Humanities desk
< June 29	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	July 1 >

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 30[edit]

Which state in the US has the most guns?[edit]

Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you measure it. You could Google the subject and zero in on what you're looking for. Also, I think was discussed on the ref desk sometime within the last year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I would measure it by the number of military guns + number of police guns + number of civilian guns. Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how are you going to get those numbers? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In respect of the highest rate of per capita private gun ownership, the top three were Wyoming, Alaska and Montana. see Gun Ownership Statistics by State. Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it's most likely not correct. You can only count the guns in a state when you know how many guns are in the state. Pennsylvania for example has one of the highest rates of firearm licenses, but 1) a license is not required to own a gun and 2)there is no gun registry. Assuming you can somehow track via sales, many long guns are not sold through a dealer and I'm not sure the ATF would give out statistics on background checks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the best you could do would be to show a minimum quantity of guns. Note also that the three highest per capita states are also sparsely populated. I would think a state like Texas would have a lot more guns overall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I saw numbers far different than that survey. Not sure where I saw it, but it had TX/FL/PA as the top three, but that could also be number of licenses which might not be good to use for gun ownership since many people use different licenses depending on the carry laws. From the PSP, http://www.psp.pa.gov/firearms-information/Firearms%20Annual%20report/Pennsylvania_State_Police_2014_Firearms_Annual_Report.pdf, we see there were 670K transfers, but that doesn't mean ownership, and 219K licenses issued in 2014, I think it's safe to assume 90%+ of those 219K have at least one firearm. Interestingly, there is a section on crimes committed and the number of homicides is low, and then homicides with a firearm is even lower. Once you take out emotion and look at numbers, it's pretty eyeopening. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sir Joseph: "You can only count the guns in a state when you know how many guns are in the state" - can you explain that? If you already know the number of guns in a state, why would you need to count them? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the point is that you can't know the number of guns in a state. You can only make semi-educated guesses, through various types of surveys and counts of legal documents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And legal documents would not account for illegally obtained firearms. I am sure that States like New York and California are undercounted significantly in gun ownership statistics. They have larger cities... and the larger the overall population, the greater the sub-population of people who are criminals... i.e. people who are likely to have non-registered, illegally obtained fire arms. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White history month?[edit]

At best, this is not appropriate.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's not my intention to troll here, but I would like to ask you for an unbiased answer as possible (I realize this tends to be an emotional issue). Why exactly is it that there is no 'White History Month', I mean - considering the contribution that white people have made to Western, secular, liberal democracies going back like 2000 years, for better or worse? --146.90.120.170 (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every month that isn't black history month is effectively white history month. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just thinking off the top of my head (in no particular order), but people like Jesus, Leonidas, Aristotle, Euclid, Socrates, Plato, Copernicus, Pasteur, Churchill, Washington, Michaelangelo, Leonardo, Shakespeare, Charles 'The Hammer' Martel, Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Watt, Faraday, Edison, Einstein, Hawking, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Voltaire... etc. why no celebration of, well, civilization? --146.90.120.170 (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's every other month. You don't need a special time to celebrate people who have always been acknowledged and celebrated. Black History Month is about people who didn't get recognition for their achievements because they were black. People like Bessie Coleman, who didn't have anywhere near the recognition of Amelia Earhart. Of course, Coleman's achievements also pale in comparison to Earhart, but a black woman aviator had even fewer opportunities than a white woman aviator. clpo13_(talk) 05:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White privilege has some of the answer. --ColinFine (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the correct answer is political correctness (PC). It's "PC" to celebrate Black History Month. Or any such XXX History Month. However, it is not "PC" (and, in fact, "racist", according to some of the PC crowd) to celebrate anything "white", for example, a White History Month. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XXX History Month is an idea I can get behind. Seriously though, if Whites got a WHM, that would cement the current unsatisfactory system of tribalism in which groups compete for racial spoils. Much more desirable is going back to ethnostates or, failing that, civic nationalism a la France or the Soviet Union. Asmrulz (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing that American history is about more than just white males is not "political correctness". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the question. The question was "why isn't there a White History Month"? Or are you saying that recognizing "white" achievements -- by definition -- precludes the notion that we can also recognize other achievements? Why is it mutually exclusive? And, PS, if any single human being today proposed a White History Month, they would immediately be branded "racist" (or worse). It would never fly. And the PC police would be all over it. It's quite naive to think that this is not so. So -- yes -- it's absolutely all about political correctness. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What some people refer to as "PC police" might be thought by others to be better described as "decent people with good manners." Similar issues revolve around differing uses of terms like SJW by people who would not like to admit to being "champions of injustice." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which in no way answered the question I asked. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you outing yourself as the hitherto anonymous OP, Joseph? Are you asking a question as 146.90.120.170 and providing answers as User:Joseph A. Spadaro? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of accusation is that? And why are you accusing me of that? I expect an answer. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure, which is why I asked. I made no accusations. On closer inspection, I see that you did ask questions that were not the OP's question. My apologies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: Apology accepted. No problem. Thanks for the reply. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then that could mean Spadaro is the Nazi troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You, too. What kind of accusation is that? And why are you accusing me of that? I expect an answer. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said "the question I asked". Which question was that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't play games with me. You know how to read and how to follow a thread. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's you that's playing games with us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why Spadaro's questions ~~often~~ occasionally suggest ignorance that I find surprising in a lawyer, Mensa member or university teacher. —Tamfang (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that "intelligent" does not necessarily equate to "smart". Such as yelping about this at the Help Desk rather than calmly answering the questions Jack and I asked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI is the venue you are looking for. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers won't do anything with IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the situation. I've seen it done before. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an example of a checkuser saying "technical data indicates such-and-such user is this IP." I doubt you'll find anything. In fact, supposedly they are forbidden from doing that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's rarely done, and may actually be forbidden by policy (I'm not sure, but that sounds familiar). I'm not going to name names or point you toward cases (there may be no on-project evidence anyway) but I know of it having been done in at least one instance of severe abuse. In that case, a connection between the registered user and the IP was ruled out. It's technically possible, and has been done, however rarely/illicitly. And sockpuppet investigations routinely target IP socks, even without the hard confirmation provided by checkusers. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was told (some years ago, don't recall details) that technical investigations of IP's to try to link them with registered users is against WMF rules. The only time I've seen IP's lumped with registered users successfully is when it's obvious they're the same guy, from "duck test" evidence. And even then, the checkuser (if any) will say "no comment on IP's". As to what they might do behind the scenes, I'm not privy to that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Spadaro did ask a question distinct from the OP: Why is it mutually exclusive? Which, to be fair, has not been addressed. —Tamfang (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are suggesting that "political correctness" is the same thing as "good manners". That's an interesting perspective, because we have an entire article dedicated to political correctness. Are you suggesting that we delete that article and make a redirect to an article about "good manners"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnostates? Meaning ethnic segregation, or a system of sub-sovereign jurisdictions based on ethnicities rather than on territories, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For once I like Bugs's first answer. What would it mean to say, "This month, instead of celebrating the usual Western cultural heroes from Archimedes to Ben Franklin, we'll celebrate White cultural heroes"? —Tamfang (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, anyone? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything. Anything. This isn't Wikipedia:Idle speculation and political debate desk. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP could google "why isn't there a white history month?" just as easily as anyone else can. However, it's more likely that the OP is playing yet another Nazi card. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason not to respond to an unanswerable (by the ref desk) question. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well there was one article linked, but although I also have a tendency to do the same, I agree, the discussion is lacking sources. There is actually some mention at the end of Black History Month [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. This satirical piece actually makes some of the points made above [18] as does this [19]. Many of these aren't RS, still I think it does illustrate if you're interested there's plenty of discussion here. The sources may seemed biased, still that's mostly because of the bias in what I found. (The only source I purposely didn't link to was The Daily Stormer as I think even people who support a white history month would agree it isn't helpful.) If people do want to debate, there's [20]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was in college when Black History Month was first being discussed. I had fall and spring semesters of American History. Black History Month was a good time to discuss the contributions of non-whites to our history. The bulk of the two semesters was nearly all about white males. Hence the notion of a "white history month" is silly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first result of my search (on duckduckgo) asserts that at least 14 of the OP's examples would not be counted as White according to early US immigration law! —Tamfang (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. Which ones? Jesus is obvious; for the rest I'm not sure how to pick them out. I guess all the Greeks, otherwise you couldn't get to 14? Is this related to Ben Franklin's idea of "swarthy Swedes"? --Trovatore (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim (I should perhaps mention that it's made at Ebony) includes Germans and Italians by name, so I infer that it also covers Greeks and Slavs. The remaining names on the OP's list are English, Scottish or French. —Tamfang (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, OP gives no love to Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (father of algebra), the ancient Chinese (inventors of many influential things, not limited to paper, the compass, gunpowder, and printing), etc. It's clear they were trying to insinuate that only European culture has shaped the world and is worth celebrating. clpo13_(talk) 23:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs for a pointing system?[edit]

My mech project is proposing a new algorithm for focusing a iact telescope.I am getting movement in each mirror as the output of actuator.I want to plot some graphs which could show effectiveness of my algorithm.but my actuator is having accuracy of 10 microns.please help me what all graphs I can plot? Sd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.206.113.75 (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong Desk. You could try the Computer, Science, or Math Desks. Also, you mentioned just one actuator for each IACT mirror. Wouldn't you need two, one to rotate it in one direction and another to rotate it in a direction perpendicular to that ? (I don't see any need for a third actuator to rotate the mirror in it's own plane.) And what type of graph are you looking for, an optics diagram showing how closely a given object is reflected towards the target point ? I'm not sure if 10 microns is a small enough increment to be useful. As far as focus, I believe in astronomy you just focus as if everything is infinitely far away (with possible exceptions for very close objects, like objects in low Earth orbit, and large telescope arrays) . StuRat (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may explore the response of their IACT (Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescope) control algorithm by means of a computer simulation. The simulation might include:

The air shower caused by a random gamma ray entering the atmosphere.
A model of the response of detectors to flashes of Cherenkov radiation.
The algorithm that controls the mirror actuators.
A log of the focus speed and accuracy obtained, reported e.g. using Excel graphs.

The goal is to quantify the energy detection gain over a single telescope for a source at infinity of the IACT array that actively compensates for atmospheric distortion. AllBestFaith (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antiracism codeword for antiwhite[edit]

proxy blocked

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How is antiracism used as a codeword for antiwhite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.251.168.38 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article Dog-whistle politics? While not answering that specific question, it examines the general context.

If one were of the mindset that only non-white people complain "unjustifiably" about racism, and that such complaints are therefore unfairly directed only at whites, one might infer that the complainants were anti-white. While both ignorant and illogical, such unconscious reasoning might therefore appeal to whites of a racist disposition, and be used by speakers to appeal to such audiences. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Crabb and Sajid Javid[edit]

I know that Stephen Crabb is standing in the Conservative Party leadership election, and yesterday, the news was saying that he'd be standing with Sajid Javid as his "number two", but I can't work out if Crabb is still running for leadership with Javid? This BBC News article says nothing about Javid, but this local news article says they're standing together. Could anyone help me please? Thank you! Seagull123 Φ 19:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Javid was one of Crabb's two nominees, so yes, there's still an axis of agreement between them, of some sorts. The election is for a single post, so Crabb's arrangement is extra to that, which is I think why stories concentrate on him and ignore his side-kick. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense, thank you Tagishsimon! That makes more sense than the current news sources! Seagull123 Φ 20:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for some more illumination from the BBC; although there wasn't much about his political relationship with Sajid Javid, they did say: "Mr Crabb, the first Conservative cabinet minister for a century to have a beard". [21] That's all we needed to know... Alansplodge (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relationship is the normal temporary opportunistic symbiosis of two ambitious men. Both are newbie cabinet ministers, Crabb since July '14 and Javid since April '14; presumably the 'joint ticket' is in some way proffered as the sum of their individual experience, where an ambitious singleton with a thin CV would not be at all credible. I read variously that Javid will be Crabb's No. 2 (which I take to mean Deputy Prime Minister) and/or that Javid will become Chancellor of the Exchequer, the de facto No.2 post. And whilst the odds for them in this contest are very long, I suspect the pair are mainly increasing their name recognition & hence stature for their future benefit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit and Corporation Tax[edit]

Now that Brexit will happen, will this mean that companies registered in the EU for tax purposes, such as Amazon, registered in Luxembourg, and Facebook, registered in Ireland, will, after the United Kingdom has withdrawn, have to register themselves in the UK for tax purposes. If so, presumably this will lead to increased corporation tax revenues, and will help to ease pressure on the economy? --Jblowe96 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't follow. Individual countries, including EU countries, have bilateral tax treaties with other nations to avoid double-taxation, the effects of which are that if a double-taxation treaty is in place and tax is paid in, for instance, Luxembourg, tax is not also paid in the UK. Arguably Britain post-Brexit (or rather, post single market, if it ever comes to that) may have more scope to alter its handling of its tax regime without falling foul of single-market regulations, but it will be wary that additional taxes imposed in the UK on companies operating from elsewhere will be matched elsewhere by additional tax on UK companies. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unclear how amazon.co.uk would be able to process its transactions through a company registered as 'Amazon EU SARL' if the United Kingdom was no longer a member of the European Union. Surely they should register themselves for tax purposes as 'amazon.co.uk' and register it in the UK. If there is something I'm not understanding, could you please explain, thanks --Jblowe96 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have no idea how the final UK-EU relationship is going to be. We also don't know what UK law is going be like. But it's fairly unlikely foreign companies are going to be forbidden to sell to the UK, this will be a serious dampener on internet commerce which UK consumers are unlikely to tolerate. And having a .co.uk website has never meant the company isn't foreign, even now it could be outside the EU e.g. based in China. It's possible that foreign companies won't be able to collect VAT (so it will need to be done at the border and charged to the customer) or operate local distributors meaning that an amazon.co.uk is unlikely to be really successful. More likely companies will still be able to use complicated structures to amongst other things try and minimise tax, just as they currently do in many countries both inside and outside the EU. Especially since even many diehard Brexiters want to be part of the single market, it's just the free movement of people that they don't want. (Funnily enough, their reluctance to accept what many consider a fundamental part of the free market may mean they fail to get it, so some help in this area.) There's currently a move against such structures worldwide anyway, and perhaps as Tagihsimon said, the UK being outside the EU will help them in their move against such structures. But there's so many unknowns in different areas (including as said unrelated to Brexit) that it's difficult to know what the effect of the UK being outside the EU is going to be. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has some pre-vote discussion [22]. Note that both that and [23] [24] and to some extent [25] all talk about one key point namely that the UK could try and compete with other places via offering low taxes less hindered by EU rules. They aren't talking about Brexit forcing companies to relocate to the UK to do business there. Other stories talk about other complexities e.g. [26] [27]. It may be worth reading how exactly Amazon etc operate at the moment since I'm not sure you understand (this isn't a dig, I think many of us don't either). P.S. And perhaps I didn't make clear enough but it's worth remembering even if a company has to have some sort of UK business to collect VAT, it doesn't mean they have to make their "profits" there, as we've seen with stuff like Starbucks etc. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]