Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 November 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< October 31 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 2 >
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.


November 1[edit]

Usage of the word "unpublished"[edit]

I am having a dispute with another editor regarding the usage of the word "unpublished" in reference to a book.

A book was due to be released by a publisher on 7/17/14. On 7/1/14, a website published an excerpt from the book. Is it correct to say that the website "published an excerpt from an unpublished book by Mike Tipping of the Maine People's Alliance (since published by Tilbury House Publishers)"?

I would argue that this is incorrect usage of the word "unpublished". "Unpublished" connotes the idea that the book could not find a publisher, in this case the book was under contract with a publisher and was scheduled to be released very soon. The terms "unreleased" or "forthcoming" seem more appropriate. (Setting aside the fact that the repetition in the phrase "published an excerpt from an unpublished book... since published" is just bad writing).

@Collect: feels that the word "unpublished" is more accurate. Who is correct? GabrielF (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of precisely when a book is published has become somewhat fuzzy. There is usually a formal publication date, but often books are made available to reviewers and others well before this. It may not yet be available for purchase in shops or online, but it could still be said to have been published, albeit to a select audience. Same with movies. Sometimes there are screenings, for the general public, before the formal premiere (they're oxymoronically called "pre-release screenings", but if it hasn't been "released" yet, what does the projectionist have to work with?) and that seems to make a mockery of the formal release date that appears in reference sources.
In this case, the entire book had not been published until July 17, so it would be technically correct to say "the book" was still unpublished. But if an excerpt was published before then, then it's not true to say the book was "entirely unpublished". People who read "unpublished" may well believe that that means "entirely unpublished", so some clarification is required if people are not to be unwittingly misled. Does that help? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "unpublished" in that case, how about "a forthcoming publication" or "not yet published" or something like that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I myself would go with "then-unpublished" since it goes on to say it was eventually bestowed on the masses. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or "to be published". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Note: the OP seems to miss my use of "since published" as being the accurate term, and the term I used before this section was started. I find the statement at the start is inaccurate and misleading. "Since published" is the generally used term, as far as I can tell, and this post here seems to be forumshopping. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "since published" is included in the quoted text above. I fail to see how asking a broader audience for usage advice is "forum shopping".GabrielF (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Unpublished" in copyright terms does not imply anything about quality or audience. Rmhermen (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're writing about something that was a future event then, but is now a past event, "since published" could be better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "yet unpublished". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "previously unpublished". Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that implies the book is now (as of July 1) published. The excerpt became previously unpublished, but the book remained the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contact the company. Tell them you are a writer for wikipedia, and that' you are interested in the title. Ask for a review copy if one is available (you're liable to get this free in about 10 days if it's in the US), and if not, the current planned release date. Some publishers withold permission to quote from review copies, so keep that in mind, since sometimes last-minute draft changes are made. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burkina Faso crime rate[edit]

Burkina Faso seems a mystery. I've seen it listed as having the world's lowest crime rate; literally, its name means the "Land of Honest People". I don't know how much of this is reporting versus actual lack of crime, but it's positively amazing when you consider how many nearby countries suffer just utter collapse of all civil order - especially given the tremendous poverty of the country and low level of eduation. In defiance of preconceptions, the country is even Muslim like its neighbors. They just had a sort of Arab (or rather Black) Spring and it was all over in what, two days? [1] How have people analyzed what makes this country different? Does it really have something "positive" socially going for it that could be understood and learned by other nations? Wnt (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? Lowest reported crime rate maybe. Just like some countries supposedly have no rapes. List of countries by intentional homicide rate gives a rate of 8 per 100,000 per year, higher than any developed country.
The country with the lowest crime rate is probably Japan. Like other developed countries, it's rich. Unlike other developed countries, it is quite xenophobic and not accepting of immigrants. Econometrics predicts crime rates quite accurately, and how it is higher in poorer communities. Immigrants to a developed country are mostly poorer than the native inhabitants. Immigration and crime documents a link between immigrants and crime. According to an article about gun crime in London I vaguely remember, immigrants are the victims of most of the increase in crime they create.
If you're looking for something "positive" socially, it may not be desirable to emulate Japan's hostility to immigration. Immigrants contribute to economic growth, and are net contributors to the government.
I don't know what you mean by "in defiance of preconceptions, the country is even Muslim like its neighbors". Islam certainly isn't linked with criminality.--178.167.151.93 (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I've been taken in by some dubious statistics. There is a list reproduced in many places around the Internet e.g. [2] that lists the country with 9.3 reported crimes per 100,000 ... but if the murder rate is 8 by itself, that seems pretty implausible. You're right that preconceptions aren't accurate, but to clarify, I mean it's near the current chaos in Mali and the longstanding chaos in Nigeria. Wnt (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool College of Music[edit]

The articles on Frederic Austin, Louis Cohen (conductor), Simon Cousins and W. H. Jude say they all attended the Liverpool College of Music. And according to a google search for "Liverpool College of Music", so did Sir Thomas Beecham, Geoffrey Gilbert, Eugene Aynsley Goossens and Léon Goossens.

Yet I can find no info about this college: when it was established and by whom; notable faculty; whether it still exists (unlikely, as there's no website for it); and if not, did it become defunct or was it subsumed into some other institute of higher learning, and if so, what and when?

Over to the experts. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this 1911 source; basically it was founded in 1891 and lasted two decades before running out of money and being liquidated? ~Helicopter Llama~ 02:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But can you tell me how you got inside the front cover to discover that? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No idea how that result was found but the content can be accessed through JSTOR. Hack (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about American politics[edit]

As an Australian confused about some aspects of American politics, I’ve often seen reference to “registered independents”. I assumed that the analogous terms “registered republicans” and “registered democrats” refer to members of the respective parties (or am I wrong about this?), but what on earth is a “registered independent”?Colonial Overlord (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In some states, you declare your party affiliation when you register to vote, so that someone who chooses no party affiliation is registered to vote as an independent. In Texas, you only declare party affiliation when you vote in a primary, so there are no registered independents... AnonMoos (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So in Texas you could be both a registered Republican and a registered Democrat? Regarding independent candidates (not voters): how were John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992 chosen? They just declared they were gonna run and that was that? So in principle there could be several independent candidates? Contact Basemetal here 06:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They created one-use political parties, and ran under those party banners, with all the requirements such as having to get a minimum number of signatures on a petition for candidacy (or whatever it might be called). They wouldn't have been in primaries, most likely. And, no, you can't vote for both Democrats and Republicans in the same primary. You vote once (at most) and declare your party. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But what if you try to? How could you be prevented from doing it? Is it illegal? Where does your party registration (is that what it's called? or affiliation?) appear? Contact Basemetal here 07:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of party, you vote at your normal designated polling place, where they have a checklist of all registered voters. As they hand you the ballot, they check you off the list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So in primaries you vote at the same physical place where you will be voting on election day? Contact Basemetal here 07:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Each state does things its own way. I'm only telling you how it works in the state where I live: You register to vote at some government office, but you don't declare an affiliation until you get to the primary - and you can change it at will, in different elections. In Texas, as noted below, it's done at registration time, but again you could change it at the next election. But either way, you can't vote twice. And, yes, where I live it's the same voting place run by the same officials. They ask you, Republican or Democrat, and give you the appropriate ballot and check off your name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that rather inimical to the concept of the secret ballot? (Oh, I see Matt Deres asked about this below, but for government officials to know your voting intentions at any stage of the process just doesn't seem to be right.) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you don't have to vote in the primary. The purpose of a primary (in the states that have them) is for the major parties to choose their candidates. You can't participate in that process without declaring your party. Makes sense to me. And the actual election (which is next week in the US) has a ballot with all the candidates, and is secret. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then my other concern is that (at least some of) your governments are involved in the internal processes of political parties, which are private organisations. Would any mining company, say, countenance having the government be involved in the processes whereby senior management is chosen? Not likely. Not wanting to start a debate here, just making a comment. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Senior management in a mining company is the concern only of the board of directors of that company, not of the government (provided there are no laws being broken). Public officials are the concern of everyone under their jurisdiction. Voting is America is constitutionally up to the states to administer. It's only the federal government's concern if federal law is being broken - such as denying voting rights based on race or sex. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron gave the rationale for the government to get involved in that process in his response down below, namely: "Because the state has an interest in maintaining a clean, fair, and open electoral process, the government does have some regulatory authority in primary elections as well as the general election. The same mechanisms that exist to prevent shenanigans in the general election are also in force for the primary elections as well, despite the fact that the primary elections only choose the party candidate who will stand in the general election.". This makes some sense even though it may not close the argument in a definitive way. Regarding the analogy with private business corporations: (1) the analogy may not be perfect (2) governments all over the world may get or attempt to get involved in how the stock market is run, how corporations report their earnings, what kind of salaries senior management is paid, etc. if they feel the public interest is at stake. Again, a lengthy debate on the merits of the various positions may not be appropriate for the RD but what may be appropriate for the RD would be factual information as to what positions are out there and how and where the state does with that rationale intrude on what may seem at first sight to be private matters. (For example a piece of information such as that in Norway (I believe) boardrooms have to contain a mandatory percentage of women, in Belgium (I know for a fact) lists of candidates to the general elections must contain a mandatory percentage of women, etc.) Contact Basemetal here 23:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those two parties are the government, basically. Aside from George Washington, no independent has been President, and very few make it big in the legislatures. Only seems right the government has an interest in who's going to (at least nominally) lead it. Private clubs (like the National Mining Association) meddle more in government than government meddles in them. More beneficial to have the right overlords than the right underlings. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jack's concern might relate to the fact that voting in Australia is compulsory, not optional (except maybe in some legally-defined circumstances). The coercive nature of their voting system, while ensuring a high level of participation, also risks giving more information to the government than some might want to. Voting in America is voluntary. And as I said, you need not vote in the primaries if you don't want to. I don't know if Australia has a primary system. Jack could speak to that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ever wonder how Mad Max is related to Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]
OK, I'll bite. How are they related? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You were supposed to click "wonder", not bite. I'm not typing all of that. The Ron Paul part might require Googling their names together. Not exactly worth the trouble. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]
I question the appropriateness of the word "coercive" to characterize compulsory voting. Or else you should, for consistency's sake, call laws that mandate paying your taxes, taking part in national service (where it exists), go for jury duty, etc. and every law that requires from the citizen participation in a civilized democratic society as "coercive". Apparently Australian democracy has decided that it was better for democracy to ensure a larger participation by making voting compulsory. It is no more "coercive" than those other cases above. Contact Basemetal here 00:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you like "compulsory" better, so be it. But no matter what you call it, you still have to do it. Compulsory voting runs the risk of individuals purposely sabotaging the election, voting for a bad candidate just to "get even" with whoever's forcing them to vote. If a given American doesn't want to vote, then they shouldn't. A bad vote is worse than no vote at all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The US certainly has ways to coerce citizens into following laws. "Compulsory" doesn't work as well, since so many obviously didn't have to. Apparently, the IRS is sometimes into literally screwing people as a second choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a primary system, we have nothing of the sort. Endorsed party candidates are chosen by preselection which is purely internal matter, and the process varies by party. In the Liberal Party the local branch members typically select candidates. In the Labor Party its the state or national executive, with the process heavily controlled by machine men and union hacks. The Greens are a confederation of state parties with different rules, ranging from a grassroots democratic model in New South Wales, to centralised hierarchical selection in Tasmania. Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's about time Machine Men did something notable! Seriously though, does that mean political machine or actual mechanic types? Googling "australia machine man" gets me a lot of this guy. Tried to play the game, but in over his head. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're also called "faceless men" or "the party machine". Basically the unseen party officials who control the internal workings of the party (the term is also used for members of parliament who are not official leaders but control the party through their factional allegiances). They only really exist to a significant extent in the ALP. Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm still going to envision their fixers as big contractors in coveralls with calloused hands, even if I can't see their faces. Just something about "Labor". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Bugs' invitation: I don't think my concern has anything to do with whether voting is compulsory or not. It's about (a) not having governments meddling in the affairs of private organisations - not even benignly; and (b) not having governments knowing the political affiliations of individual people at any point in the process (except where individuals publicly acknowledge such affiliations). It's fair enough to have laws that ensure procedural fairness, lack of inappropriate discrimination, what have you. We don't have a "primary" system as such. Each party chooses its own candidates via processes that it alone decides, subject to the laws I mentioned above, where they apply to political parties (but no government can force a party to, say, have a balance of genders in its candidates that reflects the general populace; a party itself may choose to have such a rule, and that would be its right. But if a person is denied candidature solely or primarily on the basis of their sex or sexual orientation or ethnic origin or marital status or ...., then they can of course seek the protection of the law). The process whereby, say, the Australian Labor Party chooses its candidates for whatever election it's contesting, is called "pre-selection". Only formal paid-up members of the party are permitted to take part in the pre-selection process (there may be qualifying periods to ensure people can't sign up for membership one day, vote for a candidate the next day, and quit the party the following day). The general public would have no idea of the party's timetable or internal arrangements. All they know is that, at some point well before the election, the public is told that Candidate A is who you'll be voting for if you want to support that party in that seat. Of course they release bio info about that person to convince would-be voters he/she is a reasonable person who would properly represent their interests in the parliament and elsewhere. Sometimes there's public knowledge about particular pre-selection processes; for example, where an incumbent member wishes to continue but the party opens the pre-selection up to all comers and there are broad hints that a different person has a lot of internal support and is likely to unseat the incumbent as the party's candidate. That's where we tend to see a lot of dirty linen being washed in public, despite the wish of the party bigwigs to keep such matters in house as much as possible. That explains why incumbents sometimes re-contest as independents (who, if elected, nevertheless usually broadly support the party they previously represented; and sometimes formally rejoin that party). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you trade keeping secret which party you follow, for having no say in your party's candidates. That does not sound like a good tradeoff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find bizarre the idea of a system where people who are not paying, committed members of a party can vote for the party's candidate. In the U.S system, what's to stop a die hard democrat going to the republican primary and voting for the worst candidate to maximise their own party's chance of success? Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of strategic or cross over party voting certainly occurs especially when a sitting President is running for a second term. However you usually also lose the opportunity to vote for any of your party's candidates (so to vote a bad Presidential candidate for them you lose your influence on the choice of your party's Senate and mayor candidates, etc.) Sometimes in multi-stage primaries you can vote for both parties. In run-off primaries in Alabama someone who voted Democrat in the primary can vote in either the Democrat or Republican runoff but if you voted Republican, the democrats will not allow you to vote in the Democrat runoff.[3] Rmhermen (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing is, at the moment, the apparent best Republican candidate is the worst. This piece calls the process of trying to appeal to the Party and regular voters as "dentistry-without-anesthestic". Granted, that's an opinion, but he explains it well. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's important to you to have a say in who the candidate is, you join the party. There's obviously a difference between party members (who pay dues, attend meetings, work on fund raisers, engage in advocacy etc etc), and party supporters (who do none of those things but vote for the party when they can, unless they've swung to a different party in the meantime). It's the same with any organisation. if you choose not to be a member of a certain union, you can't expect to have any say in how the union is run, what its policies are, etc. If you don't own any shares in a company, you can't expect to attend the AGM and speak and/or vote on whatever issues. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that in Australia there are usually a whole range of parties you can vote for in an election without "splitting" the vote of your preferred major party. So its not like you're restricted to just two choices you had no say in selecting. Moreover, there would be little point in ordinary voters selecting party candidates since the candidates, whoever they are, have no choice but to publicly follow party policy, unlike in the U.S which seems to have no concept of party discipline. Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about American politics (arbitrary break)[edit]

Basemetal -- Every two years, Texas mails out a new voter registration card to all registered voters, with a blank space for "Party affiliation". If you vote in a party's primary, then your card is stamped with that party's name, to keep you from voting in the primary runoff of any other party. (Nowadays, the stamping of the card is actually kind of optional, since computer databases can prevent inconsistent/multiple primary voting.) After the main elections in November of every even numbered year, new cards are mailed out, and everybody starts out with a blank slate again, as far as party affiliation... AnonMoos (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it usually means that on their voter registration forms they chose not to declare a party affiliation and are therefore "independent of any organized political party". However, there are also a few organized political parties often (rather imprecisely or sloppily) referred to as "The Independent Party" such as American Independent Party, Independent American Party, Independent Party of Oregon, etc. Most of these parties are local affiliates of the Constitution Party (United States) (formerly "U.S. Taxpayers' Party"). People in the media, whose understanding of the American political system oftentimes does not extend beyond the Republican/Democrat paradigm, will ambiguously refer to members of these parties as "registered Independents" as well.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here in New York, those registered as "independent" do not vote at all on Primary Day... since they don't belong to a party that is holding a primary election. They (like everyone else) can vote for whoever they want in the General Election.
As for the various small parties that use the word "Independent" in their names... in NY these usually don't hold a primary election... no need, since they tend to have only one candidate running for any given office. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article that explains the whole Registered X thing? I know WP:WHAAOE and all that, but searching for registered republican and registered democrat (and registered independent for that matter) come up with nothing useful looking. It sounds like you need to declare your party affiliation, but I thought the US used secret ballots. Matt Deres (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, secret votes on the ballot but the fact that you got a ballot is public record. Rmhermen (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Contrary to what some folks think, there are a great many parties in the US, not just two. And in some states an "Independent Party" can certainly exist, while the general journalist usage is "anyone not a Republican or Democrat" which is not a really accurate usage. People who do not register with a specific party name are generally called "unaffiliated" as far as the registrars are concerned, and in many cases they can vote in primaries depending on the state. In a few states, anyone can vote in any primary - but only one primary to a customer. For pollsters, they stick with at most two parties <g> as being close enough for government work. Collect (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. The whole concept of primary elections puzzles me, as it seems that the selection of party candidates and the internal affairs of the party are regulated by the law. This is strange, because here in Australia political parties are private associations with virtually no official legal recognition (which is ironic, since the Australian political system can't work without political parties and was always designed that way, unlike the American system). If ordinary voters can vote for the selection of party candidates, is there any such thing as party members at all, who pay membership dues and participate in the internal party organisation? Also, I understand each state is different, but if in New York registered independents can't vote in primary elections, why would anyone register as an independent? Why not just pick a party, even if you don't agree with it, and affiliate with it so you can vote in its primary election? Why would anyone choose to give up their power to vote? What benefits are there in registering/declaring no party/independent? Colonial Overlord (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage of not registering for a party is you get less "reminder" emails, phone calls, etc. from "your" party. No one can avoid the TV ads and junk mailings, though. Primaries (and caucuses) are only who deciding a party's candidates, not for deciding party leadership, which is separate on state and federal levels as well. (The Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party is the state Democratic Party for Minnesota.) There are dues paying party members who elect party leaders (for Wisconsin, you must pay county party dues to be a state party member.[4]) Rmhermen (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you don't mind if I ask our American editors a few more questions regarding this quaint system:
  1. Are party primaries the whole and only reason of this system of party registration (specifically to prevent people from voting in two primaries at the same time)?
  2. Does this system apply only to Republicans and Democrats, or do you have the option of registering as a supporter of any party you want?
  3. How long has this system been in existence?

Contact Basemetal here 16:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a system. there are 53 or so. Some states don't have primaries at all. Some have open primaries, others closed or blanket ones. And sometimes nonpartisan. For the second question, as mentioned above many small parties don't have enough candidates to need primaries, but some do. Rmhermen (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And in case a third party does hold a primary you are given the option of registering as a supporter of that party? Correct? In other words primary elections are "public business" (instead of exclusively the internal business of the party that holds them as in most other countries) for any party that holds primaries (not just R and D)? Is that correct? Contact Basemetal here 17:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe - if they want and if state law allows. Rmhermen (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since I didn't see it mentioned thus far, I'm just going to throw this in. In our recent primary elections here in Vermont, when I went to my polling place, I was given three ballots. One Republican, one Democrat, and a third for Progressive/Independent candidates. We are given three because we do not have to declare party affiliation. But we could only use one of those ballots. The other two simply got recycled.
And to reiterate, and give an example of, what was said about us not having just two parties in the US, our governor's race this year has 7 candidates. They had a debate a couple weeks ago and it was hilarious and head-shakingly absurd at the same time. The parties represented included Democrat (incumbent), Republican, Libertarian, Liberty Union, and Independent. One of the Independent candidates, Cris Ericson (who we used to have an article on), often runs under the banner of the Marijuana party but doesn't seem to be doing that this year. Dismas|(talk) 17:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that an article regarding a Vermont politican named Cris Ericson was deleted? Why was it deleted? Contact Basemetal here 00:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Basemetal: Yes. It's a bit of an odd one. As I recall, she didn't like that we had an article on her, insisted on changing it to what she wanted, requested deletion, it went up for AFD, a number of people found her to be non-notable. Even though she runs every year possible for governor and congress. You can check the AFD discussion if you like. Dismas|(talk) 04:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I read the AFD discussion. Interesting for how WP works. Contact Basemetal here 04:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's one thing I like about Canada: The only party that isn't essentially a marijuana party is the Conservatives, yet we still have an actual Marijuana Party of Canada, just for good measure. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked to see that it isn't nicknamed the "Pot Party". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have a semi-official Prince of Pot. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But even though you are entitled to use only one of those three ballots (maybe by law even), from your description in Vermont there's no mechanism to ensure that you do not cheat and try to vote in two or three primaires as there is in (say) Texas? From AnonMoos description of the system in Texas, in Texas this is impossible to do. Contact Basemetal here 17:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sort of mechanism. The volunteers at my polling place stand by the boxes that the unused ballots go into and try to make sure you put all the extras that you haven't used to into the "unused" box. Dismas|(talk) 04:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ohio has something midway between Texas and Vermont: there's no party registration on the rolls, so you get to pick which party you want, but you only get one ballot. Go into the polling place, and you're asked if you want a Republican ballot, a Democratic ballot, or an issues-only ballot. The last is for people who don't want to participate in either party's primary but who still wish to vote on issues such as constitutional amendments, property tax levies for schools, and similar things that are more plebiscite-type things than elections per se; of course the issues are on the Republican and Democratic ballots as well. If a third party registers to have a primary, its ballot would be an option as well, although it would be more likely in more heavily populated areas (where you might be more likely to have a third-party contest) than in the rural area where I grew up. Someone trying to determine party registration in Ohio might well request the number of people who picked each type of ballot in the most recent primary. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colonial Overlord, you ask about party decisions and dues. Political fundraising here is a big issue; I get the impression that (at least for the Republicans and Democrats) all party funds are donated, either directly (someone writes a $1000 check to the Republican Party) or overpriced sales (someone pays the Democratic Party $1000 to eat at what would otherwise be a normal restaurant dinner). The major parties have county (somewhat comparable to local government areas in Australia), state, and federal committees, and in some places (at least in Indiana) committees for individual voting precincts. At least in Ohio, one gets on a committee by running in the primary; the Ohio Republican ballot has a section of "FOR State Committee: Vote for one — Jane Doe [line break] Joe Bloggs [line break] Tommy Atkins". Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me try to take a crack at this. Understanding the current American political situation requires some historical context.
    In the past (say, prior to the 1920s or so) there was very little public participation in party politics. Parties nominated their candidates at Political conventions, where party officials gathered to nominate candidates for various offices. There was little input in the process, candidates were put forth for various reasons, and a lot of political dealing went on behind the scenes (see Smoke-filled room for the euphemism for this sort of thing). Political candidates were controlled strongly by Political machines like Tammany Hall. In many areas, one party was SO dominant that these machines not only controlled the candidate (see Solid South), who they chose was all-but guaranteed to win the election, meaning that most elections weren't contests anyways.
    Starting in the Progressive era there was a large movement in U.S. politics to involve more people in the political process at all levels. People were given direct control of the legislative process through ballot initiatives that allowed people to vote on proposals that then had the force of law, they were given the power to petition for special elections to recall politicians who had lost political favor and, most importantly for our discussion, the ability to select party candidates who would stand in the general election. This was a very important expansion of democracy in the U.S., as in those places where winning a nomination was tantamount to election, it allows people who aren't party bosses the power to have a say in who their leaders will be.
    Because the state has an interest in maintaining a clean, fair, and open electoral process, the government does have some regulatory authority in primary elections as well as the general election. The same mechanisms that exist to prevent shenanigans in the general election are also in force for the primary elections as well, despite the fact that the primary elections only choose the party candidate who will stand in the general election. Because of the peculiar sort of federalism in the U.S., every single state handles these primary elections in very different ways, and there are no universal rules or principles; but every state has some sort of open-access to the primary election process, though describing the way it works for the U.S. as a whole is impossible, given the vast differences in the peculiarities in each state.
    Because the primaries are still officially mechanisms to select party candidates, one still needs to be an official member of the party in question. People usually must be at least nominally "members" of the party during the primary election, though people are allowed to change parties at any time, the peculiarities of party registration are different in every state, and can range from formal paperwork that has to be registered prior to an election, do a verbal declaration at the polling place, to just about everything in between, and some stuff off to the side as well. (see what I said above about there being no national system in the U.S.) The basic principle is that in a primary you should be a member of the party whose primary you are voting in, and you vote in only one of those primaries. People who are not a member of any of the parties who are participating in the primary are considered "independents". In states which hold other elections at the same time as primary elections (such as judgeships, or ballot initiatives, or non-partisan offices, etc.) being a registered "independent" allows you to vote in those elections without having to also vote in the primary election itself. --Jayron32 20:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that helps some. --Jayron32 20:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed your link by creating a redirect. Okay, so where would be the best place to direct folks searching for Registered Democrat, Registered Republican, or Registered Independent? Given the Americans' love of disunity, I assume there are dozens of permutations of the process; is there a single article or series of such that goes over all that stuff? Matt Deres (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there is a good place. You know, not every plausible search term has to come up blue. There's a fairly decent search tool that shows up automatically when you enter redlinked terms into the search box, and it's probably better than any single redirect would be for these terms. As for wikilinking them, just don't; problem solved. --Trovatore (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's brilliant. I've always wondered what the terms meant and searching brings up little that's helpful. The terms crop up in TV shows and books set in the US and, to most non-Americans, they are puzzling. I would have thought that a key part of the basic political process of the US would have been worthy of an article, but I guess not...? After today's questions are archived, I'll redirect to Jayron's answer, which is closest I've seen to an explanation on WP. Matt Deres (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could possibly add the terms, and thus create redirects to, Voter registration#United States or Elections in the United States#Voter registration. They currently both have a paragraph on the fact that "citizens registering to vote may declare an affiliation with a political party". Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant article is Open primaries in the United States. Until the progressive era, political parties were wholly private organizations. In order for a party to get its candidate on the ballot for the presidential election, normally a certain number of petitions had to be signed according to state law. This often meant back-room dealing "smoke filled rooms" and Tammany Hall-type political machines.
The notion of holding publicly funded open primaries was adopted by the progressives of both parties. Once public primaries were held at public expense it seemed unfair to require voters to register with one party, since these were no longer fully private organizations. Many states have laws that automatically reserve a place on the ballot for any party whose candidate won at least, say, 10% of the vote in the last election.
This has the effect of establishing a two party (D/R) system by law, and placing a further costly burden on would-be third party candidates, who are often required to, for example, get the signatures of 1,000 registered voters in each county of the state. (Not only is this often intentionally sabotaged by main party proxies, the third parties have to hire lawyers to meet challenges made o every signature in every county. This is the means by which party bosses kept Pat Buchanana off the Republican primary ballot in 1996, and how Independence (i.e., Ross Perot) party candidate Tom Golisano was attacked and eventually moved himself and his multimillion dollar business to Florida.) The state and federal election commissions are usually chaired by an equal number of Democrats and Republicans with no third party or independent chairs. In the 1992 presidential election, the federal election board (3R/3D), a quasi-official government agency decided that any candidate polling over 10% would take part in the presidential debates. GHW Bush's campaign assumed he had the campaign locked up, but Perot took enough votes from him in the general election to allow Clinton to win with 43% of the popular vote. Polls showed in a two-man race, Bush would have won.
In 1996, Perot was polling at about 12% on average, but neither Dole (R) nor Clinton (D, incumbent) wanted him in the debates, so the 6 chair election commission said that although Perot was polling above 10%, he was "not a serious candidate" and they kept him out of the debates.
In the 2008 election (see Open primaries in the United States) John McCain never won a majority of registered republican votes, but he won enough open primaries with the support of people who voted for Obama in the presidential election to become the Republican nominee, and lost.
The Libertarians don't participate in the primaries. They have a convention with an instant run-off election, where at each ballot the candidate with the least number of votes is removed from eligibility, and a new round of votes is held every hour or so until the final vote comes down to the two remaining candidates. In 2008, the conservative businessman and his coalition supporters won the nomination against the anarchist physician in voting broadcast on CSPAN. μηδείς (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what is the party flag of "Party of the Swedes"?[edit]

is that the party flag or not? am confused because in 2013 the introduced another flag without abolishing the original see http://www.arminius.se/partifana-svenskarnas-parti-svp.html http://www.arminius.se/stodfana-svenskarnas-parti-svp.html in their party store they call the new version "partifana" while the original gets the name of "stödfana" if you look at their recent demonstrations the original flag seems to be visible than the new one they also use the original and othe events but the new one keeps showing up for example: https://www.realisten.se/2014/09/16/atersamling-under-fanorna/ 81.235.159.105 (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who says a party can only have one flag? If you adopt a new flag, without abolishing the old one... then you have two flags. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Golden dawn in greece has more than 1 flag but what i meant what one shall use in the party of the swedes infobox? golden dawn uses that red flag found on wikipedia 81.235.159.105 (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please answer my responce?! 81.235.159.105 (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created the image File:Flag of the Party of the Swedes.svg based on photos and images available at the time. Haven't seen the other flag design before, but at a guess it seems oriented towards those outside the party, since it includes explanatory text, and is based on the national flag colors... AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

old review of a book[edit]

Hello, can anyone help me find a contemporary (to when it was published in 1977) review of Drowned Ammet? Thanks184.147.131.89 (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found only one such review, a short one in the School Library Journal (Apr. 1, 1978). Email me and I'll reply with a PDF; you can email me via Wikipedia if you go to my page at John M Baker (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's very kind. I have gone to your page but cannot see an email address. 184.147.131.89 (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC);[reply]
Go there again and look in the left-hand column. Under Tools you should see a link for Email this user. Maybe you have to register with Wikipedia for this to work, I'm not sure. Alternatively, if you click on the link in my bio to my employer you will see an email address there. John M Baker (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the first human to be settled in Japan?[edit]

I want to know about what is the first human to be settled in Japan. --Kiel457 (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can read all about it at History of Japan and especially Japanese Paleolithic. Jōmon period may also be of interest. Matt Deres (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did this happen?[edit]

Did the Germans, French, and British fraternize during the trench war in the WW I and then re-started fighting again after Christmas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senteni (talk • contribs) 19:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of Christmas truce. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So it never officially happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also "Snoopy's Christmas". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is the subject of a 2005 French film; Joyeux Noël which weaves a fictional narrative around the events (however, you have to believe that all Highlanders are Roman Catholics to make the story work). Alansplodge (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost certain it also figured in Oh! What a Lovely War (1969), although our article doesn't touch on it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly appears in the film - see here - and I think in the stage show too, though it's a while since I've seen that. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It also gets a brief, humorous mention in "Goodbyeee" the last episode of Blackadder Goes Forth MarnetteD|Talk 22:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And by Mark Thomas, My Life in Serious Organised Crime: "I wouldn't exactly say we're mates, but we might play football Christmas Day." —Tamfang (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-POTUS presidents of the United States[edit]

Beside the President of the United States, what major US offices have been entitled "President"? I don't care whether the position is a chief executive on some level or if it's something else. I know about the President of the Continental Congress, which was basically a chairman of Congress, but I don't know about other offices. Some states once had presidencies; if you produce a link to "President of X" for all fifty states, you get five bluelinks: Delaware, Georgia (although this is Giorgi Margvelashvili), Hawaii (Sanford B. Dole, when it was independent), New Hampshire, and Texas (again, when it was independent). However, these links aren't conclusive, since the redlinked office of President of Pennsylvania existed according to the Benjamin Franklin article. I'm therefore left wondering what other states had presidents, as well as what other jurisdictions (if any).

We don't answer requests for opinions, but I'd appreciate it if you'd ignore that for a moment. I'm asking the above question because I'd like to put together a list of non-POTUS presidencies, and I'd appreciate opinions on what such a list should be called — or if it's even worthwhile having one in the first place. See President of the United States (disambiguation) for other articles with related titles. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Senate. --Jayron32 00:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs is officially not a government department, but they shared a Vice President. And they send their presidents to a Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which has a familiar looking number of members. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's President of the Massachusetts Senate, and likely others like this. Also the The Presidents of the United States of America. Staecker (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that's totally feather-pluckin' insane! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Each of New York's boroughs has a president, I believe. —Tamfang (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they do. See Borough President. --Jayron32 12:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any public school that has class presidents or Student Government Presidents has subordinate officers of the United States Department of Education. The man with that plan was the relatively good president, Jimmy Carter, who is still officially a President, but not the President. Same goes for the relatively popular one and the relatively evil two. They are all relatively literate. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sling blade does not use a sling blade[edit]

I'm currently trying to put together an article Sling blade (tool) (or Weed cutter (tool), as Sears listed it in their catalog under that name), because the Brush hook (aka Kaiser blade, which is not a redirect for some reason) is quite different from these things. I cannot find any RSs indicating that the brush hook has ever been called a sling blade before a fictional mentally handicapped guy played by Billy Bob Thornton called it that. I can find plenty of blogs and relatives saying that the movie got the wrong tool. I can find plenty of stores selling something that is definitely one of these things and not a brush hook as a weed cutter or sling blade. However, I'm stuck in trying to find enough RSs to write a proper article. All I have are sources that note that the sling-blade was retitled a "weed cutter" in the Sears & Roebuck catalog, but nothing describing it or showing a picture. If I could find one of the S&R catalogs that features a picture of one, I'd cite that and be done with it. Alas, the 1896 (or whatever) catalog I can find on Google Books only features plenty of other words between usages of "weed" and "cutter," and no pictures of the tool.

What I've found so far:

Can anyone find anything else (or do they have a relevant catalog)?

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are doing any redirecting, you could include Slasher (tool) which is the British English term for a Kaiser blade. A brush hook is (in my opinion) a slightly different tool, having a more sickle-shaped hook, whereas a Kaiser blade/slasher is basically a billhook with a long handle. Here is a "slasher" aka "Kaiser blade", and here is a "brushing hook" aka brush hook. We don't seem to have anything resembling a "sling blade" on this side of the Atlantic, but I've seen them in films (Cool Hand Luke springs to mind). Alansplodge (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2014_November_1&oldid=1146497286"