this is not a bulletin board or discussion forum, it's a reference desk. Do you have an encyclopaedic question we can help you with, or did you just need to let something out? If you're interested, we do have an article on Capital punishment in the United Kingdom. Cheers --Saalstin (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All currently available figures point to a falling trend in the number of murders across the last ten years or so, at least: Independent, Guardian, or a more downbeat BBC article. There are many statisical problems with the figures before the 1980s. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So to be completely clear, you support torture and murder, so long as it's the state that does it? Have you already written your bid to be a contractor, or are you waiting till it's put out to tender (this shit is ideal for PPI)? Perhaps you should get some practice first? I recommend Paul Dacre. If you don't know who he is, believe me he already knows you very well indeed... Egg Centric 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that many nations which are harder on murderers, like the US, still have a higher murder rate. (In the case of the US the availability of guns to criminals is a major factor, too.) Murderers don't often think it through and consider the possible consequences of their actions, which makes the threat of punishment ineffective. However, removal from society can prevent them from committing additional murders, if they are kept in prison until too old or frail to murder others. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that you'll never get a 0 rate of murders, specially in countries like the UK, with 60 million people, or cities like London, with 10 million. According to List of countries by intentional homicide rate the UK rate is low, even for European standards, although not as low as Spain's or Switzerland's, but pretty descent compared to the US. It's also lower than 10 years ago. You might be thinking about that old good times, at that time people were not that aware of what was going on. 88.8.76.174 (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an illusion caused by TV news. There was never a time when there weren't enough horrible things happening in Great Briton to fill up an hour long news show. Once they realized that horrible things drove TV ratings you started hearing about more and more of them. (Even when the actual crime rate is going down!) APL (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A recent crime report from the UK government has led to headlines like Just one criminal goes to prison for every 100 crimes in The Telegraph and 43% of sex criminals are spared prison sentences in The Daily Mirror. So there seems to be some current discussion of over-leniency in sentencing. Rmhermen (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in some of their more lucid and unexpected moments, even the tabloid press have acknowledged the effectiveness of saner sentencing --Saalstin (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That 1/100 figure seems to be designed to confuse the truth. First, the article says it's 1/95, but apparently they thought 1/100 made a better title. Next, that includes those who are never arrested, and doesn't seem to account for criminals who commit multiple crimes (they just compared the total number of crimes with the total number of people jailed). Some people might also be jailed years later. You can't blame lenient sentencing for all that. They say 8% of those convicted in court are jailed. For some, however, a prison sentence is obviously inappropriate, say for a kid stealing a candy bar. Something less, like a suspended sentence, community service, a fine, or a caution is appropriate. So, they give the impression that 99% of criminals are let go, while it's actually far less than that. StuRat (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there much support in Argentina for the Falklands remaining British?

I feel it is almost impossible to believe that the Falklands are Argentinian if one looks at the issue dispassionately. Then again, I may be unable to do so, being British. How great is the support in Argentina for the Falklands remaining British (or at least having self determination)? Or is such an opinion, which is clearly in the minority there, held by essentially no one? Additionally, how much does the average Argentinian care, and does this differ by age? Also, please share anything else you feel to be interesting and relevant, including anecdotes. Egg Centric 19:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Falklands might be British, but the Malvines are certainly Argentinian. 88.8.76.174 (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Falklands where in British possession before Argentina ever existed. If any Argentinians care at all, it may be because they knew Margaret Thatcher would happily send them a Trident or two.. or three or four or five etc. After all, they had cost the UK a lot of money and where sitting around not being used for anything. --Aspro (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that the most common view in Argentina is that they should belong to Argentina, but it's not worth another war, especially one they might well lose. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The above responses (ed:the IP and Aspro) do not pinpoint the interesting part of the OP's question. Argentina's government rejects the right of the Falkland/Malvinas inhabitants to self-determination. (here). This article looks interesting, although I don't have time to go through it completely. Page 4 mentions that at the height of the recent British oil ventures, 45% of urban Argentines did not care about the Malvinas. The impression is that like most nationalism, it has to be stirred up. The rest seems like a worthy read. Lots of nice regional details, and age categories. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's your answer (in Spanish). Translation: 60% of Argentinians polled in 2010 supported winning the Falklands/Malvinas "back" through diplomatic means, 24% want some type of shared sovereignty, 5% want to recognize British possession and 3% want to invade again. 52% said they have much or a great deal of interest in the topic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3%? Well, now's the time to do it, because we've just sold all our aircraft carriers and harrier jump jets. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the figures above it's worth reviewing the context around when the questions are asked. The Falklands gets wheeled out as an election issue in Argentina. It's an easy topic to beat the drum about, much as it is in the UK.

The practicality is, despite the swivel eyed lunacy from some of the British tabloid press, it would take significantly more combat power than is available to Argentina to dislodge the current defensive capabilities on the island. Hence self determination is about the only available route.

There is somewhat more than a single det of Royals there now.

ALR (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military of the Falkland Islands shows less than 1000 British troops (land and sea) with one frigate, one patrol boat and one auxiliary ship along with a few planes. Still about 1 soldier per 3 Islanders but not a lot compared to Argentina. The UK had more casualties in the Falklands War than they have currently deployed troops there. Rmhermen (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers aren't really a significant indicator, although in principle a couple of brigades could do it if adequately supported. The main issues are whether the Argentine forces could co-ordinate well enough, and sustain operations at that distance from their own territory.

The organic defence can maintain air superiority, whereas the Argentine forces haven't got the the the ability to project air power.

The extended supply chain would make it very difficult for Argentina to sustain a landing force.

The other aspect is an international reaction, and of course their own public opinion. How many body bags are the Argentine population prepared to put up with, because there would be many.

ALR (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read some of the content at the link (the one that cares not what current inhabitants desire). The Pope gave it to Argentina in 1494 pursuant to Columbus' 1492 (not even knowing where he was, or how far away from Spain he was—his fake record of how far they had traveled so as to not alarm the crew was more accurate than the secret one he kept regarding how far they had actually traveled), that's a good one. I guess no one told Spain that until the 20th century, war was a legal means for settling disputes. The historical account sounds so civilized, like Spain and Britain never had any intention to conquer each other, pillage each other's commerce, etc., etc., etc. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lend-Lease

Americans lent many countries a lot of money. Do they have to pay America back in this lend-lease program or Americans just give away free money?Trongphu (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the article? If so, your question implies that you need to read it more closely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read Lend-Lease#Repayment? --Jayron32 22:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Did you read the article? It has been paid in full to the satisfaction of the U.S. government as of December 2006. Are you referring to another program? Note that the U.S. did not ask for money in return for all supplies sent. Much of the repayment was in things like land for overseas U.S. military bases. -- kainaw ™ 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I suspect much of the repayment came in the form of services as well, specifically the service of waging war against Nazi Germany. "Kill the Germans with this stuff we're sending you, and we'll call it even". The U.S. expected some return of durable goods like ships and vehicles, but lots of stuff like small arms and ammunition and food and supplies was basically given away for free with no expectation of repayment. Part of the idea for Lend-Lease was also to free up Allied industry for more war production themselves, with the Americans supplying stuff that the British/French etc. factories would be making if they weren't making guns and bombs. --Jayron32 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. I think i got my answer now, thanks!Trongphu (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joisey

Why is it that Americans frequently refer to New Jersey as simply Jersey, as if the original Jersey doesn't exist? Moreover, why don't they talk about York, Orleans or Hampshire? 46.208.207.251 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how New Jersey specifically got shortened, but I suspect most Americans are not actually aware of the original Jersey, which, you have to admit, has very little impact on world news. It basically comes up only in the context of stories that let the reader fantasize about suddenly becoming fabulously wealthy. --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought there was a clue that New Jersey was named after somewhere else in the prefix "New", surely? And I suspect, for that matter, that most Americans are not actually aware of the original Orleans – but New Orleans isn't abbreviated in the same way... 87.114.118.64 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing most Americans have never thought about what New Jersey might be named after and hardly any know what it was named after. Have you ever mulled about old Zealand? (It's in the Netherlands.) I have no idea why people don't shorten the other names you mention, but I'm guessing most educated Americans could guess that New Orleans is named after a place in France, given the French heritage of the area. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one of a bazllion places in North America named after someplace back home by someone selling lots who wanted to conjure up a mental image of a pretty island when they were really selling a place destined to be an industrial park in two hundred years or so. As for shortening it, it's part of the Joisey dialect: the place across the river is Noo Yawk or The City. Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just silly. Everyone knows The City is San Francisco. So much so that South San Francisco is South City. --Trovatore (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with Minneapolis-St. Paul, which is called "The Cities" by Minnesotans. Or with L.A. as Sgt. Joe Friday used to say at the start of each Dragnet show: "This is the city - Los Angeles, California." As regards [New] Jersey, I suspect part of the answer is contained in the section heading. It's more fun to say "Joizy" than to say the formal "New Jersey". There's also the fact that one of its major communities is "Joizy City". Not New Jersey City, just Jersey City. And speaking of New Yawk, a lot of the citizens of Louisiana call their big city "N'awlins". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am both Angeleno and Bay Arean from different times in my life, and I can guarantee you that The City is completely unambiguous in the Bay Area for SF, whereas it has no special meaning in SoCal. You probably understand it as LA by default, in the Southland, but it's not LA's name. It is definitely San Francisco's name. In NorCal we rarely bother to pronounce all four syllables of San Francisco, rarely say "SF", and don't even think the other thing you're thinking; it's considered an obscenity. --Trovatore (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of Jersey City probably does have something to do with it. There's The City in London too, which leads us in circles. Batman of course has New Guernsey across from Gotham City. No New Sark or New Alderney, though. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And "the City" is "in town", in tat sense.

ALR (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the original question, we Americans do refer to York, Orleans, and Hampshire, without referring to places in the Old World that might happen to have the same name.

With a population of only 2500 people in Hampshire, Illinois, I bet there are more people in the US that know of the original Hampshire than do Hampshire, IL. Dismas|^(talk) 02:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that the most obvious answer to this is that historically York, Hampshire, and Orleans were significant enough places in the minds of Americans that the 'New' affix was useful for distinguishing (i.e., it was credible that someone you met might actually be from York or Hampshire instead of New York or New Hampshire), whereas Jersey - a smallish island that even today has a population of less than 100k - was probably far enough off the beaten track that there wasn't any confusion. Language is functional, not precise. --Ludwigs2 02:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think an even easier answer is that people are lazy when speaking, and "Jersey" is a better abbreviation of the state's name than "New". Admittedly it doesn't explain why New York and New Hampshire are not, but Ludwigs2 covered that above. Mingmingla (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things do get shorter. In the same area Philadelphia (admittedly a mouthful) has been contracted to Philly. The New Jersey Turnpike is either the Jersey Turnpike or just the Turnpike. The Jersey Shore is never the New Jersey Shore, and a Jersey girl is never a New Jersey girl. Acroterion (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Germans, who create monstrously long words by stringing other words together, English speakers tend to abbreviate ("bustenhalter" vs. "bra" come to mind, speaking of "jerseys"). Major cities include KC, LA and Frisco. Citizens of both North and South Dakota often refer to their own states and institutions as just "Dakota". Likewise with North and South Carolina. And speaking of "news", the term "the newspaper" has long been shortened to "the paper". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frisco? That's not short for anything. But it's not a particularly major city — it's a suburb (or maybe exurb?) of Dallas. --Trovatore (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like anyone actually says "Büstenhalter". It's "BH". 109.97.173.232 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're asking What did Della where?. She wore her brand-new Jersey, of course. --Jayron32 05:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather say "Philadelphia" all day than "Dnepropetrovsk" all day, even though the latter has one less syllable. "Philadelphia" glides off the tongue mellifluously; it's not remotely what I'd call a "mouthful". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Unless you're talking about Philadelphia Cream Cheese. :b ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who would eat cream cheese by the mouthful is obviously a savage. Or from Pennsylvania. Take your pick. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Had those people who had never heard of the original Jersey (What the hell DO they teach in Geography classes these days?) bothered to pick up a biography of Lily Langtry, then they'd know where the island was.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geography classes, how quaint. Surely you mean social studies? Where Jersey would be even less noticed unless they had a really distinctive folk dance or something (Isle of Man, where do you think they keep all the girls?). In really affluent school districts maybe it would show up in a discussion of the best overseas tax havens. Rmhermen (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they raise Jersey Cows in New Jersey? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are roughly a gazillion things in America named after things in the "old world". Especially along the East Coast, it can be hard to find a city that isn't named after some other city. The real question is why we ever use the word "New". APL (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I question how common it is for Americans across the country to refer to New Jersey as "Jersey," outside of dialect comedy sketches "You fum Joisey? I tawt you wuz fum Joisey." Maybe in adjoining states, or in New Jersey itself, this shortened name is common. I have far more often hear people in the midwest say "New Jersey." Edison (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not common in my experience for anyone who isn't from New Jersey or from the immediate environs to call it just Jersey unless they're speaking self-consciously. My father grew up there and goes about 50-50 with Jersey/New Jersey. My uncles who stayed there called it Jersey most of the time. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I live in Massachusetts, which isn't so far away, and here that state is almost always called "New Jersey". Actually, I think that if you referred to "Jersey" in Massachusetts without any other context, some people might think you meant the island across the ocean. Marco polo (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hazard a guess that not one New Jersian in a million ever gives any thought to the island of Jersey; just as people from the various New Englands, New Hampshire, New Britain, New Ireland and all rest never think about where their places are named after. People from New South Wales never talk about South Wales except maybe in school or in some pub conversation; Julia Gillard was born in South Wales, but since coming to Australia she's only lived in Adelaide and Melbourne, her closest connection to New South Wales (and it's a very tenuous one) being that her official prime ministerial residence The Lodge is in Canberra, which is in the Australian Capital Territory, which is surrounded by NSW. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It works the other way too; I live near Maryland and work near Botany Bay; both are in Greater London and are named after faraway places. Alansplodge (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not New Maryland and New Botany Bay? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget New New York. Rmhermen (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]