Humanities desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

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

June 20

Tory Party grandee

What is meant by the term "Tory Party grandee" (in the UK)? Does the Labour Party also have grandees? Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A grandee is "A person of high rank or eminence" (definition 1.1 here). I don't think it's an official title, rather just a word that the media likes to use to describe important members of a political party. And they use it for Labour politicians too: example 1 example 2 example 3. Iapetus (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a high-ranking politician, though. It implies that they're an eminent member of the party who used to hold high office but has now retired from the government, usually for age reasons. They're still highly respected within their party but are probably not an MP any more, either. --Viennese Waltz 10:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I always think of such figures as Michael Heseltine. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a peculiarity of the Conservative Party. Former big-hitters often don't just go away, they tend to retire to the back benches or to the House of Lords from where they can keep their hands on the levers of power, either through party committees, making speeches, or just by their personal influence. Harold Macmillan's "family silver" speech criticising Margaret Thatcher's privatisation programme is a famous example, made more than 20 years after he resigned as priime minister (YouTube clip). A current "grandee" is Sir John Major, who has recently been speaking against Boris Johnson over Partygate (YouTube clip). Alansplodge (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this podcast, by historians Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook. They argue that dear old Super Mac resigned only because he mistakenly thought that he had terminal bladder cancer. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it just another way of saying "elder statesman/woman/person"? And with the advantage of not having to deal with genders. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 14:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but it's a sort of joke; they are being compared to the Grandees of Spain, who wielded the power behind the Spanish throne without any accountability. The Mandarins of Whitehall (or senior civil servants) is a similar example. Alansplodge (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even Baroness Williams of Crosby gets the grandee label here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the Labour Party is a) less deferential and b) more open and (dare I say) democratic in it's power struggles, so perhaps the role of former leaders and shakers is less critical than for the Tories, whose leaders are deposed by almost Byzantine plots. Shirley Williams is doubtless respected and influential, but Neil Kinnock and Ed Miliband maybe less so. Alansplodge (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Neil Pillock as he was affectionately known... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term seems to have taken over from eminence grises (which I don't think I've ever seen spelled with an "é" in the British press). --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that until now I had never seen or heard that term. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility and reliability of information sources

When we refer to credibility and reliability of information sources whether terms 'credibility' and 'reliability' would denote the same thing or any likelihood of any nuanced difference?

Thanks for inputs

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those sound more or less the same to me in terms of Wikipedia policy, even though in general usage "reliable" sounds more likely to be factual than "credible". Was there a specific question where the difference might matter? -- Beland (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general use (outside the Wikipedia context), I think "reliability" is something acquired by reputation; it depends on whether previous information acquired from the source appeared to be accurate. (This may also depend on what other sources you consider trustworthy tell you about this specific source.) In contrast, "credibility" depends on the context. The credibility of a source may be compromised if they have a strong incentive to hide the truth from you. When it comes to advice on how to make a mean gobi paratha, your grandmother may be a credible source (if her dishes are usually delectable), but perhaps less so when it comes to advice on problems with your gall bladder. The reverse may be true for a gastroenterologist; don't expect them to help you with home cooking recipes. --Lambiam 21:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also (in general), credibility can apply to a singular instance; the credibility of a witness, for example. Reliability relates to past performance of a source, relying on several instances. --2603:6081:1C00:1187:1807:C437:3907:422A (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claim: Soweto was designed to be bombed

Trevor Noah makes the following remarks in his autobiography, Born a Crime, speaking about the years before the end of apartheid:[1]

Soweto was designed to be bombed—that’s how forward-thinking the architects of apartheid were. The township was a city unto itself, with a population of nearly one million. There were only two roads in and out. That was so the military could lock us in, quell any rebellion. And if the monkeys ever went crazy and tried to break out of their cage, the air force could fly over and bomb the shit out of everyone. Growing up, I never knew that my grandmother lived in the center of a bull’s-eye.

There seem to be more than two roads currently, though I don't know if these were added after the end of apartheid. If true, this seems like an interesting and important fact. Does anyone know of any sources that would corroborate this, so it could be documented on Soweto? A quick web search didn't turn up anything for me beyond this passage and some protests and a terrorist attack. -- Beland (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not the greatest, but I found:

Only two roads lead in and out of this sprawling encampment where 500,000 Africans live...

World Student News, Volumes 19 (p. 9), 1965

I couldn't find anything to corroborate the other claims; I suspect that parsimony in the road-building budget is a more likely explanation. Alansplodge (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The small number of crossings is definitely there by design, not due to lack of funds, as plenty of roads were constructed elsewhere. Townships were created to segregate the races. They were separated from other areas by a "sanitary corridor" where construction is not allowed, rather than by simply extending the street network. The question is why that separation is there. Is it just to make it cheaper to enforce the pass laws? To prevent crime from spilling over? To avoid having to look at black people? Or was it, as Noah claims, to aid in military operations? Maybe some combination? -- Beland (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another one;

SOWETO, South Africa -- Only, two roads lead in and out of this sprawling encampment where more than 500,000 black South Africans live at the sufferance of anonymous white administrators rather than by any right to do so.

New York Times, Oct. 16, 1965, p. 3. Alansplodge (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However;

Using road transport was also problematic as there were only two roads that led in and out of Soweto. Another road was only added in 1964, with the sole purpose of being used for private transportation. (i.e. there was no extra provision of much needed public transport)

URBAN BLACK LIVING AND WORKING CONDITIONS IN JOHANNESBURG, DEPICTED BY TOWNSHIP ART (1940s TO 1970s) (p. 25). Alansplodge (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soweto was undoubtedly designed to be controllable, including by sending in military forces in case of riots. Literally bombing the place sounds like a silly idea though. It's a very imprecise weapon. You want to punish the people who don't behave well and reward those who do. Bombing would kill everyone. You normally drop bombs when it's politically infeasible or too dangerous to send in ground forces, which was not the case here. And it would be a bad idea to kill your entire cheap workforce. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that Soweto was "designed" in any meaningful way. According to this, it was an agglomeration of "the patchwork of townships — Moroka, Pimville, Klipspruit, Orlando East, Dube, Mofolo North and South, Central Western Jabavu, Molapo, and Moletsane" and the name came out of a 1963 competition in a local newspaper for a £10 prize. I'm not in any way excusing the odious apartheid system, but one can overstate one's case, as Mr Noah seems to have done. Alansplodge (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to local legend, the notorious Penhill estate in Swindon also has only two exits, supposedly so that the police can easily block it off in case of trouble. There are those who say that Swindon should just be bombed anyway. MinorProphet (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]