Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 February 21

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Humanities
Humanities desk
< February 20 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 22 >
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.


February 21 edit

Contentious referendums in liberal democracies? edit

Besides the Brexit referendum, 2015 Greek bailout referendum, and 1946 Italian institutional referendum what are the other legal referendums that both took place in a democracy and had election conducts or results that were controversial/contentious/polarizing? StellarHalo (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, there's the 1999 East Timorese independence referendum (led to the 1999 East Timorese crisis). 69.174.144.79 (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What, in objective terms, do you mean by "controversial/contentious/polarizing"? Any referendum, unless the result is strongly one-sided, is likely to call attention to the two or more opposing views that voters are choosing between, so people will go on arguing about it after it's over. --142.112.149.107 (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
California's Proposition 8 referendum back in 2008 was very polarizing. Does it count for this? Futurist110 (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of what is very polarizing is not relevant to the question of how to decide objectively whether it was. --142.112.149.107 (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It got subsequently challenged in court and declared unconstitutional. Does that count as polarizing? The vote was also pretty close, just 52% to 48%. Futurist110 (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the examples OP gave and find comparable examples of controversy, contention, and polarization. Easy. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Catalan independence referendum of 2017.  --Lambiam 11:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any "A or B" referendum question is polarising, in the sense that voters can only take one of two "polar opposite" positions, and the discussion and process is likely to strengthen the opinions of both sides. The 2014 Scottish independence referendum wasn't all that close, since the result was about 45% for and 55% against, but was clearly contentious since the issue hasn't gone away, despite the UK Prime Minister declaring it "over for a generation" or words to that effect.
Immediately following the referendum, membership of the independence-pursuing Scottish Nationalist Party rose sharply; it has dominated the devolved Scottish Parliament ever since and has repeatedly pressed for a second referendum. Although the distractions of the 2016 Brexit referendum temporarily moved the Scottish electorate's attention elsewhere, its result, which took Scotland along with the rest of the UK out of the EU despite a majority in Scotland voting to remain, may have strengthened the SNP's hand.
[Disclosure: though English, I lived in Scotland for 7 years of my early adulthood, and FWIW would have no objection to Scottish Independence.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.168 (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 1959 Swiss referendum on women's suffrage. Both parliament chambers had accepted it (96 : 43 and 25 : 12), but every modification of the constitution is subject to a mandatory referendum, i.e. it also needs to be accepted by the people. In this case the "people" (the men) voted against it, 67% : 33%, and it only found a majority in three of the 25 Swiss cantons (all of them were French-speaking). It took another twelve years for a majority of Swiss men to finally vote for women's suffrage on a federal level. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 1980 Quebec referendum and 1995 Quebec Referendum were both extremely polarizing. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1965 Malaysian decision to expel Singapore. DOR (HK) (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If challenges to a referendum result by way of applications for judicial review are indicative of polarisation, then the abortion referendum of 25 May 2018 in Ireland qualifies. 95.150.97.145 (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sea, port cities, requesting help edit

Greetings

I am looking for help in arranging Port cities of the Black Sea clock wise with additional information Contemporary name/country; Ottoman time name/ country;Geographic Co ordinates.

And a little advance historical info where available about those cities existed in Ottoman times, Which cities/ports participated which kind of trade; Which Cities participated in slave trade and specially women slave trade and which particular locations/ markets were more known for female slave trade in those cities/ports/locations. Information for Istanbul is largely available I am looking for info other than Istanbul.

Contemporary information is to be mapped for Black sea related articles; while Ottoman times information is to be mapped for Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları (An article is about Ottoman times female slavery with special focus on state of non elite common women slavery in those times)

Looking for help in arranging above cities plus those missing clock wise as requested above.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what you mean by Maldova, but if you mean nearby Moldova, it does not have any Black Sea coastline. The two cities you list there are in Ukraine. Also, as the Crimea is disputed territory, it would be best to note those cities as disputed (Chornomorske, Feodosia, Sevastopol, Kerch). --Jayron32 13:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since Bookku is interested in Ottoman-era geography, it is less relevant to classify the cities by the current status. It would be easier is Bookku rather than listing the cities s/he already have covered, would list the cities whose Ottoman names need identification? --Soman (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thanks for suggesting spell correction. As User:Soman rightly said I am more interested in Ottoman time status.

Some one who studies Ottoman time history of Crimean Khanate taking Circassians women captive and selling out to Ottomans goes speechless looking at subsequent deportation of both Crimeans and Circassians from their own territories and later in 21st century two neighboring nations claiming and fighting over those territories. So any way as Wikipedians we are sort of neutral about on going dispute we can take note of claims of both sides that what we can do.

@Soman: It is both 1) Primary purpose is to take note of port/town by port/town note of Ottoman time slave trade in Black sea. 2) Secondary purpose is to creating super imposable interactive Maps —similar to ones I see in article Sochi— where in a reader should be able to identify Ottoman time and present names and locations of slave markets with help of interactive maps for easier understanding.

Thanks to both of you for support. warm regards Bookku (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: and @Bookku: While the modern state Moldova does not have a coastline, Moldavia did. DuncanHill (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, until Budjak was captured by the Ottomans in 1484. From that point onwards, it was never part of an independent state that included the rest of Moldova/Moldavia. It changed hands between the Ottomans, Poland/Lithuania, and Russia a few times, but was generally either part of Russia or the Ottoman Empire. When Romania formed as the union of Wallachia and Moldavia, Romania had part of the region as Southern Bessarabia, but that was soon captured by Russia yet again. Of course, not long after the Ottomans took Budjak, they also got the rest of Moldavia in 1498. --Jayron32 17:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a map of Europe in Ottoman times. I arbitrarily picked 1900. As you can see, in 1900 Moldova and Ukraine did not exist; those were part of Russia. --Jayron32 17:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thanks for your valuable inputs. I have copy pasted section "Holiday resorts and spas" listing section of article Black Sea with attribution to Black sea article @ Wikivoyage. And created Black Sea#Coastal and port cities on Black Sea coast and trade. Can you have a look @ present tourist place listings in section and which ones can be retained and which can be deleted, so I can update a table as planned above also incorporating your inputs from this discussion. Thanks Bookku (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Booku, Your list is already in clockwise order? So not sure what help you need for that part of the question?
Re contemporary country, FYI naming the Crimean ports as currently in Russia is controversial; see Political status of Crimea.
Re geographic coordinates, what you can do is find the port on google maps. Then, (from a desktop computer), right click on the port and the popup menu will show you the coordinates right at the top.
Re previous names, if you read through the wiki article for each city, there is usually a section on Name or History that reveals this information. If there are any you can’t find, perhaps post the specific ones as a separate question here?
Re the history of trade in each city, I’m not sure where to start as it is such a big list. Perhaps you could post separate questions again, maybe one per day? For example: “I’m researching the trade history of Trabzon in the Ottoman era, 1461-1923. The wiki article just mentions “Persian exports.” Can you help me find sources that offer more specific information, particularly about slave trading in Trabzon?” Then it would be much easier for volunteers to research and reply. For example, to this query about Trabzon, someone might come up with sources such as [1] or [2] or [3]. Hope this helps you, 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@70.67.193.176: Thanks for your valuable inputs. I will take note of them after a little break and then reply. Thanks it is very nice of you. Warm Regards Bookku (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@70.67.193.176: Thanks for your encouragement, Search for slavery in Trabzon brought me to Sixth chapter in following book. It provides some good info port wise.

"Eurasian Slavery, Ransom and Abolition in World History, 1200-1860. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2016. (available on google books)

I am still to go through refs provided by you. I will work on them one by one.

Mean while I created Black Sea#Coastal and port cities on Black Sea coast and trade and a discussion @ Talk:Black Sea#Crimean cities, how to describe contemporary political status? so those who are interested in political aspect can discuss and work out while people like us can work on trade and slavery in Black Sea coastal cities and ports. Requesting your inputs there too and looking forward to work further on this topic with you.

Let us be in touch, thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Ass class edit

I'd like to do the "second-best" to reading the Golden Ass in Latin. Is there somewhere a free class or podcast/audiobook where I can listen along? Something with long latin spoken excerpts and footnotes/explanations in English? Temerarius (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether that's the best work to use to approach the Latin language, since Apuleius uses a highly-idiosyncratic style which is strongly divergent from typical Classical Latin (Cicero, etc). See The Golden Ass#Style... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Temerarius's only motivation is approaching the Latin language per se. I frequently read annotated works in languages in which I'm not very fluent (or sometimes old texts in languages I am more or less fluent in). Usually, it's because I wanted to read that specific text (with the ambition of reading it in the original, for several reasons, only one of which will be wishing to (re)-approach the language).
Anyway I searched, but found nothing so far, not on Perseus either, where you can click on every single word, but that's not what you're looking for). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read out loud in Latin: [4] but you’d have to supply your own footnotes, such as by keeping an English translation open while you listen to the Latin. Wikisource has one. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 70.67! Temerarius (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2021_February_21&oldid=1009523292"