Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 7

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.

August 7

GDP from the fourth to first quarter

Why does GDP typically drop from the fourth to the first quarter? Widener (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a question I'd be interested in the answer to as well, if only I knew where you were talking about. Do you want to tell us please? HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the question, but I don't know whether the premise is correct. Seasonal adjustment is so pervasive that it is nearly impossible to find data on quarterly GDP that are not seasonally adjusted. Seasonally adjusted, GDP does not typically drop from the fourth to the first quarter. However, if the raw numbers do drop, then that is almost certainly mainly because of the following factors: 1) In many parts of the world, a large share of consumer spending happens during the last 3 months of the year due to gift giving at the Christmas holiday. This spending is not present during the first quarter. 2) In the Northern Hemisphere, the first 3 months of the year are much colder than the last 3 months. In some areas, snow and ice make travel difficult. As a consequence, people go out and consume less. Also, where the ground is frozen, construction is difficult or impossible, and so this area of economic activity ceases. Marco polo (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know specifically, but I think there is a simple answer: Christmas presents. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In the 34 year-period, 1977-2010, US real GDP grew faster (YoY) in the fourth quarter than in the following first quarter 17 times. The same pattern holds true for quarter-to-quarter annualized growth. In other words, exactly half. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Which is the most powerful and dangerous...

...among vampire, zombie, poltergeist, Werewolves, Goblin? --Goblin 224 (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

They are all fictional and appear in multiple fictions, therefore it depends the particular fiction you are interested in. Also, they are generally each described as having some strengths and some weaknesses, so it's difficult to say which is the most powerful/dangerous overall. --Tango (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In terms of strength werewolves are usually shown to be stronger than most other things, but vampires are more cunning and usually end up defeating their supernatural adversary. 82.43.90.27 (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've been surprised by how often a movie plot considers any sort of ghost as untouchable, and giving it whatever it wants as the only possible resolution. It would be nice once or twice to see a resolution where the hero locks lock the annoying ghost in a quintuple pentagram, cases it in corrosion-proof metal and dumps it over a subduction zone. Wnt (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There was actually a Lost in Space episode with a similar ending, i.e. where a spirit connected with an ancient artifact was dispatched permanently. One of the more serious episodes in a typically-campy series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, haven't you ever seen Ghostbusters? Pais (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Individual zombies are not very powerful, unless they end up creating zombie hordes. Which probably could best all of the rest? Who knows, it's fiction. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Zombies are slow (physically and mentally), and body parts had an annoying habit of falling off. Goblins are usually not portrayed as having any particular magic powers. Werewolves are strong only a small fraction of the time. That leaves vampires and poltergeists. I go with the former, as they can make more of their kind. Also, aren't poltergeists supposedly tied to one specific location. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ciano's claims

I'm reading the book Mussolini Unleashed, 1939 1941: Politics and Strategy in Fascist Italy's Last War. At page 138 it says: "Ciano’s war aims program was lengthy and explicit. In deference to both German and Spanish interests, he abandoned the claims advanced at Munich to Algeria and Morocco. But France to the River Var, Corsica, Tunisia (with border rectifications toward Algeria), Djibouti, and an extension of Lybia to the south remained...". I'd like to find more specific information regarding the ill-defined territorial expansions of Tunisia (toward Algeria) and Lybia. I suppose that they wanted their claims to be as detailed as possible, so I'm expecting at least some vaguely defined border (also considering that these were official claims made fearing a too early German armistice with Britain and France). Thanx! --151.41.138.181 (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Date of the peak of British relative power and prestige?

The downgrading of the US credit rating on the 5th. August 2011 seems like an historic day to me, marking the passing of the peak and the beginning of the down-wave for the power and prestige of United States compared with other countries in the world. When would the equivalent date for Britain have been? 92.24.133.68 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll offer September 19, 1931, when the UK took itself off the gold standard. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about that. It was going on the Gold Standard that was the mistake. What about 4 August 1914? Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would put it at 1899, just before the start of the Second Boer War -- even though they won, the unexpected difficulties they faced were a blow to their prestige and confidence from which they never fully recovered. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems a very strange date to choose. The British Empire suffered many embarrassing defeats and examples of incompetence, both before and after the Second Boer War. Why would that war be more significant? The incompetence and failures in the Crimean War became legendary, and there were remarkable defeats, reverses and slaughters in other parts of the empire. Nearly half a decade after the Boer Wars, the Second Battle of El Alamein prompted Churchill to say, "before Alamein, we never had a victory. After Alamein, we never had a defeat". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Half a century, I think you mean. But basically there were wins and losses throughout history -- it's a question of smoothing out the fluctuations to find the overall peak. Before 1900 Britain had the world's largest empire, by far the strongest navy, and the strongest economy. After 1900 all the long-term trends were downward, especially in comparison to other countries: the US surpassed their economy; the US and Japanese gained on their navy; their hold in India, the heart of the Empire, became steadily shakier; and the Germans greatly surpassed their ability to project power on land. Looie496 (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, half a century. (Sorry, my score in expressing my thoughts in this thread has hit near zero!) If you are looking at pre-1900 as against post-1900 then yes, during the 1900s, the British Navy ceased being the strongest in the world, and all the rest. But this didn't happen at the year 1900. No-one would have imagined in 1902 that Britain had suffered "a blow from which they never fully recovered". That claim is far better made in relation to the First World War. Even that wasn't seen as a crippling blow, the British Empire was largely unshaken - in fact even strengthened - by it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is between the 30th of October and 2nd of November 1956. Britain succumbed to the financial pressure of The United States during the Suez Canal Crisis, effectively passing the last bits of her empirical power to The US. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

August 15, 1947. Jewel in the crown of the British Empire, and deeply symbolic of her place within it; no longer to be the ruler of a billion people. That being said, I think the effect of the Suez Crisis was partly to lose the self-esteem that had been kept when releasing the colonies - "we have understated power". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly the UK's IMF bailout in September 1976 [1]. -- CS Miller (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Many people cite World War II as the pivotal event when the United States surpassed Britain as a world power. --Jayron32 18:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And within that time period, you could perhaps pick 25th July 1944, the start of Operation Cobra, as the turning point. The British Empire and Commonwealth landed more troops on D-Day than the Americans did, but Cobra saw the main initiative pass to the USA, and at around that time, the number of U.S. troops involved substantially surpassed the number of British troops involved. Of course, you could also pick an earlier date, since although the U.S. had very limited combat involvement until relatively late in the war, its financial and material support to the U.K. was still substantial. So for example you could pick the Attack on Pearl Harbor (because it brought the USA into World War 2), or Operation Torch (the first major U.S. operations in the Mediterranean theatre) or perhaps the conclusion of Operation Vulcan. The loss of Singapore by the UK could also be a key moment, even though the USA were in the process of losing the Philippines under similar circumstances. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

An earlier date - 28 September 1939, the capitulation of Warsaw to Nazi Germany. You don't have much power and prestige if you promise to defend a country and then signally fail to do so. A controversially much later date - 15 August 1947, India, always the "jewel in the crown" of the British Empire, becomes independent. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to use the fall of Warsaw as a date, a better one in the same vein may be the Munich Agreement since that involved the direct involvement of the British, indeed many saw the move as the emasculation of British power... --Jayron32 19:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, the Munich Agreement was the point after which intervention in the east was perhaps no longer possible anyway, and so much more significant than the fall of Warsaw. Although, on balance, I'm going to agree with Schyler that Suez was really the tipping point, certainly from the British point of view - I had somehow managed to misread the question and overlook some of the earlier replies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A simple measure may be when Britain had the highest per capita GDP or standard of living in the world, and when that was surpassed by another country. Whenever that was. 92.24.131.126 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The peak of British relative power must be the years inbetween the decline of France and the rise of Germany as the foremost Continental power, so roughly inbetween 1815 and 1871. Between those years Britain was easily the economic superpower of the world as it was the first country to embark on industrialisation and its exports conquered foreign trade. After the 1870s Britain was overtaken economically by the United States and Germany. However Britain temporarily regained its position in 1918-1919 when it had the foremost army, the largest navy and the most advanced air force in the world. But instead of consolidating this position she disarmed and put her faith in the League of Nations due to a mixture of economic incapability of sustaining this position and idealism in faith in multilateral agreements.--Britannicus (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Woodrow Wilson's declaration of the Fourteen Points in 1918. America's contribution to WWI was modest compared to Britain's, but Wilson made it clear that America was going to assert itself as a world power in the war's aftermath. A year later, Wilson (in the first overseas trip by a sitting president) was greeted with shouts of "Vive Wilson" as he arrived in France for the peace conference. The American Century had begun. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The United States still has without a doubt the strongest military, the world's reserve currency, and the largest economy in the world. So at the analogous date for Britain, it would still have had that status. US GDP surpassed the GDP of the UK sometime during the 1870s, although the UK remained militarily stronger, and its currency, the pound sterling was a point of reference for all other world currencies (though the "reserve currency" at the time was gold). During this period, most of the world's economies were suffering through the Long Depression, and Britain was among the hardest hit. According to our article Panic of 1873, the Long Depression weakened Britain's economic world leadership. During the 1870s, Germany also began to grow much faster than the UK and to rival its power in Europe. So the analogous period to the present one in the United States would have been the 1870s in the United Kingdom. Marco polo (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the per capita measures are more important. For example someone from for example Monaco would be regarded as being wealthy, not dismissed because the population is small. 92.24.191.250 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You might then draw the erroneous conclusion that Monaco was a world power if that was all you looked at. You also might underestimate the British Empire because there are a lot of poor people in India. Googlemeister (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Subconcious Part of the MInd.

we all know that Mind and brain are two different things. I have to ask a question about Gabriel. The angel of God. we all know that there was no science in that era. So can we conclude that Gabriel was basically the subconscious part of the Mind through which these prophets received the information they did not knew? because there are possible links. Take Jesus. The holy bible came through his mind not from the sky. but what part of the mind? Maybe Subconscious. Because god always point out in Holy books that I know that You know not. So Subconscious is that part of the mind which has no link wit hour brain.Because this is the only knowledge we dont know about it. the only way to enter in our Subconscious Mind is through dreams. where sometimes Subconscious process can show us future predictions. what will you say about that? Is it possible? Because in that era the prophets gave the name to things they couldn't understand. Such As Gabriel(Subconcious Mind Maybe) Angels(Laws Of nature i.e hail, rain, snow, physics, biology etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.115.161 (talk • contribs)

The mind and the brain are separate ideas, yes, but the idea of a subconscious mind in Freudian terms is by no means whatsoever universally accepted, even among more well-trained fellows.
The thing that strikes me about your hypothesis is that you seem to be lacking in your knowledge of The Bible. The role Gabriel plays is not very highlighted. He appears only 3 times. In the Book of Daniel (to help interpret a dream, no less) and twice in the gospels (to foretell the birth of John the Baptizer and Jesus).
The next thing I would like to point out is when you say "...Jesus... The holy bible came through his mind not from the sky..." Here you seem to say that Jesus had a major role in creating the Christian Greek Scriptures; he did not. Jesus moved mens' inner selves (thier "hearts") to record his words of wisdom.
Finally, I may be mistaken about your idea of what the subconscious is and the role Jesus really takes, so if you could clarify that maybe answering your question more in depth will be possible. (P.S. I removed your duplicated section) Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 13:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is worthwhile pointing out that Gabriel / Jibril in the Quran is, indeed, the messenger of God who deleivers the words of the scripture to Mohammed and to all prior prophets (of which Jesus = Isa bin Maryam is one). Our article implies that Jibril in Islam is also referred to as the Holy Spirit. Maybe, or maybe not, Gabriel = Jibril = the Holy Spirit can be interpreted as some "divine subconscious" inspiration in Islam. Anybody with more knowledge on the religion may want to comment on that speculation. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The questioner should have a look at The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. It's not even close to scientifically accepted, but it's an interesting take on the voices heard by religious folk and schizophrenics. - Nunh-huh 18:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

While it's an interesting idea, I should point that that it isn't only "not even close to scientifically accepted": it shouldn't be accepted on a humanities level either, because it simply doesn't paint an accurate picture of human history and civilisation. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the questioner should read book recommended by nunh-huh, Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind for an interesting fantasia on the subject. Then read Merlin Donald's two books in chronological order for a more sober view. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

--

"We all know that Mind and brain are two different things..." The only problem is that it isn't true at all. Your mind is just telling you that it is. Your mind is in a perfect position to fool you isn't it? It is very much like an optical illusion. I highly recommend Dennett on Consciousness. Also, religion will certainly make it impossible to think clearly about these sort of things. Greg Bard (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Economic growth

1) What does current economic theory say are the economic conditions that cause the highest growth, in western economies?

2) Seperate question also about economic growth: in what ten year period since 1900 did Britain have the highest economic growth? 92.24.133.68 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not an economist, but I think it has something to do with going to war over tax-cuts for digging holes. #2 Seems like a homework question. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 17:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither are homework questions. I assume your first answer is some sort of joke which I don't get. 92.24.131.126 (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The House of Commons Library is always a good source of free (as in beer) research that's been done for the benefit of MPs. They produced a report Trends in UK Statistics since 1900 which (on p. 21) has graphs of total GDP (unadjusted for inflation) and real GDP per capita. Another source for such data is Measuring Worth. Either of these and a spreadsheet will answer your second question. Economic history of the United Kingdom doesn't have any information on historical GDP, so if you did follow this up it would be useful to add your results to the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

1) Most of the time, an almost total lack of regulation leads to maximum growth. However, this also leads to occasional collapses of the economy. When you factor those in, a moderate level of regulation may be best, overall. Perhaps the way to put it is "allow individuals to make their own economic decisions, but, give them full information". Note that this means companies can't hide their investment strategies or lie to their stockholders. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

StuRat's answer makes sense, when applied to certain kind of people. However, people make every kind of uninformed decision, even if information is available. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, but when the government steps in to prevent those types of mistakes, it becomes a nanny state. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If by Western you mean developed economies, growth in the steady-state is believed to be a function of increased knowledge, technology, and population. The Exogenous_growth_model (Solow model) is one way to quantify these inputs.12.186.80.1 (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Becoming braver

I am probably about average regarding being brave or timid in social life and in business. But are there any ways of making myself braver without using alcohol or drugs? In other words being able to do riskier things in business etc without being distracted by feelings of fear or worry? 92.29.126.238 (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely stay away from substances. The way to be brave is (1) develop a clear idea of what you want to do; and (2) don't place too much importance on what others think of you. They have as many faults as you do, if not more. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is OR, but one friend wears a hat. Yes, wears a hat. It feels like a mask to him, and he sort of dons a different personality, he says. It's acting. He acts braver, he claims, and is therefore braver. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Even indoors? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Granted, he currently lives in Texas. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing about bravery is that it wouldn't be bravery if whatever it is you're facing wasn't scary to you. Does it require bravery to turn up at the office every day? Not usually (although there are obviously exceptions). But jumping out of a plane at 50,000 feet - that's different, even with a parachute. So, everyone has to put on a brave face, wear a brave hat, whistle a happy tune, fake it till they make it, or whatever other platitudinous expressions they care to employ, -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that that was George Washinton's belief. To become virtuous one acts virtuously. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that taking risk in business isn't always a good thing, unless your company is too big to fail and you can rely on a taxpayer bailouts to cover your mistakes. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally, fight shyness by going out more. Our article shyness says: Shy people avoid the objects of their apprehension in order to keep from feeling uncomfortable and inept; thus, the situations remain unfamiliar and the shyness perpetuates itself. To which I would like to add: the shyness might even get worse when you start avoiding social situations. Face your irrational fears, and the fear will decrease (see Systematic desensitization), avoid them and they will get worse. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Martin.

Airports named after people who died in airplane crashes

What are some airports named after people who died in plane crashes? Right now, I can think of Will Rogers World, Wiley Post, and Ted Stevens Anchorage International, but are there any others, domestic or global? Thanks. Abeg92contribs 20:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose is alleged to have died in one, so maybe Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We may never know exactly what happened to her, but Amelia Earhart probably died that way, so Amelia Earhart Airport. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Edwards Air Force Base? Does Glen Edwards' airplane coming apart count as a crash? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If we're going military, then there are going to be a lot more answers. McChord Field, for example. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yuri Gagarin Airport in Namibe, Angola. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Berlin Tegel "Otto Lilienthal" Airport. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Lyon-Saint Exupéry Airport. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

O'Hare International Airport, originally called Orchard-Douglas (hence the ORD designation), was renamed for Edward O'Hare, who died in air combat in 1943. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to split O'Hares, but he may have been killed by gunfire before crashing. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The same applies to Saint Exupery, who could have been killed by the Nazis. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Except O'Hare was engaged in combat, while the only claim for Saint Exupéry by a Luftwaffe pilot came long after the fact and has no support other than the guy's word. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The official name of Sydney Airport is "Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport"; named after Sir Charles Kingsford Smith, who is presumed to have crashed into the Andaman Sea. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Maynard Jackson, for whom 1/2 of the name of Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport commemorates, died of a heart attack in an airport, so an interesting tangent on the OPs question. --Jayron32 00:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Roland Garros Airport. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a proposal by a local politician in Jönköping in 2009, to rename the city's airport after Dag Hammarskjöld. http://www.jnytt.se/Read__22255.aspx That proposal didn't go through it seems. --Soman (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is Laughlin Air Force Base, named after someone died in a B-17 that was shot down in WW2. Not an airport per se, but it has runways and a control tower at any rate. I bet other US Air Force bases are named after similar folk. Googlemeister (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Selfridge Air Force Base, named after the first passenger to die in an airplane crash. --Carnildo (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

19th century US senator cheating on his wife

I am currently proofreading a speech by Norwegian author Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson on Norwegian Wikisource, entitled Engifte eller mangegifte (Monogamy or polygamy) which he went on tour with in 1887-88. In it, Bjørnson puts forward the case for monogamy due to the social ills that all sorts of polygamy leads to. 'Polygamy' to Bjørnson means all sexual relations not within the confines of a monogamous marriage, including premarital sex and cheating on one's spouse. Of course, Bjørnson does not use Norwegian examples, but instead examples from other countries, this includes the French politicians Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau (who died due to the 'excesses of his youth') and Léon Gambetta (presumably because he didn't marry the woman he slept with and that he died from an accident, while she was present). The third example he mentions is an incumbent US senator from 'Western America' who was not re-elected after a member of his state's legislature stated that he had seen him leave a feast and entering a public house (I would guess this is a euphemism for a brothel) and then asked the question that if he were able to betray his wife, surely, he would also be able to betray them all. Neither the name or the state this senator represented is mentioned, however, I would like to know who he is. Does anyone know? V85 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

James Graham Fair served from 1881-1887 and apparently his wife divorcing him in 1883 for "habitual adultery" is what turned public opinion against him (he was not reelected).[2] This is my best guess after looking at senators that served in the 48th congress but not the 49th or the 49th but not the 50th (which seems like about the right timeframe) from California, Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon (the only states at the time that I would call "western"). I can't find anything about this quote in particular... Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Western" is an ambiguous term when applied to the US, it should be noted. See Western United States. Much of what someone from the West Coast would consider to be "mid-west" (at best) is often called "Western" by others (especially its residents). I'm not sure one can consider the coast and southwest to be what a Norwegian would call "Western." --Mr.98 (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, surely anyone would consider those states to be "Western"? Of course, others might be included, but I can't imagine states such as Oregon and California not being counted as "Western" by any standard. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether those are the only states that are considered "Western." There is no dispute that the Pacific States are "Western," the question is whether limiting a search to just the Pacific States is warranted. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't just consider "Pacific" states - I looked at everything that is marked in red in the above-linked Western United States. (Most of those were not states at the time, so they didn't had senators.) I didn't look at any of the states in pink. I doubt that they would have been considered "western" once California and Oregon were states, but who knows what someone from Norway (who likely had a somewhat sketchier knowledge of US geography) would have thought. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I could see where the western most pink states are western, as they include Texas, but Louisiana would be a hard sell. Googlemeister (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Texas is a pink state? Hot dawg, this lonesome cowboy ain't gonna be lonesome no more. Git along, little doggie. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Parts of Texas, like Montrose, Houston, are very pink indeed. But in reference to the states colored pink in File:US West map.png, it assumes that all states west of the Mississippi - including Louisiana (although parts of Louisiana are east of it) - can be considered "Western" under some definitions. I think that was especially true at the time the speech the OP mentions was given. Nowadays, no one would consider Louisiana a Western state, but in the 1880s it probably was. Calliopejen says she (?) didn't look at the states marked in pink on the map, but I think she probably should, since those states were highly likely to have been considered Western at the time (and of course, many more of them were actually states, not territories). Pais (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the time and speaker, any state west of the Appalachian Mountains may have been considered "western". In 1887 Europe, "western" probably would have meant "west of the Mississippi River": the pink and red states in Western United States. (Incidentally, the "midwest" is entirely within the grey region of that map.) --Carnildo (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You think? I would certainly include Minnesota and Iowa in the midwest, and probably ND, SD, Nebraska, and maybe Kansas and Missouri as well. According to Midwestern United States, the U.S. Census Bureau puts all seven of those states in the Midwest. Pais (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And most people in Iowa, NE and SD that I know object to Ohio being a Midwestern state. They consider it an eastern state. I never asked them about Michigan or Indiana. Googlemeister (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, I know people from the NYC/Long Island area who consider Pennsylvania the midwest. Everything is relative. Pais (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)