Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 January 30

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< January 29 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 31 >
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.


January 30

edit

kevin clinesmith

edit

Why has wiki given a pass to ex fbi lawyer kevin clinesmith . You should have information on him and write a bio like you do every one else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301F:1915:0:7CEB:3567:8D11:1D8F (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you've got valid sourcing, etc., you could write an article on your talk page and ask for article creation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone else has a bio? Where's mine? Seriously though, he doesn't even rate a mention in Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), so why would he deserve a standalone article? Conservapedia is thataway. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's mentioned in the Carter Page article. The usual practice for someone of such minor notability would be to create the Kevin Clinesmith article as a redirect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which I just did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He probably meets WP:PERP given one of the victims was the President of the United States, though it'd be more appropriate to redirect to an article about the overall scandal under WP:NCRIME. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since many of us were victims of Trump, many of us should each have our own article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Being a victim of" is an asymmetric relationship.  --Lambiam 16:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't the Soviet Union allow polygamy after World War II for European ethnic groups?

edit

Why didn't the Soviet Union allow polygamy (as in, having more than one wife–so, polygyny) after World War II for European ethnic groups in order to compensate for the extremely massive demographic losses that Soviet men suffered as a result of World War II? As far as I know, some Soviet European ethnic groups, such as Russians, had just 60 men (or slightly more than that) for every 100 women among the younger age cohorts right after the end of World War II. Futurist110 (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting this to European ethnic groups (whose male cohorts generally suffered more on average as a result of World War II than Soviet Muslim male cohorts did) would prevent the issue of Muslim polygamy, for what it's worth. Futurist110 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Futurist110: It's possible that Stalin just didn't care </humour>. Although he didn't say "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic," it seems to sum up his attitude. Although figures vary somewhat, around 6 to 8 million people died in the Soviet famine of 1932–33. The results of the Soviet Census (1937), although they showed an increase to 162 million people, were not published because the growth was considerably less than expected. In the Great Purge of the same year, around 1 million died. See also Abortion in Russia#1936-1955: although USSR was the first country in Europe to legalize abortion, it was forbidden from 1936 to encourage population growth. Also, "During the postwar era, millions of men were dead and the government was forced to legitimize single-mother families." Abortion laws were toughened in France after WW1, but France had suffered from one of the worst growths in Europe for some time anyway. See Demographics of France#1800 to 20th century.
Although the USSR was always avowedly anti-religion as a matter of ideology, there was a certain relaxing of the hard-line approach of the authorities during and immediately after the war. See the revealing Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union; I had no idea of the amount of suffering involved. From the article, "Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort and presented Russia as a defender of Christian civilization, because he saw the church had an ability to arouse the people in a way that the party could not and because he wanted Western help." Even so, the Russian Orthodox Church would probably certainly have been against polygamy, since all Christian marriage is based on monogamy. Just because polygamy wasn't officially allowed, that's not to say that it didn't take place. See Polygamy in Russia, although this refers to modern times. To sum up, there are other ways of getting round the problem of polygamy to increase the population, such as anti-abortion laws, official sanctioning of single mothers, and turning a blind eye when it does occur. MinorProphet (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quote about a million dead is widely attributed to Stalin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe widely,[citation needed] but Stephen Pinker at least begs to differ.[1] Many famous so-called quotes have been shown to be misquoted[2], or attributed to the wrong person ("Peccavi"), or entirely invented (eg Beethoven was "ripe for the madhouse") >MinorProphet (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does he mean by "gets the numbers wrong"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's something to do with the proportion of deaths per capita rather than raw numbers. There's an interesting and lengthy scholarly review (part 1 only) of his book here, although the supposed Stalin quote is not specifically mentioned. MinorProphet (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the numbers, see Mass killings under communist regimes § Joseph Stalin and Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.  --Lambiam 15:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quip, if we may call it that, may have originated with Kurt Tucholsky, who wrote in 1925: "Thereupon a diplomat from the Quai d'Orsay says: 'The war? I can't find it so terrible! The death of a person: that is a catastrophe. A hundred thousand deaths: that's a statistic!'"[3] (The French Foreign Ministry is located at the Quai d'Orsay in Paris.)  --Lambiam 15:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the Soviets had allowed it, it is not clear that the populations in question would have accepted it. --Khajidha (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning may be that a woman needs a husband to support her. When there's shortage of men, polygamy is an option. But it's an unfair option, as some women have to share their husband with another woman and others have a husband for them alone. The Soviet Union, being a communist state, had a much fairer solution: people get supported by the state. If people want to marry, that's fine, but they don't need to. Women can even have children without a husband and still don't have to worry about feeding them, as Father State cares for everything. Ideologically, allowing single mother families makes far more sense than allowing polygamy. (Of course it didn't always work out, but let's not pretend that single mother families have a fair chance of being wealthy in western countries.) PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest historical figure known to have all four grandparents alive when he/she was born

edit

The earliest historical figure I found who had all four grandparents alive when he/she was born was George William, Elector of Brandenburg (1595-1640), and one of his great-grandfathers, John George, Elector of Brandenburg (1525-1598) was also alive when he was born. George William’s paternal grandparents were Joachim Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg (1546-1608) and Catherine of Brandenburg (1549-1602) and his maternal grandparents were Albert Frederick, Duke of Prussia (1553-1618) and Marie Eleonore of Cleves (1560-1608).

Prior to the 19th century, it was very rare to a person to have all four grandparents alive at the time of his/her birth. So George William was the earliest example I could find. Do you know of any earlier born historical figures who also had all four grandparents alive when he/she was born? Yellow Sunstreaker (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there must be earlier examples, but the grandparents of Arthur II, Duke of Brittany (1261–1312) were John I, Duke of Brittany (d. 1286), Blanche of Navarre, Duchess of Brittany (d. 1283), Henry III of England (d. 1272), and Eleanor of Provence (d. 1291). Eleanor of Provence's mother Beatrice of Savoy died c. 1267, so there you have a great-grandmother still probably alive at the time of Arthur's birth. --Antiquary (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very rare? I'm sure it was very common. You could easily be a grandparent at 40 and die of old age at 80. Temerarius (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources for this? As far as I know just two hundred years ago it was very seldom for anyone to become much older than 50. My four grand parents were all alive in the year of my birth, but two of them died 50 resp. 77 years old in that same year, and it was not two hundred years ago. 2003:F5:6F18:3300:50:7628:18A6:612B (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Life expectancy for late-medieval English peerage was 30. --Antiquary (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But these low life-expectancy figures were always mostly due to high mortality in early childhood. Once you reached adulthood, the chances of going on to reach old age were usually substantial. The same list you just linked to says about "late-medieval English peerage" that "At age 21, life expectancy of an aristocrat was an additional 43 years (total age 64)"; and about classical Rome: "If a person survived to age 20, they could expect to live around 30 years more". In other words, if you already managed to reach adulthood and be a parent, and if your offspring also managed to survive infancy and be old enough to be a parent in turn, your own chances of living to see the day wouldn't be that bad at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that continues. A person who makes it to 45 is likely to live long indeed. Medicine is different now but the human body isn't. Healthy people don't drop dead at 65 just because the statistics are against it. Temerarius (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Though actually having anyone become a supercentenarian back then might be a completely different kettle of fish! Futurist110 (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even today they are very rare. Given that there has only been about 1,500 of them in history, given that there's been about 100,000,000,000 people to have ever lived, that's a fantastically small number. If the rate of supercentenarians was the same 1000 years ago as it is today, it's quite likely that such people would have gone undocumented. A 111-year old shepherd from Transoxiana is not likely to have attracted historical notice. --Jayron32 15:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Though most of the above discussion is too eurocentric, and question is of too little direct encyclopedic consequences still it can be interesting topic for historian's historical research.
As some one said earlier, irrespective of availability of historical proofs, chances of all four grand parents being alive at the time of a child's birth in historical times, can be lesser but can't be called negligible either.
Bookku (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One could probably get much earlier examples if one allows some of the four grandparents to be the same person. As in ancient Egyptian rulers who married / ruled with their sibling and were offspring of such marriages.John Z (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible to build a query for this on Wikidata: [4]. --Amble (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Wikidata Query that asks this question: [5]. The results are complicated by the fact that many early birth and death dates are only approximately known and some entries only list a century or decade. --Amble (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmose-Henutemipet, born 1574 BCE (per Wikidata). Mother and father probably brother and sister, so only two grandparents:
This is the earliest example I can find where the given data clearly satisfy the criteria (although unsurprisingly, the data themselves are a matter of inference and are not certain to be correct). --Amble (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Next is also from Egypt, but from the Ptolemaic period: Ptolemy XII Auletes, born c. 117 BCE. His mother is uncertain but likely Cleopatra IV, and even if not, is likely to have been another of his father's sisters, so either way, only two grandparents.
This example still has some uncertain data, but is a little firmer than Ahmose-Henutemipet. --Amble (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are some ancient Roman results listed, but they all seem to be confused by mistaken identity (since so many people had the same names) and adoptive relationships (especially in the case of a few well known ancestors who died young). --Amble (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Next example has four separate grandparents: Emperor Heizei of Japan. Born 773 (September 25, according to Wikidata).
Everything appears to be pretty solid except for identity and dates of the maternal grandmother. --Amble (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest example I can find with no "circa" or "probably" is Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary, born 22 September 1013.
I'll stop here since we can be confident that Richeza of Poland satisfies the criteria. --Amble (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to say...Amble, this is fricking cool :) Amazing work. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It was interesting learning how to write a query on Wikidata. --Amble (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why the reversal of blue and red when discussing politics?

edit

My understanding of Western Civilization in college is that Conservative parties are blue, period. Originating with certain advisors to the King in medeviel times and later with the formation of French parliament. This has been so since the beginning of time yet everyone today assumes the Republicans are red. The Nazi's (with two left wings prior to the night of the long knives) and those of the communists like USSR, China, Vietnam (insurgents prior to 1975 and their current Government), Pol Pot in Cambodia and the Castro's in Cuba were all on the left, they were red.

In the 1950's even Blue Dog Democrat's were termed blue because of there reverse thinking on fiscal matters which made them blue, like the Republicans. Arguments about choking are for dilettantes, reality was they were like Republicans to the average voter, (either way really) hence the color blue. According to your web pages there was a representative in California on the right who won an election using the color red in the 90's, so what? I don't remember a referendum on changing the color, do your sources? My sources remain almost anyone with a duty to education in colleges in modern education. 2601:14A:4100:66D0:940C:E704:E36F:9549 (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What colors were used for what political positions at various times and various places in the past isn't really relevant to what colors are used for political positions in the present day United States (I'm assuming that you are asking about US usage because of the current Republicans = Red, Demorats = Blue).--Khajidha (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Political colour#Blue says; "Blue is usually associated with centre-right or conservative parties, originating from its use by the Tories (predecessor of the Conservative Party) in the United Kingdom".
The Colour of Politics: why are the Tories blue... says: "Traditionally, the Conservative colours were those of the Union Jack [i.e. red, white and blue], but when the Labour Party took ownership of the red, the Conservatives were left with the blue".
Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Red states and blue states says: "The recent (21st century) association of colors in American politics lies contrary to the long-standing conventions of political color in most other countries whereby red symbols (such as the red flag or red star) are associated with left-wing politics. Indeed, as late as the 1990s, Democrats were often represented by red and Republicans by blue. According to The Washington Post, journalist Tim Russert coined these terms during his televised coverage of the 2000 presidential election. That was not the first election during which the news media used colored maps to depict voter preferences in the various states, but it was the first time a standard color scheme took hold; the colors were often reversed or different colors used before the 1996 election". Alansplodge (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2601:14A:4100:66D0:940C:E704:E36F:9549 -- First of all, the Blue Dog Democrats only go back to 1995, according to our article. In the 1950s, there were "yellow-dog" Democrats, but their political views were often different from those of Democrats today (especially in the South).
To answer your main question, red signifies left in many European traditions (such as the English-speaking countries there, where The Red Flag was traditionally sung at party congresses), but there was no particular tradition associating red with the U.S. Democratic party; however, many in the U.S. did associate the color red with Marxism and the flags of the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China. So it's not surprising that when color associations settled down in 2000, red ended up with Republicans and blue with Democrats, since the other way would have given rise to endless sniggering and insinuations about the Democrats being "reds" (i.e. socialist/communist). Also, Nancy Reagan loved wearing red, and this way she got to keep her favorite dress color.   -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much of the above, but also worth noting is that the blue/red distinction in 21st century American politics is primarily about partisan leanings of states and electoral districts and less so about other symbolic aspects of hyperpartisan politics. You will not see predominantly blue flags and banners at Democratic rallies or primarily red flags and banners at Republican rallies. The same goes for websites, campaign signs and literature. Both parties are lavish in their use of red, white and blue, other than in characterizing states and districts based on colors on an election results map. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, a Trump supporter in my neighborhood has two TRUMP PENCE 2020 flags on his property, one is red and one is blue. --Khajidha (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, the new (non-donkey-based) logo of the Democratic party is a blue "D" in a blue circle, and there's the ActBlue website and the slogan "Vote blue no matter who"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems more like party branding as opposed to the policy symbolism the original poster was asking about. --Khajidha (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan and the Soviet Union's unwillingness to crush Solidarity in Poland

edit

Does anyone here know just how much of a factor the Afghanistan War was in the Soviet Union's unwillingness to use its own troops to crush Solidarity in Poland? Based on this article, the Soviet Union's reaction to Solidarity was considerably more restrained than the Soviet Union's reaction to both the Prague Spring and the 1956 Hungarian Revolution were. So, did the Afghanistan War have any role in the Soviet Union's more restrained response in regards to Solidarity by already committing a lot of Soviet troops and thus making it harder for Soviet troops to be used to crush a pro-Solidarity uprising in Poland, or what? Futurist110 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Decision Not to Invade Poland, 1981 seems to be a relevant article, but you need JSTOR access to see it. Alansplodge (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Solidarity Movement and Perspectives on the Last Decade of the Cold War (from p. 61) says that the reason that there was no invasion in 1981 was that Wojciech Jaruzelski was very effective in imposing martial law with Polish forces and didn't need Soviet help, but it was ready and waiting if needed. It cites the Afghan invasion to disprove that the Politburo had moved away from the policy of armed intervention. Alansplodge (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my OP here. In my OP, I linked to the article Soviet reaction to the Polish crisis of 1980-1981, where Yuri Andropov argued that the Soviet Union should NOT militarily intervene in Poland EVEN IF the Polish Communists will fail to crush Solidarity by themselves. Futurist110 (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A direct Yuri Andropov quote from that article:
"We can't risk such a step. We do not intend to introduce troops into Poland. That is the proper position, and we must adhere to it until the end. I don't know how things will turn out in Poland, but even if Poland falls under the control of Solidarity, that's the way it will be. And if the capitalist countries pounce on the Soviet Union, and you know they have already reached agreement on a variety of economic and political sanctions, that will be very burdensome for us. We must be concerned above all with our own country and about the strengthening of the Soviet Union. That is our main line.... As concerns the lines of communication between the Soviet Union and the GDR that run through Poland, we of course must do something to ensure that they are safeguarded."
Futurist110 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was paraphrasing the published source; make of it what you will.
The complete deliberations of the Politburo in 1980/81 on the Polish issue are here. No mention of Afghanistan as far as I can see, but I have only scanned through. Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Ronald Reagan is assassinated in 1981, is there any realistic way to get the Curse of Tippecanoe to extend into the 2000s?

edit

If Ronald Reagan is assassinated in 1981, is there any realistic way to get the Curse of Tippecanoe to extend into the 2000s? This isn't an alternate history question per se but is rather asking about which United States politicians had or were speculated to have had serious presidential ambitions in the 1996-2004 time period and who would have died in office (excluding via assassination, which can't be predicted ahead of time) had they been elected in 2000 (and possibly, but not necessarily, either in 1996 or 2004 as well). Futurist110 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of "realistic" here? A President's dying in office in a parallel timeline can also not be predicted, and particularly not ahead of time.  --Lambiam 21:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant based on their real life death dates. Futurist110 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not knowable or predictable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Were there any prominent US politicians who ran for either the US Presidency or the US Vice Presidency between 1996 and 2004 who ultimately ended up dying after January 20, 2001 but before January 20, 2009? Futurist110 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you extend it to 1996? You'd have to start this guessing game with 1984, on the assumption that Reagan was deceased by then. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because the next person who will be affected by this curse after Reagan would have been elected in the year 2000, since 1980 + 20 = 2000. But you're correct that hypothetical changes would begin much earlier. So, which prominent United States politicians actually died in office between January 21, 2001 and January 19, 2009? Futurist110 (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make any assumptions about who might or might not have run in 1984, let alone later years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hence me asking this question: "So, which prominent United States politicians actually died in office between January 21, 2001 and January 19, 2009?", meaning in real life. Futurist110 (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Wellstone formed an exploratory committee for the 2000 election: https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/08/wellstone/index.html, and died in 2002 due to a plane crash. Of course, if he was president he would have been flying on Air Force One or Marine One, and thus the plane crash would probably have not occurred. Empire3131 (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting example. And Yeah, Wellstone winning in 2000 almost certainly butterflies away his untimely death in 2002. Futurist110 (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My list has Mike Mansfield (1903-Oct 5, 2001); Cyrus Vance (1917-Jan 12, 2002); Richard Helms (1913-Oct 23, 2002); and Strom Thurmond (1902- Jun 26, 2003). . DOR (HK) (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those four was a credible candidate for the presidency in 2000. All were over 80, and Vance and Helms were not elected officials so not really politicians. They were career government officials appointed to high posts. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political party that can be symbolized with violet

edit

We know about red for Republicans and blue for Democrats. Yellow is the Libertarian party and Green is the Green party. Orange appears to be the American Solidarity Party. What United States political party is there that violet symbolizes?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

States that are about evenly split between Dem and Rep are said to be "purple" states. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing even remotely official, or even traditional, about the "red for Republicans, blue for Democrats" thing. See Red states and blue states. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Working People's Party (Puerto Rico) is included in List of political parties in the United States and uses purple. I noticed a few other parties such as the US Pirate Party that use a combination of purple and other colors. I didn't check all the parties, just a few likely looking ones. Working Families Party lists blue and white as official colors, but purple as "customary". 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, how can anyone forget the Rent Is Too Damn High Party. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, before the invention of synthetic purple dye (1856 - see Purple#18th_and_19th_centuries), it (purple dye) was extraordinarily expensive - even more valuable than gold. See Tyrian purple for a description of how it was painstakingly made. Thus, almost no national flags contain the color purple, and none use it as a "main" color. I know that you're not asking here about national symbols (rather about party ones), but similar considerations still come into play. If the party's origins pre-date modern dye manufacture, choosing purple as their "representative color/symbol" would have been extremely unlikely. Eliyohub (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2021_January_30&oldid=1005294803"