Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 November 25

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 25

Is there any connection between JFK's assassination and Khrushchev's ouster?

In a private conversation elsewhere, a person with whom I talked to speculated that, had JFK lived, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev would not have been ousted the next year. Basically, the logic was that LBJ was more confrontational than JFK was and thus caused the Soviet leadership to remove Khrushchev and replace him with Brezhnev.

Anyway, do you think that there is any truth to this speculation? Or was JFK's assassination completely irrelevant in the Soviet decision to remove Khrushchev from power? -- 02:46, 25 November 2018 Futurist110

Read about Nikita Khrushchev for some insight on why he got the boot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There were also domestic considerations -- the so-called "harebrained schemes" (grandiose initiatives that yielded little practical result). See History of the Soviet Union (1953-64)#Reforms and Khrushchev's fall... AnonMoos (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Khrushchev's De-Stalinization was also controversial. Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

His agriculture-related schemes were not, on the whole, successful. That placed the USSR in the position of having to buy food from its enemies. That made Khrushchev vulnerable for his foibles. And of course, after seven years, there was pressure from below from people who wanted the old man out of the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

telephone

I was watching a movie and this business card came up. What does the "D" stand for in front of the first phone number? "T" and "F" stands for "telephone" and "fax" respectively, but I can't figure out "D". Mũeller (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• "This business card": did you intend to post an image of the card? --76.69.46.228 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"Direct"? It could be an oblique reference to a cell phone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Wordreference Language Forums - D before a telephone number has the most plausible answer: "T for the telephone of the company and D the direct line" (i.e. a number which goes straight to the person's desk rather than through the company switchboard). Another less likely suggestion was "D for Domicile" (i.e. the person's telephone at home). Alansplodge (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

See also P is not for telephone which agrees with the "direct line" hypothesis. Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is a sample business card which gives a "direct" number, helpfully spelling it out in full. Here is another one ("mobile" is a "cellphone" on this side of the Atlantic). Alansplodge (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

We have Direct distance dialing ( a once obsessive DDD) which might explain where the “D” originated from ( an hypothesis I heard held that “D” was for "Desk", but of course that would have been "Office" instead). Hopefully the “T” is not intended for "trunk" , ( the body of the switchboard ) --Askedonty (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It would help to know what language the film was in... also what decade. Conventions have changed over time and place. Assuming an older English language film, is it possible that the letter was a “P” and not a “D”? If so, it might stand for “Personal”. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry guys, forgot to attach the image link: [1] Mũeller (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Then this confirms the "direct line" meaning. Note how the central number ends in 00, the fax number in 01, and the direct line in 22, with all the other digits the same. This is a common style of numbering for businesses that have a central number and direct dialing to extensions. Since the card is fictional, it's reasonable to interpret it that way. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Re Alansplodge's second link, what's the Norwegian for the "back" or "reverse" of a business card? The English translation they use is rather vulgar. Also, on this side of the pond (i.e. the European side) cellphones are referred to as "mobile phones". In America I believe they are referred to as "cellphones", adopting the name of the technology, with which we in Britain are conversant. I'm sure that's what Alansplodge meant, but the way he worded his post that's not entirely clear. 2A02:C7F:8230:8F00:A117:7494:3EFE:1867 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Casualties in the Polish anti-communist insurgency

It says that 12,000 officials [of Polish origin] and 1,000 [of Soviet origin] perished in the conflict, but I don’t see any source for this, and the statistics are not mentioned later either. Do you have any citations for this? (If not then maybe somebody should tag the article as in need of references.) — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 18:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"According to the official data, between 1944–1947 over 15,000 conspiracy [i.e. anti-Communist] soldiers were killed by the Communists—primarily by NKWD and members of the Communist Party and Secret Police. During the same period, the amount of casualties on the side of the Communists was comparable to that of their victims". The reference cited for that is: Jerzy Slaski, Zolnierze wykleci (in Polish) (Warsaw, 1996), pp. 250–251.

From Wnuk, Rafal, History of the Anti-Communist Conspiracy in Poland after the Second World War (1944–1956) published by the Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen in Vienna, 2000.

Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

But the Polish anti-communist insurgency article specifically applies these figures to officers. Also it doesn't make it clear whether it means the number killed or what. I strongly suspect the 12,000 figure refers to the generally agreed number of Polish officers massacred at Katyn in 1940, but since the article under question is about anti-communist insurgency from 1944 onwards the numbers for the Katyn massacre are irrelevant. --Antiquary (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The casualties in the Katyn massacre are estimated to about 22,000 people. A higher number than the one given above. Dimadick (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What does it mean for a bill to be 'defeated' in the UK House of Lords?

I understand that the Lords cannot veto a bill and that the Commons, by simply waiting a year, can ignore any amendments that the Lords propose. What does it mean, therefore, when somebody says that a bill was 'defeated' in the House of Lords? (For example, people say the Lords 'defeated' a government ID card bill - in about 2006, I think.)

I cannot imagine that 'defeated' means the bill was merely delayed for a year, because this has happened only four times since 1949, whereas people say that many more than just four bills have been 'defeated' in the House of Lords since then.

I suppose it could mean that the Lords suggested an amendment to the bill, instead of just passing the bill as is. But 'defeated' seems like too strong a word for suggesting an amendment, particularly when the amendment can be ignored.

Or I guess it could mean that the Commons listened to the Lords and then decided (voluntarily) to kill the bill.

What does the word 'defeated' mean in this context?

(Please accept my apologies if the answer is already in Wikipedia: I tried but failed to find it.) 86.23.36.217 (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I imagine what it means is likely to depend on context. In the case of the ID card bill, the legislative history section in our article seems to have a decent description of what happened Identity Cards Act 2006#Legislative progress. Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Tony Blair's Religious Hatred act, the Lords kept the bill from being passed in a stupid form which would have greatly increased UK turmoil over religious issues... AnonMoos (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The power of the Commons to overrule the Lords derives from the Parliament Act 1911 and the Parliament Act 1949, which are treated together at Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. That power is not absolute - there are provisions as to the timing of a Bill being sent up to the Lords which affect the Commons' ability to overrule the Lords. The Commons must also send the Bill back to the Lords before the Parliament Acts can be invoked. Bills originating in the House of Lords cannot be pushed through by the Commons. The Parliament website has a brief, but clear, guide on this link, and the Daily Telegraph has a concise but clear article at this link which summarises it neatly "The legislation must originate in the Commons; at least one year must elapse between the second reading of the Bill in the first session in which it is rejected by the Lords, and its being passed by the Commons in the second; and the Bill must be identical to the one thrown out by the Lords". DuncanHill (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"Defeated" has no special parliamentary meaning - it means no more than that the vote was lost. The effect, of course, differs according to what was the resolution before the House - e.g. a vote on an amendment doesn't stop the bill's passage. If the reference is to the vote on "the amendment" it's obvious what happened - saying the bill was "defeated" suggests that it had reached its second or third reading stage and the vote was to stop it proceeding any further. If the vote is "in Committee" it will relate to detailed consideration (i.e. a clause by clause examination and consideration of any amendments). 2A02:C7F:8230:8F00:A117:7494:3EFE:1867 (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Did Genghis Khan really create the Yam (route), or was it Ögedei Khan?

In the article Yam (route), we get a description of the somewhat famous communication system that worked inside the Mongol Empire. I tried to find some additional information about it since the article lacks good references about it. In The Great Armies of Antiquity by Richard A. Gabriel, page 343, we get a brief description of that communication system. The author specifically says, In 1234. C.E, Ogedai Khan formalized the establishment of an imperial communication system called the yam. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 23:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Formalized doesn't mean "invent" or "create". It's a term that means he made official a system which had been in place informally for a long time prior; the Wikipedia article says as much as well, noting that it was used and expanded by Genghis Khan, not that he created it, or even formalized it. It could have existed for a long time prior to either of them, with Genghis expanding its use and Ogedei formalizing it by adding some legal framework towards its maintenance and use. --Jayron32 13:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)