Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 October 19

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.

October 19

Westernmost Virginia ≠ West Virginia

Why is westernmost Virginia not part of West Virginia? The State of Kanawha article has a useful map, File:1861 Virginia and Kanawha.jpg, which depicts far western counties like Wise and Lee with slave populations comparable to the counties that did secede, and my (admittedly very sparse) knowledge of the area's history and culture can't explain why these counties would have preferred to stay with Richmond, not Wheeling. The only possibility I can imagine is Confederate control of the Cumberland Gap, about which our article says In June 1862, Union Army General George W. Morgan captured the gap for the Union. In September of that year, Confederate States Army forces under Edmund Kirby Smith occupied the Gap during General Braxton Bragg's Kentucky Invasion. The following year, in a bloodless engagement in September 1863, Union Army troops under General Ambrose Burnside forced the surrender of 2,300 Confederates defending the gap, gaining Union control of the gap for the remainder of the war. Was this perhaps relevant, since a defending force at the area's key strategic point might have made it impossible for the area to go Unionist? Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This article implies that the counties included in West Virginia were those that sent representatives to the constitutional conventions that founded the state. Virginia's southwestern counties were firmly under Confederate military control and therefore probably not able to send representatives. (The article does state that a few of the counties that joined West Virginia were under Confederate control at the time, but maybe because they were not very strategic—and therefore not heavily garrisoned—and were close to Union-held territory, they were able to take part in those conventions. By contrast, southwestern Virginia, as you note, controlled access to the strategic Cumberland Gap.) Marco polo (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• First, West Virginia is a name, not a scientific claim. Second, The book and the series 'How the States Got Their Shapes go into this in quirky and delightful detail. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Is How the States Got Their Shapes at all reliable, whether in print or in TV series? The snapshots I saw make the book look like something one guy wrote for his friends and for children, while the History Channel has given us lots of reasons not to trust its programming. Of course I understand that it's just a name; the issue is that Lee, Wise, and other nearby counties appear to have had (and to have) a lot more in common with Wheeling/Charleston than with Richmond. It's like asking "why did the northernmost part of Ulster not become part of Northern Ireland", a situation easily demonstrated with a map showing that area's disconnect from much of the rest of the province. Thanks for the WVEncyclopedia article, which indeed helps me understand somewhat: while it doesn't address the subject directly, it talks about counties periodically being added to the future new state, including the easternmost ones in the summer of 1863 (not long after Gettysburg), and the whole discussion of the process makes it seem that like-minded counties were added when militarily/politically possible/practical. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, the answer to the County Donegal question is the same as the answer to the Wise/Lee Counties not joining West Virginia question, and it has nothing to do with coincidental differences in location and everything to do with internal and external politics surrounding the formation of those entities. There's no rule to say that the names of these entities has to match the strictest definitions of them (that West Virginia had to include the westernmost counties of Virginia, or that Northern Ireland had to include the northernmost county of Ireland), and the reason Donegal is not included in Northern Ireland has little to do with it's geographic separation, and everything to do with the political situation at the time when Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland seceded at the time. Political divisions are not beholden to any strict definitions of direction and geography. --Jayron32 16:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've seen the show from time to time, and to me it has what I would call "the ring of truth." Obviously, any facts they present could be cross-checked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the book is reliable, I read the whole thing. Geography has always been one of my favorite subjects, and I came across nothing that struck me as unfounded or counter to my prior knowledge. The essential point is that West Virginia is simply the name that was given to that portion of Virginia which was not beholden to the cause of slave-ownership and which decided to secede from Virginia and join the Union. (The Constitutionality of this, and why the two states weren't reunited after the war is a separate question.) It wasn't an east-west split as such. I highly recommend the book and the series. μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no accounting for the peculiar ways folks decide to name stuff. Cape Cod is a peninsula, not a cape. The Battle of Bunker Hill took place on Breed's Hill. The Bayeux Tapestry is an embroidery, not a tapestry. The Banana River is not a river. They never played polo at the longest-lived version of the Polo Grounds. And the so-called "West Side" of St. Paul, MN, is straight south of downtown St. Paul. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Cape Cod is both a cape and a peninsula; they need not be mutually exclusive (that is, there are Capes which are not Peninsulas, Peninsulas which are not Capes, but there can also be geographic features which are both). Specifically, a Cape (geography) is where the coastline makes a sudden change in general direction; at Cape Cod, the coastline changes about 90 degrees, from almost due east-west (Long Island-Connecticut-Rhode Island) to almost due north south (Massachusetts and New Hampshire). While there are capes which are not really peninsulas (for example, Cape Hatteras, which does not extend deeply into the surrounding water, and thus is a cape and not a peninsula), there are many Capes which are Peninsulas, such as Cape Cod, Cape Ann, Cape May. There are also capes which are islands (Cape Breton, for example, and also strictly speaking Cape Cod as well, since the construction of the Cape Cod Canal). Being part of one classification does not preclude one from being part of others. --Jayron32 20:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So a cape covers a lot of ground. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Number of air strike missions per day in Syria

I was just reading this story[1] and was wondering: does NATO or any NATO-members release their Syrian/Iraq bombing statistics? 731Butai (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The US DoD does. As of October 6, since August 8, 2014, official score is 7,273 US, 1,605 Rest of Coalition. I'll leave the math to you. Can't find anything official for Russia, but that might be more down to me not reading Russian. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"As of 15 September the UK had conducted 1,300 sorties, including 288 strikes against ISIS targets" from a report downloadable from a House of Commons briefing paper (scroll down to the bottom of the page). Presumably, the "sorties" which were not "strikes" were reconnaissance flights and missions in which a target could not be identified, but it doesn't specify. Alansplodge (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"missions in which a target could not be identified" I thought the NATO members were only striking ISIS targets? The Kurds are our allies, and so are the moderate rebels; attacking Assad forces would be an act of war. So what other possible targets are there? 731Butai (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all. Aircrew are instructed not to attack unless they can clearly establish that they are striking the right target. If they can't be certain, they bring their ordnance home again. For instance, if aircraft are sent to destroy an ISIS communication centre, they need to be certain that they're not attacking a school or a hospital in error. That's what I meant. Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

They're still targeting al' Qaeda, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think those count toward "Operation Inherent Resolve" figures, but I could be wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

what terms are used to describe paranoia, fear and concern regarding the increasing reach of main and alternate media leading to increasing privacy violations?

OP thinking "witch hunts" perpetrated by media propaganda doomsday scenerio, "gamergate" feelsMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Gobbledygook? Brouhaha? Plain fear mongering? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yellow journalism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

WiFi harmful? Trash effective? Emissions exacerbate? "Expert fear" equals argument from authority or appeal to emotion? We Report, You Decide?!? Are these loaded questions? Does America fear its government? Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear stir shit in the woods? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Paranoia, fear and concern are all nouns. There is no collective term. However, people who are aware of the dangers of intrusion of their personal privacy are therefore, just aware. Some of those, want to do something about it. That's called activism--Aspro (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And #ThereAreThose who want to make people aware of their awareness, but that's it. Big Brother is a noun. A proper noun. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Relevant to the general topic is "If You’re Not Paranoid, You’re Crazy: As government agencies and tech companies develop more and more intrusive means of watching and influencing people, how can we live free lives?" in The Atlantic. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Web users 'fear media intrusion' , fear of a "media witch hunt", mass media phobia Ssscienccce (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's always amusing to hear about folks who are "out there" yet fear they might be being watched. The government is the least of our worries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah! Spoken like true American. First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—

and there was no one left to speak for me..

“"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" “RE: George Santayana So this is naïveté at its very, very best.--Aspro (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)