Humanities desk
< April 10	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 12 >

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.

April 11[edit]

Saddam Hussein[edit]

Was Saddam Hussein ever a gay icon? --HolLebnics (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. There's even a feature-length documentary that at least in part addresses that very question. Unfortunately you won't be able to ask any more questions along these lines. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, because Poe's Law applies here as well as anywhere else on the internet. No, there is no evidence Saddam Hussein was ever a Gay icon in any meaningful sense of the word (excepting, of course, any rule 34 implications, meaning that at least one person in the human population probably could be found who DOES think of him that way, earnestly). Shirt58 is referencing not a documentary, but an adult animated cartoon movie which made the implication as such. Aside from that one comedic reference, no, there is no further evidence to support your claim. --Jayron 32 13:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary or no, it was still a pretty huge movie. That version of Hussein became iconic, both for his showtunes and the loads of gay devil sex. And unlike fake Kim Jong-Il, that Hussein's face is a photograph of the (formerly) real one's. So any associations are that much more likely to be shared between them. Gay iconograph, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I mean icon who is gay, not icon for the gay (the meaningful sense). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I'm surprised no one mentioned there's a song [1] [2]. There are claims Saddam Hussein was made to watch the abovementioned South Park movie repeatedly although the source may not be that reliable [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What was the political party composition of Congress when Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) was passed?[edit]

Re: Obamacare / Affordable Care Act – Is there a numerical tally of the final votes submitted to pass (or not pass) this law, broken down by Democrats versus Republicans? I didn't see this info in the article. Also, at the time of the passage of the law, was the Senate a majority Democrat or a majority Republican? And same question for the House? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

House and Senate. If you type had typed "Affordable Care Act Voting Record" into google, these would have been the first two links you would have found. --Jayron 32 18:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those are helpful pages/charts. So, at the time, both Senate and House were Democrat majority. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether 219+34 is larger than 178? And 58 is larger than 39+1 (whereever you stick the 2)? P.S. In case there is any doubt, non voting House members in that site are also recorded and seperately [4] like they are for Senate votes. Nil Einne (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief that today the Senate is a majority Republican and the House is also a majority Republican. So, I asked myself: well, how could it possibly be that the Obamacare Act passed? So I assumed that, back then, either one or the other or both (of the Senate and the House) were majority Democrat. That is how this question came to be posted. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when Obamacare passed, the Democrats had both House and Senate. In 2010, the Republicans won back the House, and by 2014 they had won the Senate too. The Republicans are hoping to also win the presidency and retain both houses, so they can have a Republican monopoly on the government and can start undoing things - including Obamacare. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Thanks. Very helpful answer. And what I had thought to be the case. It makes me think of another question. Right now, at this moment, the Republicans control both the Senate and the House. Then, they have every capability to pass a law to repeal Obamacare. No? And why has that not happened? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the House's attempts to repeal Obamacare occurred when the Senate was Democrat-controlled. They voted many times, just as a grandstand ploy, knowing it would be defeated in the Senate. I don't recall if they've seriously tried it since gaining the Senate, but they would not have enough votes to override a potential veto by Obama. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, they (the GOP) would be able to pass it with a majority, but not with a veto-proof majority. Right? Still, wouldn't you think that they (the GOP) would still want to go "on record", pass the law, then blame Obama for failure of the bill through his veto? What harm is there in voting on the repeal law, even if the know it will get vetoed? Politically, that would seem to serve their interests well. No? Is there something I am missing? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've got it right. In fact, according to the article, the Republican-controlled House voted sixty-seven times to repeal Obamacare, knowing it would fail. They took political grandstanding to a new dimension. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. So, the GOP-controlled Congress did repeal Obamacare (67 times). And Obama vetoed it (67 times). I did not realize that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Most of those House votes were taken during the time the Democrats controlled the Senate, so it never got to the president. I'm not sure any of those attempts made it through the Republican-controlled Senate last year. If so, I'm not seeing it in the article. The House's attempts were just political show, to please their "base". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the current case of Rep House and Senate majorities: in addition to not possessing a veto-proof majority, the Republicans do not possess a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. As such, the Dems could hold up most repeal-Obamacare legislation at that point without allowing it to reach the President's desk at all. That said, the current Congress has repealed the ACA once: Senate passage of the repeal under budget reconciliation rules to circumvent the filibuster in December 2015, [5] followed by the President's veto in January, [6] followed by a failure of the House to overcome said veto in February. [7] I was personally unaware that legislation had reached the veto stage until searching to answer this question, which I think speaks to the foregone-conclusion nature of the process. Like Bugs said, it's for show to motivate the base. It may be worth noting that the Senate legislation in this instance was introduced by Ted Cruz (source), who has a particularly pressing reason to make a point like this at this time. — Lomn 00:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do tell! The recent activities around that law should be in the article, if they aren't already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alaplı,Ereğli and surrounding areas[edit]

Can anyone inform me on history of Alaplı,Turkey before the republican era? Is it really called Cales in the past? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaptaşHero (talk • contribs) 17:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, here are our articles on Alaplı and Karadeniz_Ereğli. There are other places known as Ereğli, but I assume you meant the one closest to Alaplı. The German language Wikipedia says something about "Cales" in its page de:Alaplı, but I can't read German. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The region was known to the Ancient Greek and Roman world as Bithynia. Perhaps researching settlements from that time period may be helpful. --Jayron 32 18:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia says that the ancient Greek name for Alapli was Kale (pronounced with a long E, not like the vegetable) - which is probably the same as the Cales mentioned. Eregli was Heraclea Pontica: Eregli does sound as if it is a derivative from Heraclea. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The German article says that Alaplı was called Cales or Keles in ancient times. Marco polo (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Calas, a Macedonian general, who was involved in an attempt to conquer Bithynia. I can find no reference that Atapi or the district was ever named after this general, but you may have more expertise in finding resources pertaining to the era. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK,thanks. (I am actually from Karadeniz Ereğli,and i should have posted this on Turkish Wikipedia) User:SemanticMantis I know A1 level German so i might make up a few things. IP guy, I got the information from Alaplı Municipality site which wrote it as Cales AND Kales. And Ereğli was Heraclea Pontica,and it became Heraclea-Eraclea-Erekli-Ereğli as i read from Turkish sources. Alaplı,as i heard (and researched from old maps) was shown as Halepli in 1800's era maps,which means Aleppian (a person from Aleppo) I think that this might be related to the Seljuk era when it owned Aleppo,and the soldiers marched to the north to conquer the Byzantine Empire. Another possibility i heard is that it comes from Ali Alp (alp meaning hero as a title). I think that this is possible due to the similarity of this theory with Akçakoca's etymology which was named Akça Şehir until the republican era. KaptaşHero (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]