Humanities desk
< October 6	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 8 >

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.

October 7

How often are US states on political world maps and globes in the Old World?

I imagine they're ignored more often than here, being so small compared to the Earth. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the scale is large enough, one would expect to see individual states named on all maps and globes. Sometimes it is necessary to abbreviate the state names to fit them all in.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip's (publisher) is the main producer of school maps and atlases in the UK. I couldn't find a really good image but this one appears to show state boundaries if you zoom in a bit. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes see Australian states which are very logical to show as they're big, I rarely if ever see Argentinian or Russian states even if some are big, they could at least make an attempt to show as many practical but they don't so I wondered if the size of some US states often discourage faraway places from showing any at all too. Apparently not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such maps have to show Alaska and Hawaii. In Soviet days, Western maps often showed the Soviet Republics, but Kazakhstan and the RSFSR were much bigger than any U.S. state while Belorussia and the Ukraine (as they were called in those days) had separate memberships in the United Nations... AnonMoos (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they have to show Alaska, my childhood globe had almost every state border, they tried to draw as many states as they could even if some shapes were deformed by closeness to the resolution. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 30 cm diameter globe made in Europe, no US state borders. Alaska is the same color as mainland USA and has "Alaska (USA)" written on it (and a number of cities, rivers and islands named). 93.136.178.2 (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snipe hunting

Why would anyone go on a literal snipe hunt? (Not a practical joke, but intending to go out and shoot live birds.) They look so small that you wouldn't get much meat, and they look so delicate that they wouldn't make good sport-hunting trophies. 64.203.186.85 (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's presumably why its "funny" -- like hummingbird tongues and eye of newt as delicacies. 2606:A000:1126:28D:D8A9:F996:2EAF:160B (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People really do go out and hunt snipe. See snipe#hunting and sniper#etymology. I just don't understand why. 64.203.186.85 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of good recipes for snipe online. Allow at least two per person. I don't understand why anyone should think it a joke, or funny. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explained in our article snipe hunt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, an American joke. DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As well as the already linked Snipe and Sniper articles: the real snipe is incredibly difficult to hit, and so being able to shoot one (without completely obliterating it with shot) means that one is an exceptional marksman. That said, one would probably be out hunting other game, see a snipe, and then shoot it just to prove a point to one's friends as setting out specifically to hunt snipe would be a fool's errand by any standard. People in the past knew that stupidly pointless tasks that were likely to fail were a waste of time (even if we and they might disagree over what qualifies). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for the same reason that some (in my own experience, most) people go hunting; to hang out with friends and drink large quantities of beer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Some bored rural Americans shoot squirrels. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They (snipe that is, not squirrels), are good sport (that is, require skill to shoot), and delicious. This article may help. DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You actually can eat squirrels (if you have enough of them) and hunting them is sometimes a form of pest control. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can eat snipe too - BBC Food - Snipe recipes. Alansplodge (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding skill -- that's the origin of the term "sniper". 2606:A000:1126:28D:D8A9:F996:2EAF:160B (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence indicating that the Saudi government and/or royal family has supported and funded Islamist terrorism especially 9/11?

Some people believe the notion that the Saudi royals has actively supported and funded Islamist terrorism worldwide and as a result, they view the allies and arms sellers of Saudi Arabia most notably the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Spain as having reaped what they have sown in all the religiously-motivated terrorist attacks and incidents that happened on their respective soils such as the November 2015 Paris attacks, 2017 London Bridge attack, and 2017 Barcelona attacks. Is there any evidence to support such a notion? Are the national governments of the West to blame for all the terrorist attacks against themselves rather than the attackers? StellarHalo (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those who commit a crime against humanity are responsible for that crime. Those who seek to blame the innocent people murdered by such a crime are little better than apologists for mass murderers. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No national governments have been killed (let alone murdered) by terrorists. --Tamfang (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories are based not on evidence but on paranoia and projection. See for example 9/11 conspiracy theories.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My theory is that it was not a coincidence that several planes were hijacked on that same fateful day, but that this was the result of a conspiracy. I also support the theory that the FBI conspired (unlawfully) to infiltrate the Black Panthers in order to sow discord. I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean they aren't out to get us. If we discard all conspiracy theories out of hand, it gives the powers that be a free hand to conspire to their hearts' content. --Lambiam 21:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attacks do not attack governments but random individuals, including people who may have actively opposed the policies and actions of their government. Anybody can blame anybody else for any reason or no reason whatsoever, but to pass judgement on whether someone or some entity is to blame requires some criterion that I am sure cannot garner consensus. Consider the kerfuffle after the Reverend Jeremiah Wright said, in a sermon, "America's chickens are coming home to roost". A reasonable case can be made that the US made a grave mistake by first supplying the "student" insurgents un Afghanistan (i.e., the Taliban) with weapons when it was politically expedient to thwart the Sowiet Union, but then dropping all support to Afghanistan like a brick after the pro-Moscow government was toppled by the insurgents. That created conditions allowing anti-US sentiment to grow. The support of governments that trample on human rights and promote fundamentalism does not help either. So these may not be the best foreign policies if you want to counter festering anti-US sentiment that offers a fertile recruiting environment for aspiring terrorists. But observing that is not the same as assigning blame. --Lambiam 21:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor nitpick, but the US supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, not the Taliban. Some Mujahideen, such as Mullah Omar, later ended up in the Taliban but some other Mujahideen, such as Ahmad Shah Massoud, later ended up leading anti-Taliban resistance, in Massoud's case the Northern Alliance. Futurist110 (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam -- The sleazy extremist whom the United States supported in 1980s Afghanistan was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (remember him?), and not either the Taliban (who didn't yet exist) or Osama bin Laden (who helped run an obscure support organization funded by wealthy Arabs). The U.S. gave Gulbuddin money mainly because Pakistan made it a condition of the U.S. using Pakistan as a hub for anti-Soviet activities.

StellarHalo -- I'm not sure that there's ever been a smoking gun for official Saudi support for al-Qaeda, but for a while the Saudi authorities seemed to have an informal understanding that al-Qaeda would not conduct operations in Saudi Arabia, and in turn, the Saudis would not crack down on donations made to al-Qaeda by private Saudi individuals... AnonMoos (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]