Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 20

Is my understanding of the Transcendental Deduction correct?

I don't want to misinterpret this important philosophy of Kant so I need to consult it here whether my interpretations are in accordance to what is generally accepted.

Transcendental deduction implies that it is not experiences that gives us the right to put the concept to the object. Instead there are categories which are innate in us before we experience things and things and the role of cognition and sense is to verify whether these categories applies to objects.

Please say whether my understanding is correct, if not please supply what is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're very close. A couple things: Be careful when you say that the categories are "before" experience. Although they are a priori to experience, no cognition is possible without the occurrence of experience. A priori here does not have a temporal or causal meaning. Rather it refers to whence the content arises. In this case, from the human faculties themselves. This point is right at the beginning of the second edition Introduction: "As far as time is concerned, then no cognition in us precedes experience, and with experience every cognition begins. But although all our cognition commences with experience, yet it does not on that account all arise from experience." So really, "a priori" and "a posteriori" are sort of misnomers for Kant's critical work.

That "the role of cognition and sense is to verify whether these categories applies to objects", that just seems wrong to me. Kant is clear: All objects are thought through categories (§27 B165). So it does not seem that cognition and sense would verify that they apply. But I can think of a few things that you might be trying to get at:

There is the distinction between merely thinking an object, and cognizing an object. The cognition is thinking of the object along with a sensible representation. So in the case of cognition, the categories will never be applied to anything but possible objects of experience, because sensible representation is always representation of such objects. But one may merely think of an object with certain properties and apply the categories and thereby make judgements and reach various conclusions about this object, and the logic/reasoning may be fine, and yet be completely wrong in conclusion, because the object may not be an a object of possible experience, but just a fiction of reason. For example, this is why Kant thinks the ontological argument fails, because it doesn't limit itself merely to objects of possible experience. So, cognition's role is not to verify that the categories apply to the object, but it is cognition that naturally limits its objects to those of possible experience, which are the proper domain of the categories.

How the categories apply, may be called laws of appearances. However, because categories only determine the formal aspects of appearances, the categories cannot determine the laws of appearances with regards to every detail. In order for the details to be filled in, experience must supply them. So experience still has a role in describing particular laws of nature. So take some law, like: masses attract. The categories determine that objects are related by cause and effects which are necessary. But they say nothing about the experiential details of the cause and effect. So the categories determine that the effect (in this case, attraction) is caused necessarily, but experience determines that the effect is actually an attraction and not some other effect, and that the mass is part of the causal story, as opposed to something else.

And the last thing that may help you: Reason, as mentioned, can run away with application of the categories to objects that cannot be of possible experience. However, reason itself can reveal that it is capable of doing this, and can even identify to some extent in which cases this may happen (this, in part, is what the whole Critique of Pure Reason does). So, in a way, reason (not cognition and sense) can verify whether categories apply to objects in certain cases. But this is not part of the transcendental deduction, but rather it's in the Transcendental dialectic.

Also, I wish to say, there are many interpretations of Kant. I have many failings in understanding this one interpretation, let alone other interpretations too. The sort of story given here is closer to what is given in Bird's The Revolutionary Kant and Allison's Transcendental Idealism, Revised Edition than to others'. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

France secession

Which parts of France wants to secede from the nation?--Donmust90 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Donmust90

I don't know about majorities, but there are movements and parties of varying size and significance within certain regions that seek more autonomy or secession even. Our Category:Secession in France lists a few;: wthin mainland France, for example, the Bloc Català, the Breton Revolutionary Army, or Abertzaleen Batasuna, but also Corsica Libera and, outside Europe, the Martinican Independence Movement or the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mais, où est le front du peuple de Judée? μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There is also a separatist/autonomist movement in Occitania. However, in Metropolitan France separatism only has significant support in Corsica and Basque Country. --Soman (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a very small seperatist movement in Savoy; see the Savoyan League; the slightly larger and more mainstream Savoy Region Movement supports local autonomy but not independence. Previous movements calling for unification with Italy (which is sort of secession, I suppose) have more or less vanished since WWII. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Renaud, in a humorous song was "l'autonomiste du 14e arrondissement". His lyrics listed the various separatist movements: "Puisque les Basques et les Bretons, Les Alsaciens les Occitants, Les Corses, les Chtimis, les Wallons. Y veulent tous être indépendants". Itsmejudith (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "Ils veulent"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes in proper French. I got the text off the Internet as I only half remembered it. The "Y" indicates a pronunciation regarded as lazy, omitting the "l" from "ils". It's a common pronunciation anyway, so the deviant spelling may not be strictly necessary but indicates the colloquial nature of the lyrics. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What is meant by "Metropolitan France"? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The "hexagon" and Corsica, as opposed to DOM-TOM, I would assume... AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Now, you know we have an article for that, don't you? Dalliance (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, should have searched. Interesting that metropolitan is contrasted with colonial in France as opposed to suburban in the US. Wonder if there's an article that deals with the 50 states and DC as opposed to the American territories. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There's U.S. state and List of U.S. states. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, those are about the states as individual entities, whereas I take it that Medeis was referring to the portion of the United States comprising the 50 states plus DC, but not Puerto Rico and Guam and such. I'm not sure that's exactly parallel; the overseas French departments, according to our article, are represented in Parliament, whereas Puerto Rico and Guam are not represented in Congress. So it might be more like continental United States. --Trovatore (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer to Medeis is yes. The article United States starts out with "The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district." The term United States sometimes means that and sometimes is used more inclusively to include the territories. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Then what article deals with the analog of les EE UU entiere? As for overseas departments, ours are AK and HI, with the rest being territories, as far as the analogy holds. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

AK isn't really "overseas" from the contiguous 48 states, even if it can be got(ten) to by boat. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The analogy is fine, Algeria was neither Metropolitan nor technically overseas when it was administered as French departments. μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

amphigory

The word "amphigory" occcurs in a short story by Robert Heinlein. It's also the title of a book by Edward Gorey. What does it mean? I asked this question in a briefer form on Dec. 16 or 17. It was apparently removed by someone. Why? 64.206.70.114 (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your question wasn't removed. It's still visible on this page, if you scroll up. StuRat answered it and provided a link. For another link, wikt:amphigory defines it as "nonsense verse; a rigmarole, with apparent meaning, which on further attention proves to be meaningless". ---Sluzzelin talk 02:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And given the nature of his work, I'm sure Edward Gorey was playing with its similarity to his name. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact he spelled it "Amphigorey". ---Sluzzelin talk 02:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Bob and Ray might be the only comedians ever to use that word in a routine.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Delayed snail mail

Is there a service where I can send a snail mail to my future self? As in, I write the letter, send it out, and it get sent back in 5 years. I've seen this trope used a few times in fiction and was wondering whether it actually works in real life. Dncsky (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In the fiction I've read/watched with this trope, it's not actually a postal service but a private courier company who delivers the letter. Basically, a contract is agreed upon between the sender and the courier to hold the letter until X date, whereupon it is to be delivered to Y location at Z time. Of course, that requires hiring a courier service that will still be in business at X date. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 07:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Perfect answer. Thanks. This happens literally every time Apple releases a new phone so I don't know how I could've missed it.Dncsky (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You could also make such arrangements with a storage company, with the agreement that they will drop the item in the mail once the rental period ends. StuRat (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

True. Thanks.Dncsky (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You would have to trust that the company is still in business, but there are indeed companies set up especially to do this sort of thing. See http://www.dyingmessage.com for one useful application of the idea.

Resolved

You could always try the Jersey resistance movement. Alansplodge (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Political victory and stocks

After Park Geun-hye's victory today stocks related to her family jumped by the maximum daily limit of 15%[2]. Does this happen in other countries as well or is it just an Asian thing? Dncsky (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

UK maps

I'm trying to find a detailed map of the UK with county borders clearly marked, so far all I can see are blank maps with just the counties, or otherwise detailed and crowded maps that somehow neglect to show this particular detail. anyone know of one I can use?

86.15.83.223 (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Earth shows county borders when zoomed in close enough. (Make sure "2nd Level Admin Regions" is checked under "Borders".)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

First we should ask what you mean by counties. The UK has a number of different kinds of administrative divisions, not all of which are counties, such that most UK residents no longer live in an administrative county. Instead, where they live, the highest administrative division below the national or country level (Northern Ireland, Scotland, or Wales; England is not an administrative division) is a unitary authority or metropolitan borough. If you are looking for 2nd-level administrative regions, whether or not those regions are counties, Google Earth might satisfy you. Also see Administrative geography of the United Kingdom. There are still administrative counties; they just don't cover the whole country. Meanwhile, there are ceremonial counties, historic counties, and registration counties. See Counties of the United Kingdom. Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's one for the current ceremonial counties of England complete with county towns. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I was hoping for something with both ceremonial counties and unitary authorities shown, I'll give google earth a look, I have been thinking of installing it again, though I'm not sure about how I would go about importing images from that to edit on my computer... 85.210.119.218 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing about ceremonial counties and unitary authorities is that they overlap. Or more accurately, unitary authorities are typically subunits of ceremonial counties. They usually share ceremonial counties with administrative counties, though there are other arrangements. Essentially they are two separate layers. A map that shows two layers is not a simple map. Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I always thought the problem with maps of the UK were that no one knows how long the coastline of Great Britain is. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that problem apply to all coastlines? I wonder why they've made a hullabaloo about GB. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The UK's coastline has a relatively high fractal dimension (this is due to glaciation, I think - places closer to the equator tend to have much smoother coastlines), and Mandelbrot's famous paper says "the west coast of Britain was selected [by Richardson] because it looks like one of the most irregular in the world". 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe, but the county which is said to have the longest coastline, in England anyway, is Essex [3], where much of the coast is formed of salt marsh, heavily indented by meandering tidal creeks. Alansplodge (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If you choose Google Earth, you can copy the images to your computer by clicking "Edit" then "Copy image".    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 05:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, Iranian gay teens

They were convicted of rape though most say that they were hanged for consensual homosexual sex. How can it be known whether they were rapists or gay? Will it ever be known? Keeeith (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess it might depend on the legal system. "Consensual sex" with an underage person in the UK is statutory rape so a single act can both be consensual and rape simultaenously. If the legal system does not recognize the right of a 13-year-old to consent to homosexual sex, in the same way that the UK system does not recognize an under-age person's right to consent, then that legal system will call it rape. 217.42.12.125 (talk) — PhilHibbs | talk 14:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My understanding from reports and discussions I've read is the claims which were published before the controversy began are there was a fair degree of coercion and force involved, it clearly wasn't just a case of age the so called 'rape rape'. To be clear I'm not saying these claims are definitely correctly, simply that the primary controversy is over whether they are, not whether it was rape because of the age of the victim and the executed. I would note from the information available it's entirely unclear whether calling them gay teens is even accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Quote about a famous scientist

Who said, and about whom, "He was so intelligent he could barely get himself dressed", or words to that effect? Perhaps "He was the sort of person who was...". It was about a famous scientist of the early-to-mid-20th-century, could have been Einstein but I don't think it was. — PhilHibbs | talk 14:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC) (originally posted without loggin in, oops)

Well, I've heard it said about Einstein that he would go out inappropriately dressed on winter days, etc. Don't know if stories like this about him are based in fact or not. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There are one or two I've heard it said about, I think either Pal Erdos or Nikolai Tesla. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

They say Issac Newton would be so overwhelmed with new thoughts and ideas that the moment he started getting out of bed, he would just stop and sit there for sometimes hours lost in thought. Never heard a quote just like that one about him, though 85.210.119.218 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

2 questions about reference desk ues

1. I recently asked a question, and got a useful answer, which referred to an answer to my O.P. of Dec. 12 (or so). I'd like to find it (the answer), But the history doesn't run earlier than Dec. 17. What to do?

2. How do I log in? I'm directed to the login page, but when I enter my name, or reasonable variants, I'm told "no such name".  ??? (Also, there seems to be a typo at the head of the Request for Login section. Shouldn't it say "will not be publicly visible"?

Thanks to all who respond. I'm sorry to take up your attention with these newbie questions, but I can't find any directions to more suitable ones.

Robert Pearlman 64.206.70.114 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 12, to log in you need to create an account which you may name whatsoever you choose so long as someone else has not taken that username already. 50.101.153.9 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) 1 To view older threads, you can visit the archives, they're somewhere at the top of this page.

2 If your name is not recognized when you login, are you really sure that you registered under that name? Maybe you could try registering again, considering that the username would still be available. It is possible that your username was removed because it violated Wikipedia's username policy. - Lindert (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have noted that some very recently delisted threads will not show up immediately when you would have expected them to be archived. I am not sure what advice to give. A thread on this at the talk page for this page (scroll way up) might help. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Christian baptism and nudity

Baptism by submersion in the Eastern Orthodox Church

Do modern Christians only baptize their babies naked while adult converts are permitted to wear clothes for the sake of modesty? 140.254.121.33 (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The picture shows a ceremony in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. In both Roman Catholicism and all the various Protestant churches, Baptism is performed fully clothed. In many traditions, a small amount of water is dribbled over your forehead, so you don't get too wet. In some Protestant traditions, such as the Baptists, there is "full immersion", but even then, modesty is retained. In the Church of England, there is a tradition for babies to wear elaborate lace Christening robes that may have been passed down through several generations. Adults just wear something fairly smart. Alansplodge (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Does a person have to schedule a baptism? Is there a time difference between the scheduling date and the actual baptismal date? What if a prospective Christian convert takes a class, but the class extends all the way to wintertime? Will baptism be cancelled until there is warmer weather? 140.254.121.33 (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In general, baptism would have to be scheduled, and would usually require you join either the congregation or at least the denomination as a whole. I think about the only chance of getting baptized without scheduling it is if you find a revival meeting organized by Baptists (and even these days, they're more likely to schedule Baptisms rather than dunk anyone then and there).

I think the issue of whether a baptism would occur in the winter would be up to the individual and the baptizer's sense of how healthy the baptized is, and whether or not the church has an indoor baptismal pool. Most churches, as far as I'm aware, practice indoor baptism if there's any chance weather might be a problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am not sure what denomination these full-body baptizers represent (and would like to know), but here's a relevant clip from perhaps the best movie ever made. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

An extremely evangelical full immersion in a more WASPy part of South in the 1930s, they're most likely Baptist (unfortunately, not that that sort of baptism is common). Other denominations open to such evangelism and popular in the area tended to go with Christening. The Mennonites practice full immersion adult Baptism, as I recall, but they're not as likely to baptize passers-by. It's possible that they could be Churches of Christ or Disciples of Christ, but the crowd seems a bit pale compared to most Churches of Christ congregants, and Baptists have always outnumbered both groups, AFAIK. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Pentacostals also use full immersion and are common in the U.S. South. Rmhermen (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

True now, but they were a minority when O Brother Where Art Thou is set. Pentecostals were also early and major proponents of racial integration, and the crowd in that video is whiter than mayo on Wonder bread. Also, that would be the calmest and most meditative Pentecostal service I've ever seen. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For a more Pentecostal depiction, one might see (if one can find an uncut copy) the very un-PC Our Gang short Little Sinner. "The baptism'll start when the eclipse totalizes." Deor (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I find Baptism particularly interesting. If you are seeking a biblical narrative regarding baptism, refer to Philip and the Eunuch: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Acts/Philip-Ethiopian-Eunuch . Perhaps this may clarify the original process of scheduling a baptism. Furthermore, I would look into the Church's Code of Canon Law, it provides details into the type of information you are seeking. Twillisjr (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The commentary doesn't really say anything about clothing or lack thereof, or even whether it was by full immersion or pouring. The Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law would only provide information only for the Catholic Church. Book IV, Part I, Title I, "Baptism" does not mention clothing or lack thereof in any of its chapters. IV.I.I.I does say, however, "Although baptism can be celebrated on any day, it is nevertheless recommended that it be celebrated ordinarily on Sunday or, if possible, at the Easter Vigil." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If the OP is from Russia, I can see why he's worried about winter Baptism - see Russia's trend for dipping children in frozen rivers; brrrr! Alansplodge (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Come in, it's warm inside! (Zoom in for the sign)

Traditionally, major churches in Russia would have a larger, unheated, summer building (for services from Easter thru September) and a smaller heated winter buildng (see e.g. Kizhi Pogost). The "winter church" could, of course, be simpler a comparatively small heated section of a larger church building. In either case, there would be a space for conducting sacraments, including infant baptisms, in relatively comfortable conditions throughout the year. But of course you could always elect to wait until the outdoor "blessing of the waters" event on the Epiphany (in mid-January). :-) -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP locater indicates that the IP is from Ohio in the US. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The picture reminds me of the unhappy tale of the Emperor Constantine V of Byzantium, who has gone down in history with the unfortunate nickname of Kopronymos ("the faeces-named") because of a story that when he was a baby, he pooped as he was being lowered into the Baptismal font. Modern historians tend towards the view that it was a fib put about by his many political opponents, rather spoiling a funny story. Alansplodge (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

December 21

Janice the turkey monster

Which painting is Janice the Turkey Monster (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/3/8/1331212425004/Stephen-Collins-cartoon-t-002.jpg) in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion by Francis Bacon. Mikenorton (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How did America become "christian"

From what I understand most of the founding fathers of America were deists or believed strongly in separation of Church and State. It seems to me that most European immigrants at the time were fleeing religious persecution in their native countries, but ironically these European countries became strongly non-religious as time progressed to modern times, while Americans became very christian. When and how did this occur? ScienceApe (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

See History of religion in the United States. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Christianity in America preceded the split from Great Brittain. The initial migrants were predominantly Christian. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The majority of immigration took place long after the split - but either way, the US is predominantly Christian because the majority of migrants were. The 'founding fathers' may well have created the institutions, and have certainly played a significant part in the creation myth of the USA, but they didn't 'found' the population. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd challenge the idea that most European countries have become 'strongly non-religious'. There's less uniform Christian observance, but the majority of people still have some form of religious or spiritual belief. (The figures for those who do not are up sharply in the British census from 2001 to 2011, according to recent reports, but still not a majority.) And many devout Christians believe strongly in separation of Church and State. There's a widespread view that once states started getting their hands on Christianity (325 AD or thereabouts), it went badly for the integrity of Christianity. I'm not sure I agree, but it's hardly a rare view. So in short, I think the OP's premises are wrong. America is as it was; a predominantly Christian country with formal separation of Church and State. (Don't forget that many European countries still do not have this - some still have established churches, and others have church taxes.) AlexTiefling (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with your main point, but the question on religion in the UK census has been criticised for being leading (they won't fix it so that they can compare results with previous censuses), and the British Social Attitudes Survey has found a majority of people claiming to be non-religious (BBC article). 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because "being Christian" and "being religious" are not synonyms? Dbfirs 08:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There are certain currents of (very hardcore) Christian thought that would deny that the two things are even particularly compatible. I remember reading in a Jack Chick tract that "God hates religion" (and as appalling as I find much of Chick's stuff, that's a concept that at some level resonates with me, depending of course on how the term is understood). That might not be what you were getting at, though. --Trovatore (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't come across quite such "hardcore" attitudes on this side of the pond, but I was thinking that there are religions other than Christianity, and that "being religious" in the UK tends to have a connotation of particular dedication to religious practices that some Christians have and some haven't. Dbfirs 21:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The 19th-century author De Tocqueville had a passage (in Democracy in America, I believe) about how separation of church and state in the U.S. had the paradoxical effect of strengthening the hold of religion on the people. However, also remember that the prohibition against having an official "established" church/religion at first only applied on the federal government level; several individual states had established churches for a while even after the constitution was adopted... AnonMoos (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem that the many of the early migrants had with religion in England at the time, was the government's version of Anglicanism, which it was virtually compulsory to follow. The migrants often followed much more fundamentalist brands of Christianity, which they wanted to be free to practice. So the separation of church and state was about the freedom to be more radically Christian. Alansplodge (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, 'fundamentalist' is a highly anachronistic term to apply to those early American Protestants; any they encompassed radicals of all sorts, not all of whom were well-treated in the New World either. The treatment of Quakers in Boston was particularly harsh. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't perpetuate the myth that the US was colonised by fundamentalist Christians fleeing religious persecution. It simply isn't true - the overwhelming proportion of immigrants to what became the US went there for economic reasons, and in the hope of a 'better life' - as indeed do more recent immigrants, legal or otherwise. They brought their Christianity with them (and often still do), but that wasn't why they came. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Who are you replying to? I said no such thing. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Founding Fathers" were the wealthy elite; their beliefs weren't representative of the majority of the population. thx1138 (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Puritans may not have been a numerical majority, but it is generally understood that they had a huge influence on the emergence of the United States and its Constitution. A quick Google produced pages of results including Puritanical Influence on the U.S. Constitution, PURITANISM, ENLIGHTENMENT AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, Reflections on Puritan America & the Constitution, Puritanical Influence on the US Constitution and so on and on. Is there a contrary opinion? Alansplodge (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Huge influence"? I don't think that anyone would argue against the proposition that the Puritans had some role in the development of American political culture. However, those who argue for a "huge influence" are typically modern religious conservatives who believe (contrary to the consensus among academic historians) that the founders of the United States had mainly religious motivations. Note that at the time of the founding of the United States, hardly anyone considered himself or herself a Puritan. That term describes a 17th-century religious movement. Most of its proponents had been dead for nearly a century by the time the United States was founded. Furthermore, Puritanism was mainly limited to New England, which made up roughly one third of the future 13 colonies by population. (There were Puritans in other colonies, but they were a minority there.) Puritanism was not very influential in the Middle or Southern colonies representing most of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention. On the other hand, it is hard to argue against the idea that congregationalism, or the subset of Protestantism in which each congregation determines its own affairs and leadership, had a big influence on American political culture. But it is sloppy to equate congregationalism with Puritanism, which was a much narrower tradition. Here is a paper that argues that the Puritan influence on the Constitution was limited. I'm sure that there are others, though they aren't as easy to search for as papers making the opposite argument.

As for the original question, I don't think that the United States has become more Christian over time. As others have said, the elite who founded the country were less conventionally religious than most ordinary Americans of the time. However, at the time of the country's founding, non-Christians were a minuscule minority. There were slightly over 2,000 Jews in a population of 3 million in 1790, or less than 0.1% of the population, with no more than a handful of free citizens who were neither Christian or Jewish. (There may have been many thousands of Muslim slaves, but they had practically no influence on the political culture of the early United States.) A larger proportion of the Christian population were actively observant than today. Since then, the United States has seen the emergence of a significant minority who belong to either non-Christian religions (especially Judaism and Islam, but also Buddhism and Hinduism) or who claim no religion. Even among the nominally Christian, religious observance has fallen off since the 19th and early 20th century. Marco polo (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Marco, excellent answer, I stand corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd blame the Cold War for most of the "America is a Christian nation" attitude (then why are does half our government oppose helping our poor and sick?</soapbox>) since that era is responsible for "Under God" being inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God we trust" inserted into our currency. That was also around the time when non-Christian minorities started to grow significantly, and the growth of minorities causes the militant wing of any majority (see ancient Rome, the Middle east, and the Hindutva movements) to freak out and assert that "this nation has always been a [homogeneous] (insert majority here) nation!"

However, I also know that when Jewish and Irish Catholic immigration to New York was increasing during the 19th century, some folks were freaking out about not only the former group, but the latter. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Irish Catholics became a big issue (at least in New York and Boston) in the 1840s and 1850s, while Jews didn't arrive in very significant numbers until later... AnonMoos (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not as large then, but there was enough Jewish immigration (even during the 1840s and 1850s) to scare the WASPs. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple of notes: some European countries, like Norway, Greece and the UK are officially Christian, even if specially the UK has large non-Christian populations. Roughly 3/4 of the US population are Christians, the same as in European countries that were deeply Christian like Spain. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(And yet only 32% of Norwegians can bring themselves to say they believe in God. Amazing how State churches work out. </soapbox>) Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

From the same article: "78.9% of the population belonging to the state Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway." Maybe they are Christian Atheists, OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, De Tocqueville's observed that freedom of religion increased faith. At roughly the same time, Soren Kierkegaard attacked the (Danish) state church for reducing Christianity to mere citizenship. Though I still blame the Cold war for most of the idea of "the US is a Christian nation," the large number of devout Christians enabling the idea that a state could somehow be Christian does appear to come from freedom of choice American Christians had. As the father of American literature observed, people (at least Americans) are more likely to engage in an activity when it is not an obligation. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The idea that the US is a Christian nation goes back long before the Cold War... I would point editors to our article on the Great Awakening and especially the Second Great Awakening, both of which had a profound influence on religious and political (and religio-political) attitudes in the Untied States. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Harvard credit

according to this Harvard does not grant any credit from AP exams but will grant an "advanced standing". And a sentence from the link "Students may be allowed to use an AP exam score (or appropriate international credential) to meet certain requirements (foreign language, introductory departmental course, etc.)." What I don't understand is if you can't get college credit then how can you meet certain requirements? I know each credit in Harvard equivalent to an entire year course so 4 credits = 1 year full load of courses so you will need 16 credits to graduate, in other word get the bachelor degree. Let say I'm required to take 1 credit of Spanish but my AP exams can be used to fulfill that requirement so basically I'm not required to take the Spanish class anymore but I'm not getting any credit either. I don't understand how this system works. Either way you need to get 16 credits to graduate so if the AP exams only help you meet the requirements but you have to take other classes anyway to get enough 16 credits to graduate, I don't see any point of the AP exams fulfill the requirements. I mean either way you have to take some classes or the others, doesn't matter if it is elective class or required. To sum it, basically the point of AP exams are just for that you can take more elective class than you could? Is there any beneficial to take more elective classes?184.97.227.164 (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It says that students with advance standing may graduate after 5 or 6 terms, so I assume they just reduce the number of required credits to graduate. In effect, you can't use the AP courses as credit, but you get a discount on a year or year and a half. They also warn that Advanced Standing limits a student's options, especially for scholarships that are meant to help in the (now absent) senior year, so it looks like you'd take the same first three years as everyone else, but would graduate as a junior rather than a senior. All this is making me glad I went to the finest school there is... in South Carolina. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No no, I'm not talking about advanced standing, it wasn't my question. Let say assuming that I don't use my AP exams for advanced standing but to fulfill some required courses then what is it going to do? What does that benefit me?184.97.227.164 (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see much for AP stuff at Harvard except for advance standing. The section "Using AP Exams for Placement or to Meet Requirements" only discusses using AP exams for advanced placement. Unless there's something elsewhere on the website, it doesn't appear to make any difference to Harvard whether or not you took AP courses Harvard unless you go for Advanced Placement. The only exceptions appear to be for off-topic courses (like calculus for med school students, or second languages assumably for those not majoring in that language). Any more information would probably be at the department for the major in question.

You would probably still need credit in some sort of second language, but could take a higher level course for it instead of the introductory course. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of take a higher course in a second language if I'm not majoring in it? This is my point, to me AP exams are useless unless being used for advanced standing. I'm just wondering if there are other benefiting from meet some requirements without getting the credit with AP exams?184.97.227.164 (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it appears there's no benefit unless one goes for the advanced standing (or maybe a second minor in the second language if they'll let you, which would look good on a resume). As long as one gets through high school in no more than 4 years and doesn't earn a criminal record, what one does in high school really doesn't matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Asking an institution directly is always better than here. No matter what we say, it will only be an opinion. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"What is the point of take a higher course in a second language if I'm not majoring in it?" Some people, for whatever mysterious reasons, actually believe there are reasons to want to learn languages even if they don't count towards a specific credential. I have even heard — though it's hard to believe — that some people even enjoy learning advanced levels of topics in general for their own sake. Granted, those people might not be at an institution like Harvard, but perhaps they were, long in the past, when these requirements and rules were formulated. Harvard is nothing if not protective of their customs.

Less sarcastically, Harvard doesn't care very much about AP results — rightly so, if you ask me, as the test results have very little to do with competency at college-level work in these subjects — and these handling of the credit issue reflects that. So if your conclusions is, Harvard doesn't give you much for APs, the answer is, yes, that's exactly correct, and it's on purpose. It is a tremendous myth that AP courses are "college equivalent" — they are harder than non-AP courses, and have a big, nasty standardized test at the end of them, but they bear very little relationship to actual college courses, even introductory ones, in my experience. At least, in the humanities; I can't speak very much for the sciences or math. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying AP course is easier compare to the same course at college? As for the AP test, it is not easy! However, the curve score is pretty dang nice. I think 70% on the AP exam is equivalent to a 5. I think the problem you're getting at is those AP scores don't really reflect how much you know the material because you only need to get 70% on the test to get a 5, which is the highest score on the test. The class itself is equivalent to the college class such as same curriculum, same difficulty, at last that's what I've heard. And when I say "What is the point of take a higher course in a second language if I'm not majoring in it?" I didn't just mean the language course but I meant for everything else. Personally, I see no point in "learning advanced levels of topics in general", it is true that it is good to learn new thing but chances are you will never use any of the thing you learn in life except for those things that you have major in. To me introductory courses are good enough to know.184.97.227.164 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not an easier/harder comparison. They just aren't similar in terms of content or what is required. I've taken AP courses (as a high school student); I've taken college courses (as a college student); I've taught college courses (as a professor). It's just not the same sort of thing at all. AP courses are about rote memorization of facts and fitting within a very constrained testing format. Most college courses — especially those at places like Harvard — aren't like that at all. (There are a few exceptions in the sciences for the introductory courses; intro organic chemistry has a huge amount of rote memorization, for example.) You might be good at "AP History" but lousy at real university history courses; or the opposite could be true.

Explain to me exactly what is the difference between AP course and college course? You sounded like AP courses are just all about memorization of facts, it maybe true for AP US history or AP Europe but not true for all AP courses. I wonder how is the history class in college different than AP course? To me history is just a bunch of events that if you know what happen (basically memorize the events, what happen) then it is easy to analyze what how did it impact our society or other analysis questions related. And for AP course like AP Calculus, it's literally impossible to do well in the course if you just rely on memorizing. It is about understanding the math concepts and actually applying it. My teacher once told me, prior to Calculus, we were taught like a monkey, which means we were basically mimicking what the teacher did and we did just fine. Before Calculus, most people can do just fine by memorizing formulas and how to do a typically problem but started in Cal there are so many different combinations of problems so it is impossible to memorizing how to do all of them, you got to understanding the concept then you can do all of them. That's why Calculus is a breaking point, when you get to Calculus you will know that Math fits you or not. It is true that if you didn't do well in AP Cal, you still probably can go on major in Math but you probably have to work a lot harder and you probably also can do something that you're better at. But if you did terrible in Cal then it is a really bad idea to on major in Math. (And plus did you think about the time change between your transition from high school student to college student to a professor? I know that after certain amount of years then the curriculum changed, textbook changed, new things will be added to the course. That's maybe why you have seen the difference).184.97.227.164 (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a small tip from someone who has run the full educational gauntlet: if you focus on mere credentialism ("getting your ticket punched"), you will have a very impoverished education, and — if I can say so — you will probably find a place like Harvard a bad fit. (They still do believe in general education there, though they go about it in fits and starts, in my experience.) You are also likely dead wrong that the courses you major in will contain the things you will use later in life. It doesn't generally work out that way in practice. Do yourself a favor and study a few things just to learn about them. Don't prejudge what you like or don't like; your experience in high school may not be representative. (Nobody I know who takes history seriously, for example, actually liked it in high school. I hated it; now it's my profession. The difference is not so much that I changed — though I did, a bit — but more that high school history is completely unrepresentative of historical study. I would be very surprised if it wasn't the case for other disciplines as well.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying all courses that in my major will be useful later but most of them probably will because I will do something that required my major degree. 184.97.227.164 (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, now you know one person Mr.98, I loved history in high school. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

UK drink driving law

Is it illegal to drink alcohol while driving a car in the United Kingdom? 114.75.47.72 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

According to this article--Drunk driving law by country, after a certain amount, Yes, it is illegal in the United Kingdom. Futurist110 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a slightly different issue. A person could be in total breach of the law for having too high a blood alcohol reading while at the wheel, even if their last drink was consumed well before they got into the car. The question was about actually drinking while driving (which would not necessarily put you over the limit). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Drinking while driving can be construed as "Driving without due care and attention" regardless of whether alcohol is involved. I knew someone who was fined for drinking a can of Coke. Rojomoke (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

See Driver booked for sipping water; the police eventually decided that the £20 fine was "inappropriate" because she was actually waiting at a red traffic light at the time. Alansplodge (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• In the NE US, an open bottle of liquor in the car will get you a ticket, but my father tells of drive-up bars in Louisiana in the 70's and elsewhere in the South where you could get a drink at the window and drive off with a plastic cup of beer. That has all surely changed since the federal campaign on driving laws in the 80's. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• In the UK, it is illegal even to be drinking alcohol as a passenger in a car, and on buses or coaches, but not trains. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for 'in a car', KageTora? If it was true, I'd expect it to be mentioned here: [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Population in Russia Proper in 1914

What was the Jewish population of Russia proper (the territory within the current borders of Russia minus Kaliningrad) right before World War I began (in 1914)?

https://sites.google.com/site/marktolts/

This paper ("Jews in Russia: A Century of Demographic Dynamics") states that there were 8 K (8 thousand) Jews in Moscow, 17 K Jews in St. Petersburg, and 225 K Jews in the rest of Russia in 1897. It states that in 1926 there were 131 K Jews in Moscow, 84 K Jews in St. Petersburg, and 324 K Jews in the rest of Russia.

Based on the info here ([5]) and here (http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Saint_Petersburg) I could make a rough estimate of 15 K Jews in Moscow, 35 K Jews in St. Petersburg, and 300 K Jews in the rest of Russia in 1914, for a grand total of about 350 K Jews in Russia proper in 1914. However, Wikipedia does not accept original research, so is there any published info on this? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? Futurist110 (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

1897 was the last census, so there is no weighty source until 1926. I don't think that many Jews migrated during 17 years as the Pale of Settlement was still in force. Most of them migrated to Central Russia exactly after the Revolution. It's quite likely that this many-fold growth happened in the 10-year post-Revolution period.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You might be right, but keep in mind that the Jewish total fertility rate and birth rate in the Russian Empire was very high, to the extent that the Jewish population in the Pale of Settlement stayed roughly the same between 1897 and 1914 despite two million Jews emigrating during this time period. I'm not sure if the emigration of Jews to other countries was as large from outside the Pale of Settlement, since life outside the Pale of Settlement was generally better for many Jews. It's extremely disappointing that the Russian Empire wanted to wait another 18 years (until 1915) to hold another census, and by that point it was already too late since World War I already broke out by then and thus the next census had to be cancelled. Futurist110 (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's just as likely that there was steady or increasing migration to cities and growth within them in the earlier post-census period, for reasons known to have impacted Jews: besides outright poverty, antisemitism such as pogroms was prevalent in rural areas, which would spur migration to urban centers and emigration to Western countries. For an overview, see Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire, Pale of Settlement, and History of the Jews in Poland#Pogroms within the Russian Empire. Besides - I don't see how this query can be factored out if Czarist-era statistics don't differentiate population centers within the "Russian Empire" respective of the borders the OP states. Though if the Communists kept particular statistics of Jewish citizens by geographic area, the documentary evidence would most likely be found in Communist archives - in which case, happy hunting! -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Russian Empire statistics that I looked for do determine ethnicity and religion by guberniyas, which could be used to approximately determine the populations of various ethnic and religious groups within the current borders of Russia and the post-Soviet states, since many guberniya borders approximately match up with the current ex-Soviet Union country boundaries. Futurist110 (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the Statistical yearbook for 1914, and this is the chapter concerning population (pdf, 40 MB). The tables for ethnic groups and religion are on the page 63 and onward. If you have some problems with understanding I can help you. In general the borders of the imperial governorates are roughly equal to the modern Russian state borders, so you need only count those ones which made up modern Russia.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That statistical yearbook for 1914 helps out a huge amount. I can speak Russian fluently, as well as write it and (slowly) read it. Thus, I think that I can manage it by myself, but if I'll need any help I'll make sure to let you know. Futurist110 (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked that that section and while it does talk about the Jewish population it only talks about percents, not actual population numbers. I suppose that these percents could be used to approximately calculate the Jewish population in Russia proper, but they leave a large amount of room for error. Do you know if there is any source that talks about actual Jewish population numbers in Russia proper right before World War I? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've come across this site only by accident just recently and then recollected your question. I do not know where can be the numbers. The statistic yearbooks were compiled from the data send from each governorate, I suppose they contained exact numbers, but where they are I don't know, they can be in Moscow central archives or simply thrown out. There were also yellow-books for each governorate (памятные книжки), they could probably contain data on religion (I found one for 1858 year for the governorate I'm interested, there was a table for religions). Though all this would be difficult to find.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In this article (Russian Jews), I created a chart of the historical Jewish populations by each SSR and former SSR over time (using current borders). Would it be considered original research to combine the data for various guberniyas into modern borders for 1914 and 1897? I'm tempted to think No, but I'm not entirely sure. Futurist110 (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If you notify readers that by "Russia in 1914" you imply definite governorates (these are 45), it will not be a great OR. It's indeed curious that many old internal borders correspond to the modern inter-state ones. And where they do not the border changes should not greatly affect the numbers.

As for your question. Soviet government was not concerned about ethnic statistics greatly, and about religious statistics at all. I could again be mistaken, but most probably they didn't collect this sort of data between censuses. All were simply Soviet citizens, more important were the indicators influencing economy, i.e. age, sex, fertility, birth and death rates, health etc.

One curious question: why on your maps are there such intervals for percents? I thought the exact numbers of population by ethnicity were well-known.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "intervals for percents"? Futurist110 (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Here, for example, 0.45-0.99%, 0.25-0.44% etc. Is it unknown how many were exactly?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I was simply writing that on the map in place of a color scale. I obviously know the exact percents. Futurist110 (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Union passport says ''... the internal passports identified every bearer by nationality (ethnicity) (национальность, natsional’nost’), e.g., Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Estonian, Jew. This was on the so-called "fifth record" (пятая графа, pyataya grafa) of the passport." -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Jack of Oz is right on this. The USSR considered nationality/ethnicity to be pretty important, which is why they bothered enumerating people by this category in the first place (in contrast, to, say, many Western European countries). Futurist110 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Ministry of the Inferior, which issued passports, could theoretically collect statistics on ethnicity, but what for? This was not useful for the government at all. And even if they did, this information certainly wasn't public.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This info could have been used to draw the borders of various national/ethnic autonomous Soviet republics. Futurist110 (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

After spending some time calculating the approximate Jewish population numbers from the 1914 Statistical yearbook that Luboslov Yezykin gave me, and considering that this paper ("Jews in Russia: A Century of Demographic Dynamics") states that there would about 75 K Jews in 1897 in Russia proper but within the Pale of Settlement and in parts of mostly non-Russian guberniyas (a number which I doubt changed much by 1914), I calculated that Russia proper had a cumulative Jewish population of about 307 K by ethnicity in 1914 (25 K in St. Petersburg, 7 K in Moscow, and 275 K Jews in the rest of Russia in 1914). Futurist110 (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now used the religion percents to calculate the approximate Jewish population numbers in Russia proper in 1914 and got about 329-330 K Jews in Russia proper in 1914 (13 K in Moscow, 32 K in St. Petersburg, and 285 K Jews in the rest of Russia). It's worth noting that the religion data calculates percents to two decimal places, whereas the ethnicity data only calculates percents to one decminal place, and thus the religion data might be more accurate. Futurist110 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The data from the tables of the 1914 statistic yearbook is from the 1897 census. See the footnotes to the table headings. I checked it with Demoscope tables, it's indeed so. These tables from the yearbook are of no use. I am very sorry I've misled you, you spent your time in vain with them. I myself found out the notes just occasionally after I've also already made an excel table.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Everyone makes mistakes. :) If you do actually do find data for the Jewish population in Russia proper either between 1910-1914 or between 1945-1950 in the future, please let me know. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

December 22

How can a nihilist avoid becoming a Buridan's ass?

The one possible solution is to become existentialist (and create your own subjective set of values ex nihilo). And the other one is hedonism (and calculate what provides more pleasure).

Are there other ways out of nihilism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noholist (talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't do opinion or speculation; is there some sort of reference-directed question you have? μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I m not asking for a personal opinion, just about how philosophers deal with this problem. Its more a history of philosophy question than a speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noholist (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's add some links for everyone reading this Q: nihilism, Buridan's ass, existentialism, hedonism. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the bit about authenticity in the existentialism article? If that is followed why should there be any difference between existentialism and what one would come up with if one calculated what provided most pleasure as in hedonism? Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

British refugee policy in World War 2

I know that during World War 2, the British had a policy of not allowing any European Jews into the Palestine Mandate (most likely to avoid pissing off the local Arabs who didn't want any Jews moving in next door), but what about them accepting Jewish refugees into Great Britain proper? Did they do any of that? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect they must have. Deportation was hardly possible in the middle of a war, so I guess anyone who washed up on Albion's shores stayed, the only question being interned or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

They might have accepted some Jews in with the Kindertransport and maybe other similar efforts, but I don't think that they made any extraordinary effort to let as much Jews into Britain as possible, perhaps due to the Great Depression and anti-Semitism in Britain. In regards to what Wehwalt said, I think that what he said might very well be accurate but keep in mind that it's pretty hard to illegally sneak into Great Britain considering that it's an island. Futurist110 (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but I didn't mean sneak. During the war, sneaking would have got you shot anyway. Plenty of people turned up in boats seeking refuge.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a reference for that? A few hundreds maybe but not thousands. Getting across the English Channel in 1940 wasn't straightforward. Alansplodge (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that the Kindertransport was prewar. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right. My mistake. Futurist110 (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotally I think that many Jewish people came to Britain, certainly before the war. There are a number of episodes of Who Do You Think You Are? (UK TV series) showing ancestors of celebrities who left Eastern Europe, including (from memory) those of Stephen Fry, Esther Rantzen and Jerry Springer. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, just read the article and Rantzen's forebears arrived 100 years previously, so strike that. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that pre-WWII, Jewish refugees from Germany and Austria were allowed into Britain if they were sponsored by a British citizen. During the war, I'm quite certain that refugees from occupied countries were readily accepted, whatever their religion, however most would have opted for somewhere safer than Britain, which was being bombed and under threat of invasion until 1942. Jewish refugees from Germany and Austria already in Britain were interned for the first few years of the war, because they were citizens of an enemy country and classed as "Enemy aliens". However, men of military age were allowed to serve in special companies of the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps of the British Army after screening. Alansplodge (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If I remember the programme about Stephen Fry, his ancestor came to the UK some time before WW2 to manage a sugar factory in the Fens, the rest of his family didn't make it out of Slovakia.-- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

See Whitehall and the Jews, 1933-1948: British Immigration Policy, Jewish Refugees and the Holocaust. Nearly all of this looks at pre and post war immigration, and the failure of the British Government to aid Jews in occupied Europe. I don't believe that there was any significant movement of civilians across the Channel after the end of the Battle of France, and a thorough search of Google has failed to find any reference to one. I don't think it would have been possible just to hop on a boat at Calais and sail across. This is only my impression and I stand to be corrected. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee helped refugees from across Europe, usually directing them to ports in Spain and Portugal and thece to America, but this became a whole lot harder once the US was no longer neutral. See also The Central British Fund for World Jewish Relief. Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The big problem was that Hitler's Krieg was so Blitz. There just wasn't time for many civilians to escape ahead of the armies. And then it was a difficult, usually impossible question of escaping from a continent which had become a prison camp. That so much of the allied armed forces, let alone civilians, were extricated successfully was considered miraculous. There was a major program which the British government took part in, with one aim to aid Jews in occupied Europe. It was called World War II. William Rubinstein's The Myth of Rescue: Why the Democracies Could Not Have Saved More Jews from the Nazis is an antidote to a tremendous amount of recent mythology and wishful thinking. The first chapter refers to serious, often older, work addressing the OP's question.John Z (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And I take it that after Continental Europe had fallen, the SOE didn't make any great effort to get refugees (Jewish or otherwise) out of there, for the simple reason that they had much more important things to do. Thanks! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

True; also insertion and extraction of SOE agents was extremely hazardous and usually undertaken by Westland Lysander aircraft, which had room for precisely one passenger. Not a viable route for refugees. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Many mid-level British bureaucrats in the Mediterranean area seemed to consider keeping more Jews out of the mandate of Palestine the highest priority above all others, which led to the Struma affair, and much bitterness and resentment in the immediate post-WW2 era... AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That policy needs to be seen through the lens of the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine; an experience that the British administration didn't want to repeat. The policy was laid out in the White Paper of 1939; according to that article, about 31,000 Jewish refugees, mainly from the Balkans, were allowed into Palestine from December 1942 until the end of the war. Alansplodge (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe I mentioned this reason in my original post. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; "avoid pissing off the local Arabs" was the phrase. Actually, they had killed nearly 4,000 "local Arabs" in trying to stop them from killing their Jewish neighbours. The British were in a "no win" situation in Palestine, partly of their own making. No doubt some appallingly bad decisions were made, but even with hindsight, it's difficult to see how the situation could have been resolved satisfactorily. Alansplodge (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The 1939 policy might be justifiable as a response to the immediate situation of 1939, but the refusal to deviate from it in almost any degree, for considerations of common sense or basic human decency, in the changed circumstances after 1939 created bitter frictions and resentments which helped make the UK government's situation even more difficult in 1946-1948. What really drove the Jews into a frenzy was that there seemed to be complete impunity for actions that resulted in the deaths of Jews "beyond the line" (outside the islands of Great Britain): the bureaucrats responsible for the decisions that sealed the fate of the "Struma", Glubb Pasha (who commanded troops that committed the Kfar Etzion massacre), Major Farran etc. etc. all had long and distinguished careers, and didn't seem to suffer any significant inconveniences from the fact that they were responsible for the deaths of mere Jews. AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I realise that this is still an emotive issue but two points:-

My understanding of the British position is that they considered it highly likely that the arrival of a refugee ship (and the others that would probably follow) would be a pretext for a further Arab revolt, which could in turn lead to the deaths of thousands of Jews and Arabs and seriously dislocate the Allied war effort in the process. So in their view, it was the lesser of two evils. They did offer to accept the children from the ship, but Turkey refused them overland passage, and sea transport could not be found because of the naval situation in the Eastern Med at the time. In their defence, the British were not to know that the Turks would tow the Sturma out into the Black Sea, and neither party were aware that the Soviets had decided to sink nuetral shipping on sight.

Roy Farren seems to have been court-marshalled, discharged from the army and found work as a labourer in a quarry before emigrating to Canada. If you have sources detailing John Bagot Glubb's involvement in the Kfar Etzion massacre, please could you add them to the respective WP articles, as they aren't mentioned. Alansplodge (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Major Farran didn't belong to the cushy upper-class old-boy's networks that more fully insulated some of the others, but he literally got away with murder (was found innocent in the court-martial), and remained unrepentant and defiant about it until the end without seeming to suffer much loss of respect and esteem among many of his fellow Britons. Glubb Pasha may not have been closely involved in the massacre (he certainly wasn't directly on the scene), but it was committed by troops under his command, and there was no form of responsibility or accountability for this, and he never really was able to give a full and satisfactory account of his actions in relation to the massacre (what he said about it in his later life was almost pure fantasy), and in fact he seems to have adopted the basic attitude that it was an impertinence for mere lowly Jews to seek to question the lofty Glubb Pasha. Neither man's medals or honours were revoked. As for Arab revolts, there was a major revolt in Iraq in 1941, but it didn't seem to set back the British war effort much, and I strongly doubt whether Palestine was ripe for an Arab revolt in 1941, since the Arabs there were still dealing with the severe aftermath of 1936-1939. I find it typical of the whole British approach to the matter that immigration was the single most significant issue which lead to a breakdown in British-Yishuv relations (ensuring that the UK government and Jewish leadership in Palestine were no longer able to work together), yet the British navy kept up the blockade against immigrant ships right up until the last moment of the mandate on midnight of May 14 1948, as if to prolong the aggravation and continue to rub salt on the wound until the last possible moment... AnonMoos (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

World record for being under continuous observation for the longest time

Is there a world record for being under continuous observation for the longest time? To keep the discussion from going macabre, let's restrict it to consensual participants only. Dncsky (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I imagine there were some royals who had servants in attendance at all times, for their entire life. (You might not think they would want attendants as they relieve themselves, but, apparently, at one time, they did.) StuRat (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed: see Groom of the Stool. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Even on their wedding night and honey-moon? Or were the servants objectified to the degree that they were seen as walls? Dncsky (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, in that case they would be "under observation" by their sex partner, assuming they hadn't gotten around to decapitating them yet. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What about in their sleep? Even if they posted guards it would make sense for the guards to stand outside. I would be too creeped out to fall asleep knowing that someone is watching me the whole time.Dncsky (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I rather doubt that royals were watched 24/7. In any case, there'd be nobody keeping track, so that's unverifiable anyway. Let's get the ball rolling with something concrete: 66 hours for an Israeli magician-cicle.[6] Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This site quotes a book of 1478 that says that the Esquires of the Royal Household were there "to array him, and unarray him; watch day and night". In medieval times there would indeed be servants actually sleeping in the same room as the King. Note that royal four-poster beds at this time had curtains which would be drawn, to keep the draughts out but also for privacy. As for consummation of marriage, this was a semi-public event for centuries. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Randy_Gardner_(record_holder) stayed awake for 264 hours. That's probably the longest Guinness World Records in terms of duration for a single participant, unless there's a record out there for "the longest nap". Coma patients living in hospital rooms with security cameras (do these even exist?) can probably top that, but I guess we'll never know since medical records are confidential. Dncsky (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Mike Ritof and Edith Boudreaux set the world record for dancing at 5154 hours, 48 minutes from August 29, 1930 to April 1, 1931 (what an appropriate day to end it).[7][8][9] Clarityfiend (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow! We have a winner. I'll mark this as resolved. Anyone with more datapoints is welcome to contribute. Dncsky (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Errr, cancel that. They had 20 minute breaks every hour (until the sponsors got tired of the whole thing), and I doubt that they were supervised when they went to the bathroom. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Female national anthem writer

I was just reading about national anthems of other countries when it struck me that there aren't any female writers of most of them. I don't like it, is it some kind of rule that only men write national anthems? I wanted to know if there are any female writers of national anthems.Yashowardhani (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Paula von Preradović and Margaret Hendrie qualify. There are certainly no rules about such things as there is no body with the authority to make such an absurd rule.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Many anthems have been around for a long time, predating the time when it was generally acceptable for women to be writers, composers, painters, doctors, lawyers etc (yes, I know there were exceptions, but I'm talking generally). So there was a kind of social "rule" that excluded women by default. This may account for the preponderance of male anthem writers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a List of female composers by birth year and I'm embarrassed to say that I've only heard of three of them. So unless I'm being particularly ignorant, it seems that women are rather under-represented in the "well-known composers" area, even today. Alansplodge (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a case of ignorance, except in the sense that whenever we take 2 people at random, one will know more than the other about any topic chosen at random. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the latter would be generally considered ignorant of the topic. Also, "well-known" is a very subjective criterion. A person who's little-known may still qualify for Wiki-notability; and a person who's well-known may fail for various reasons. One further point is that the composers of national anthems tend not to be "well-known composers" (many would be red links). I checked out Category:National anthem writers and there are only 2 people there who'd be considered well-known composers (Charles Gounod and Joseph Haydn), as measured by people generally being able to name something else they wrote. John Stafford Smith (The Star-Spangled Banner) and Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle (La Marseillaise) would fail this test, as they're "one-hit wonders", compositionally speaking. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

JackofOz -- In the 19th century, writing, painting, and composing were actually some of the few non-family outlets for middle-class and upper-class women. Women were usually banned from formal professions (though things were beginning to slightly change towards the end of the century), and most forms of working for a salary would cause them to lose their "respectability" or class status, so forms of the creative arts (especially those that did not involve performing in public for money) were one of the few paths open... AnonMoos (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In the USA, at least, it seemed acceptable for women to write poetry and songs. Several patriotic songs were authored by women, including Katharine Lee Bates providing the words for "America the Beautiful". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ted Bundy's execution celebrations

Has there ever been any other recorded execution where crowds gathered outside the prison to celebrate the execution of an inmate or not? Keeeith (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Happens all the time. --Viennese Waltz 17:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Recall that executions used to be major public events. The image I have in my mind is that of the executions by guillotine around the time of the French Revolution. Large public gatherings, just like watching sport. What could be asked here is why, in many of those countries that still perform executions, they're hidden away so much now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 December 2012‎

I believe at some point it came to be seen as undignified. The idea that the premeditated state killing of a helpless person can be dignified has — let's say, its own issues, but nevertheless there are a lot of people who seem to think it can. --Trovatore (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It certainly happened with John Wayne Gacey. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

To learn more about our attitudes towards executing criminals in the past in the UK, read about the execution of King Charles I. Also, reading about the crowds surrounding La Guillotine during the French Revolution (including Madame Tussaud) is enlightening. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You can look at the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment [10] to see why the United Kingdom discontinued public executions. In short, they became more theatre than solemn occasion. James Boswell (an inveterate attendee at public executions) noted a hundred years earlier how unruly crowds at an execution could become. Some cheered the convict, some cheered the executioner, some were just there to see the convict die, some were there to pick pockets or commit more serious crimes (often much more serious than the crime the convict was being hanged for!). Public executions were more circus than justice. --NellieBly (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Not an execution, but there were near-riots in any community that Lawrence Singleton was threatened to be released to (in the California politics of the 1980's, Lawrence Singleton was one thing that Christian rightists and radical feminists agreed about)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And it looks like they were right, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Simpson's "paradox"

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox#Kidney_stone_treatment

I'd like to know why this is considered to be a paradox when, as seen in the example above, Group 2 and Group 3 are obviously going to have a much higher impact on the ratio of the total sum than Group 1 and Group 4.

The Psychology section attempts to address this question, but it's very short. --Immerhin (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, presented the way that it is, it's clear what the cause is (while treatment B is less effective, it tends to be used on smaller kidney stones, which are easier to cure, so it appears to be more effective). However, if we only had data on the total cure rates for each treatment, not broken down by stone size, it would incorrectly appear that treatment B is better. If we also had separate studies comparing treatments A and B for small stones, and large stones, those would both show treatment A to be better for both. This is the paradoxical conclusion. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In simpler terms, the paradox is A1 > B2, A3 > B4, but (A1 + A3) < (B2 + B4). We can see why that is by looking at the raw data, but if we just look at the percentages it seems paradoxical. Tevildo (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

dudley m. lynch

Dudley M. Lynch is the author of The Duke of Duval, a very interesting story about politics in South Texas. It focuses on the Parr family, Spanish-speaking Anglos in mostly Spanish-speaking Duval County. Mr. Lynch's Wikipedia page appears to have been deleted. This was a screw-up, in my opinion.

If it is possible to see the contents of the deleted page, I would be grateful to be able to see them. My own introduction to Mr. Lynch, the above-mentioned book, is fairly recent. I'm no authority, but I think perhaps the decision to delete was made with insufficient data/justification.Chester quibble (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The deletion discussion seems to have been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley Lynch. Feel free to read it (and related links). Other than that, if you think that the decision was wrong, look for sources yourself (take a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability if you would like to know what kind of sources "counts"). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was very short and superficial; there seems to have been no effort to present the sort of keep argument that has a chance with BLPs (biographies of living persons), and so it was rather routinely deleted. I expect almost any administrator would be willing to provide you with a copy, perhaps in your userspace, so you can evaluate what might be needed to establish notability and verifiabiliity. You might ask User:CBM, for example. --Trovatore (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

December 23

2010 & 2000 US Census numbers

I searched the archives and could not find a definitive discussion relating to protocol on the topic, but for most cities the 2000 Census data has been replaced by the 2010 numbers. However, there are a few articles which both sets of numbers exist; on one article where I manually entered the 2010 data and deleted the outdated 2000 data, my deletion of the 2000 numbers was reverted. Has a protocol been established whether geographical articles should retain older census numbers after new data is added? It seems pointless (and clunky) to have two sections of Census data, one of which is outdated.--Chimino (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The reference desk is not the appropriate venue to discuss policies, content or editing disputes on Wikipedia articles, and thus you should probably redirect your question elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or the appropriate WikiProject. That said, there was a centralized discussion a couple of years ago on Wikipedia:2010 US Census for updating this content, but that now seems inactive, so you you should definitely ask elsewhere. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Gun Control

I am researching the names of domestic and military gun/weapons manufacturers in America. Can someone please send me a list of these manufacturers, especially those who make both domestic and military weapons? Location by state would be helpful too.

Thank you, Etoile1 (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This [11] should help you get started.Dncsky (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Photography in Tonga

When did photography first reached Tonga? When was the first photograph taken in Tonga?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps The Camera in the Coral Islands documents it? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No that is too late. I know of a photograph of a Tongan who died in 1862.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

First nations to receive the New Year

I know of the Republic of Kiribati, is there any other nation besides New Zealand or Australia? Keeeith (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Lots of them ... see our article on the International Date Line. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with "lots of them". According to the illustration at that link, only the Line Islands are in the GMT+14 time zone, so they will celebrate New Years before everybody else. Every point in that time zone will celebrate New Year at the same moment. How far East it is would only affect the first point to see the sun rise on the new year. StuRat (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Then we can say that Kiribati is the first country on Earth to receive the New Year? Keeeith (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually since the time zone change last year, (Western) Samoa uses UTC+14 during Daylight Saving Time and of course, they're observing DST during the New Year (I presume we're referring to the Gregorian or perhaps Julian calendar new year) so Samoa also celebrates the new year at the same time, see Time in Samoa and UTC+14. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Why did so many Nazis commit suicide?

What drove them into killing themselves?. Fear?, guilt?, what? Keeeith (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a bad Ref Desk question. We can't ask them, so we can only speculate, and that's never good. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but it's always caught my attention as to why so many killed themselves. Keeeith (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not true. It is more than possible that a historian of NSDAP mentalités or a psychohistorian could have in fact answered this question. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to answer the question. In most cases, it's so that they wouldn't get caught. Nazis like Adolf Hitler would rather die with some dignity rather than be captured, put on trial, and executed (like what Hideki Tōjō faced after the war). It's the same reason why samurai used to kill themselves when they lost their honor, or why most spree shooters kill themselves at the end of their killing spree. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 18:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Your answer is awesome, especially for the multiple links. Keeeith (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

One clarification... while a core group of the Nazi leadership committed suicide, the vast majority of Nazis (ie the rank and file members of the Nazi Party) did not. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Next time try searching the archives, this question's been asked and answered more than once, and recently. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's deja vu all over again:

Timothyhere (talk · contribs)
Iowafromiowa (talk · contribs)
Keeeith (talk · contribs)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with those users, if a block comes about because of this senseless act of intolerance, I'd be very dissapointed with Wikipedia. Keeeith (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What's being pointed out to you is that a) the answers to a question like this should be based on what reliable sources have said and it is unlikely that there would be reliable sources - however I can see that pointing to a psychological study could be a reasonable answer. And b) the question has been asked before and it would be nice if you would check the archives for a similar question before. There is a convenient box at the top of this page to aid you in such queries. Dmcq (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice that the OP has been blocked as an obvious sock puppet and long term obvious ref desk troll. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it might be relevant to note that he threatened to become "another Adam Lanza" because of this block, although only for a minute. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in Mass suicide in Demmin where hundreds of Demmin residents committed mass suicide. Also see Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well his questions have felt to me like the sort of thing that should worry the Department of Homeland Security. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Who was the second Byzantine female historian?

While reading about women in the Byzantine Empire years ago, I remember several authors saying that they were only two female writers in the history of the empire, both historians. One was Anna Comnena, of course, but I can't remember the name of the other one. I do remember that she lived cirka 800, that not much of her is known but that she is often mentioned because she is regarded to be the only female writer in the history of the Byzantine empire except the much more famous Anna Comnena. Does any one recognized this and knows who she was? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Irene of Athens?? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There are four in Category:Byzantine women writers, the two from approximately that period being Kassia and Eudokia Makrembolitissa. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have looked, but I clearly remember that she was neither royal nor a nun, which does not seem to fit in with those. Also, I remember the books saying something like: "Except for the work, not much is known about this female writer", which does not fit in with those either - and the work itself was, I think, very small and only significant because of her unusual position as a female writer who was neither royal nor a nun. --Aciram (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Still, I think Kassia would be the most likely canditate. In The Byzantine World Paul Stephenson writes that "In the Middle Byzantine period we have two women who wrote in their own name, the liturgical poet Kassia or Kasiane (ninth century) and the historian Anna Komnene (twelfth)." That seems to be related to the claim you remember about there being only two female authors of the Byzantine Empire. - Lindert (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hm, when you put it like that, it does seem Kassia is the likely candidate: this phrase does remind me of what I read. When I looked at her article, she did not seem to fit in because she was a nun and because so much seem to be known about her, while I seem to remember that this writer was some one not very well known and not a nun. Still, it was a while ago I read about this, and your quote reminds me so much about the one I read that it may actually be the very same phrase. I think I must consider this to be the answer after all. Thank you very much. A minor disappointment, in some way: there seem to be no notable women in the Byzantine Empire who was not either a royal or a nun. I will read the Kassia article more carefully - if that quote is not already in there, it would fit in the article very well!--Aciram (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Incinerator robberies

I don't fully get why in Debden incinerator robberies and in another similar case mentioned there the participants were found guilty - since money were to be incinerated, they aren't subject of further circulation (presumably due to weariness, or even no longer represent a legal tender) and as such a person who possesses them can't be liable for theft. Brandmeister^talk 22:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the Theft Act 1968 makes no allowances for the dishonest appropriation of property which is not legal tender. (Even the lone act of replacing a price label showing a greater price on goods with one showing a lesser price can amount to theft, despite there being no physical appropriation of property and no loss sustained by the owner.) Ankh.Morpork 00:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And the reason it's illegal is the same as for counterfeiting, increasing the total amount in circulation reduces the value of each unit. StuRat (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP is overlooking the likelihood that these worn-out bills were replaced with others, i.e. new ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the question being asked involves the legal technicality of whether the bills are legal tender or not. Is there a difference between the law broken in stealing legal tender currency and no-longer-legal-tender currency? Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's monopoly money it's still theft. Theft applies even if the owner does not incurr a loss as a result of the approriation. Only a few items can't be legally stolen such a wild creatures or land in certain circumstances. Ankh.Morpork 02:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Although the value of the stolen objects may determine whether the crime is a felony or misdemeanor. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Both the crime and the Acts referred to above are in the UK, where we have not had the treason/felony/misdemeanour distinction for quite a long time. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Legally stolen? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Poorly worded on my part. I meant only a few items are excluded from the Section 1 offence of theft, while the rest all fall under scope of the act. Ankh.Morpork 20:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Brandmeister -- speaking purely as a non-lawyer, it seems to me that they must have been guilty either of stealing money or passing off non-money as money, so there would be a crime either way... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I imagine this is why if you bring in DM coins or notes to a branch of the Bundesbank, they shred them (or place the coins between rollers which thoroughly deform them) before they leave the premises, so contractors are just handling loads of metal or shredded paper.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Overturned libel cases

The Sunday Times is suing Lance Armstrong over a lost libel action for publishing doping allegations, a claim now corroborated. What other high profile cases have there been of damages being claimed for a lost libel action subsequent to the emergence of new evidence? e.g Jeffrey Archer settled a claim for damages in 2002 after having been awarded damages in his 1987 libel case. Ankh.Morpork 23:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The convoluted case of Tommy Sheridan may be relevant here; I don't know if damages were claimed against him, but he did end up imprisoned for perjury... Andrew Gray (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Convoluted indeed. A defunct newspaper, ongoing police investigations and the longest perjury trial in Scottish legal history. It seems the News of the World did appeal Sheridan's libel victory. Ankh.Morpork 17:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

December 24

Trying to understand treasury stock

All that I understand about treasury stock comes from the original Railroad Tycoon, so I'm trying to compare that to the real-world understanding provided by our article — specifically applied to US federal investments laws, which would be relevant to the game if it were 100% realistic. Of course I understand that many of my scenarios aren't likely to happen in real life, between SEC restrictions and the fact that you can't use the game's cheats in real life.

1. Under current US federal law, is it true that "Treasury stock has no voting rights"? Let's say that your company buys up 90% of the outstanding shares and holds them for re-sale. Does that mean that your competitor can take over your company by buying 5%+1 of the total shares? Or is the game realistic in that it's impossible to mount a hostile takeover of a company whose stock is 50%+1 held for resale in the treasury?
2. In the game, owning treasury stock will increase your total assets when the stock price rises. In real life, if your company has some treasury stock held for resale, will rising prices on the open market cause your total assets to rise, fall, or stay the same?
3. Upon purchasing stock, are companies always allowed to choose between cancelling it and holding it in the treasury for resale? Or is there a situation in which one or the other would be required?
4. Is there a legal minimum percentage or number of treasury shares that can't be repurchased? For example, in the game you can't buy back the last 10,000 shares.

Thanks for the input; I'm just having a lot of trouble understanding much of the article, including the "Accounting for treasury stock" section, and I'd appreciate someone expanding or simplifying what's in there right now. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Jesus and Sodom

A few months ago in my (Catholic) Religion Class, we were doing a reading activity, looking through several passages and summarizing them. I don't remember the specifics, but one of them in the Gospels had a verse where Jesus told his followers to go spread the word of God. The passage that our teacher told us to summarize was cut off short before the chapter ended, and I read the last verse and it was something along the lines of "and if they do not believe (or maybe it was "let you enter their home"), their fate will be those as Sodom." I tried looking it up (since I lost the sheet) but I surprisingly couldn't find it. Does anyone know it? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.61.139 (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Chapter 10. --Jayron32 02:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

... or Mark 6:11 or Luke 10:12 Dbfirs 10:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hense Synoptic Gospels... --Jayron32 15:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Math–verbal achievement gap

What is this sentence from the article even means: "Typically the number of Asian students taking the SAT is more than 100 percent higher than their overall numbers in the U.S. population."?184.97.227.164 (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That is rather vague, but I take it to mean something like "If 5% of the US population is Asian, then 10% of the people taking the SAT are". StuRat (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Not only is it badly worded, but it is not supported by the source cited. The article is essay-like and probably plagiarised. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Were it supported by evidence, then a better way to make a precise statement might be: "of the students taking the SAT, the proportion [or percentage] who are Asian is more than double the Asian proportion [or percentage] in the U.S. population." Dbfirs 10:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if you guys saw there is something wrong with it then why don't you guys just fix it? It's literally takes less than 1 minute. I already fixed it anyway.184.97.240.180 (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The same Q goes right back to you. You spotted it first, so you should fix it, as you did. StuRat (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

UN General Assembly

I heard almost all of the 205 countries speeches and one that caught my attention was the one by Anote Tong. Is there any country in the World willing to receive the inhabitants of Kiribati as climate refugees? Ukboyy (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiribati only has a population a bit over a hundred thousand. So, yes, it would be easy to take them in (not like if we had to evacuate China). However, if they all want to stay together, and remake some other place into "New Kiribati", that might be a bit harder, as the existing residents of the new place must either move out or become a minority. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That's non-responsive to an interesting question. The article on Anote Tong says: So far, however, no country has agreed to relocate substantial numbers of I-Kiribati., which answers the question up to the present time. That article also says that Tong hopes that they may become productive members of their host society, and avoid becoming merely "environmental refugees". So he doesn't want them to be received as climate refugees, but rather as ordinary immigrants. In any event, according to the article Tong is warning that his country may become uninhabitable by the 2050s, so there are several decades to go before they have to be all relocated; I kind of doubt that any countries are actually going to take anybody in that far in advance. Duoduoduo (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Question upon US presidential succession

Dear Wikipedians. I know that the following question might be unrealistic, but I asked it myself several times. Let us assume that the U.S. President becomes ill or has an accident and is at sometime decleared dead my the doctors. The message is published and the following moment the Vice President is sworn in as new president (not acting president) and immediantely assumes his duties such as making appointments and signing bills into law. Some hours later the doctors recognize that the previous President is not dead (there are people who have been decleared dead and later it turned out that this was false). What's going to happen in that case? Is the "old" president again in office or out of it. Does the former Vice President remain head of state because he took the oath and assumed presidential duties or must he step down to the Vice Presidency again?

I assume that the constitution does not have a specific answer, but does somebody know which case is likely if it comes so far? Thanks a lot in advance. --78.52.57.176 (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's the VP, the Constitution is pretty clear: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. [12] I'd say "oops, not dead yet" counts as removing a Disability. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

However, if he was comatose, the VP would probably continue in the job until the Prez is actually able to resume the job. Lt. Governors in states sometimes take over for Governors when they're indisposed, and it's not really a big deal. It's a big deal at the national level just because it doesn't happen very often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Really, what's at issue here is not Article Two. It's the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That certainly would have been invoked if the president was so seriously ill, and so the Veep would have had the authority to sign bills, make appointments, etc. The swearing in as actual president was void as unauthorized as the president was not dead, and so that was a nullity, but his actions should be fine. However, I doubt he will ever live it down if there was the least bit of eagerness on his part.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean like "as of now, I am in control here"? --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I recall, that mocking came from only one side of the political spectrum.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OP's scenario is not far from what actually happened when Wilson had a stroke in 1919 (well prior to the 25th Amendment). In that case his wife Edith was de-facto President, which wasn't too popular - even Scott Fitzgerald called her a "female Rasputin" (Echoes of the Jazz Age). Zoonoses (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Discrimination based on sexual proclivities

Wikipedia forbids editors to identify as pedophiles and blocks editors that do so. Would a similar discriminatory practice be permitted in the workplace? Can employers discriminate based on sexual proclivities in the absence of previous criminal offences, or a credible risk posed by such sexual attractions? Ankh.Morpork 21:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What jurisdiction? Most of the United States observes some modified form of the at-will doctrine, according to which employment is an arrangement between willing buyer and willing seller, and either may decline to enter that arrangement for any reason, unless specifically prohibited (race, sex, religion, color, national origin — note that "sex" here means what many nowadays unfortunately refer to as "gender"). This is not legal advice; if you are planning to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual attraction you should consult a lawyer in your state. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I note that LGBT doesn't feature on your list, is that intentional? Ankh.Morpork 21:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A majority of states do not make sexual orientation a protected category. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If you've described WP's policy accurately, I'm somewhat amused. It seems that they don't mind if an editor is a pedophile, but they object to him/her coming out and saying so. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A classic Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. This policy actually makes sense if your goal is to avoid controversy. This way, you don't end up with any known pedophiles, and it's only the known ones which cause controversy. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, the unknown ones still cause nasty things to happen. --Jayron32 02:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You can apparently be fired for being too attractive in the US state of Iowa. Dismas|^(talk) 04:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You can be fired for any reason in the state of Iowa, just like in all other at-will employment states, with the exception of the aforementioned protected categories. Your hair is 4 inches instead of 3.8? You're fired. You like apples and not oranges? You're fired. --140.180.249.194 (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

December 25

Early American History New York University

A few months ago, the NY Times posted an article and included a photo of a Library bldg [ I think, if memory serves me right ]. I hope it was NYU and not Harvard inter alia.

The photo showed the front steps and massive columns at the entrance. An overhead inscription, in part, read something to the effect of " ... in the province of ". The remaining portion out of the photo shot.

I wrote the NYT, asking if that building was relocated from some Canadian province originally, or was NYC originally in a province. Also, could the original photo have included the whole inscription overhead. The reply from NYT was simply that no answer was available.

Any relevant info ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve8rox (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Province of New York would likely get you started. --Jayron32 02:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like Low Memorial Library.--Cam (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Source for quotation

"I believe stories are written and read to rebel against the fact that you only live once." Any idea who said this? It's supposedly from an author. Dncsky (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you try asking The Guardian Angel - it's one of his/her favourite authors, so he/she might know. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to message that person but I doubt they know the original source.Dncsky (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and Government

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that all governments are of the Devil. But what about Romans Chapter 13? Doesn't that contradict Romans Chapter 13? What are Jehovah's Witnesses' answer to this question? When asked, how did they answer?

MX896 (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

See Jehovah's Witnesses and governments and http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=Romans+13%3A1-14.

—Wavelength (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The information at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2004241?q=Romans+13%3A1-14+Satan+Devil&p=par explains that human governments provide orderliness to our imperfect society.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Christianity and America

If America is a secular state with separation of church and state, it doesn't have a Christian heritage, and it wasn't founded as a Christian nation, then how come the following things?

1. In the Declaration of Independence, it says, "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights."

2. When its presidents swear into office, they hold a Bible and say "So help me God.".

3. Its motto is In God We Trust. In its money, it is written, In God We Trust.

Annihilationism (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Your 2nd assumption is wrong, it does have a Christian heritage. Also, all your examples show the belief in some God, not particularly Christianity, although I do agree that a secular state shouldn't profess a belief in God at all (and using God in the singular also exclude polytheists, like some Hindus). StuRat (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's the Christian Bible in the example of the swearing in ceremony. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Not always. John Quincy Adams, Teddy Roosevelt, and Lyndon B. Johnson didn't use a bible.Dncsky (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are some people here so keen to prove a non-existent point? Annihilationism mentioned the Bible. I said it was the Christian Bible. To say that some didn't use a Bible is to actually disagree with Annihilationism, not me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Annihilationism posited that the Bible is mandatory, and I proved him wrong, which in turn makes your point void. I assumed that my response to you would be read by Annihilationism as well, so there's no need for a second reply specifically addressed to him.Dncsky (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make my point void at all. HiLo48 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"God" is undefined. Also, "In God we trust - all others pay cash." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Annihilationism -- See Ceremonial Deism... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"So help me God" isn't prescribed by law. The president can say whatever they want; I see nothing that proscribes the president from ending the oath with "So help me, FSM.".Dncsky (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, there's no "So help me God" in it.[13] If they say it, that's because it's strictly a custom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Declaration is not a part of the US Constitution. Also, "Creator" can be taken any number of ways. "Mother Nature", for one. And by the way, the wording is "UNalienable". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"Creator" was chosen as opposed to "God", not as a synonym of it. This is perfectly in line with the Enlightenment belief in deism, because not all of the "founding fathers" (is there a more neutral term?) were sure they believed in the Christian deity. --140.180.249.194 (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The Declaration of Independence is not law, as the United States Constitution is. It's not at all difficult to understand that a nation has a particular religious "heritage", but that doesn't necessarily become its law. Shadowjams (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Japanese home funerals

A few days ago, I watched the last episode of the anime Chūnibyō Demo Koi ga Shitai!. At the beginning of the episode, the main female character is mourning the death of her father. What I noticed is that the funeral took place at their house (which, in a previous episode, was revealed to have since been demolished). Since then, I have been wondering: are home funerals commonplace in Japan? I read the article on Japanese funerals way back (before watching the series, in order to understand one of my earlier questions on Japanese funerals), but it doesn't mention anything about home funerals. However, from what I've read about the topic, wakes and funerals frequently take place in temples or halls. So are home funerals common or rare in Japan?

As a side question, are home funerals common in the United States? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the US: The article Wake (ceremony) says "A wake (Irish: faire) is a ceremony associated with death. Traditionally, a wake takes place in the house of the deceased, with the body present; however, modern wakes are often performed at a funeral home. In the United States and Canada it is synonymous with a viewing." Duoduoduo (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

As for Japanese funerals, our article leaves it unclear to me as to whether the wake (viewing) is typically held at the home shrine or at a public temple. But the section Japanese funeral#Funeral implies that the norm is to hold the funeral itself at the temple. However, a February 2012 edit on the article's talk page says "The article as it stands is not very informative about the current practices, there is a desire often seen in articles about Japan to pick out a few extreme practices and emphasize those, but not to discuss the most common practices." So I don't know how much one can safely infer from this article. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Japan, though as for America: It may depend on what part of the US, but I've not heard of any home funerals occurring in my lifetime. There are funeral homes all over the place, a few going back to the 19th century. I've seen home funerals occasionally in movies, usually in not in the present day, and generally rural areas or in areas with higher Irish, Latino, or Asian populations. This New York Times article shows that this is still not the norm. This Washington Post article confirms my suspicion that most areas in the 19th and 20th century came to require funeral homes to be used for health reasons (and sometimes for the benefit of the funeral industry).

Checking with my mother, the last home funeral she went to was when she was a teenager, about 40 years ago, and in a poor town that was 20 miles away from a funeral home. She knows from her genealogical research that home funerals were pretty much the only option in the early 19th century and earlier. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly why is the United States relatively conservative compared to European countries and Canada?

I've noticed that the United States seems to tend to lean towards conservatism while Europe and Canada seem to tend to be liberal, in both cultural and political aspects. For example, while same-sex marriage is now legal in some states, European countries legalized it first. Europeans and Canadians also tend to be more open-minded (for example, Canadians and Europeans [even the British except for some values like speed] use the metric system, they travel abroad more often than Americans, and Europe [Iceland to be precise] even has an openly gay prime minister), whereas in the United States, everyone wants to be politically correct. And let's not even get started on American exceptionalism and American xenophobia. But what are the factors as to why the United States tends to be conservative while Canada and Europe tend to be liberal? I've read articles on Wikipedia about the topic, but they don't answer the question why America seems to be more conservative than Canada or Europe. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

For a classic work, you can look at "Why is There no Socialism in the United States" by Werner Sombart. Also, in many European countries, the death penalty was abolished, the metric system adopted, currency decimalized etc. often in spite of the wishes of the majority of the population, while in the United States, the widespread public adoption of the metric system failed precisely because of public discontent -- which may make Europe more enlightened than the United States, but it doesn't seem to make it more democratic. In Germany, when the Euro was adopted and the Deutschmark abolished, this decision ignored the contrary views of a very significant proportion of the German population, probably a majority -- and it's precisely that fact which now greatly constrains Merkel's political freedom of action to implement sweeping measures in response to the situation in Greece etc... AnonMoos (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. As for traveling, if you've looked at a map, you may notice that only Canada and Mexico directly border on the U.S., and many parts of the U.S. aren't very close to either... AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• And Canada borders...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see some reference for the claim that in many European countries, the death penalty was abolished, the metric system adopted, currency decimalized against the majority opinion. Also for the claim that establishing the Euro in Germany was contrary to the views of a significant proportion of the population. Both claims sound like a pipe-dream of the British/American tabloids to me. The introduction of the Euro in Germany was never controversial enough for it to become an important issue in any elections. 81.156.176.219 (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

We've had this discussion several times before at WP:RDH, it should be possibly to dig up some older discussions. --Soman (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Re the travelling bit... As an Australian who has visited the US a few times, there's an uncomfortable recurring conversation point I've experienced while there. People discover I'm Australian (usually as soon as I open my mouth), and then say "I've always wanted to visit Australia, but it's so far away." The thought that immediately goes through my head is "Well, I've made it here. What's really stopping you?", but I've never felt confident that I could express that thought diplomatically, so I usually just change the subject, sit back, and enjoy the great hospitality. (Still confused about tipping though.) HiLo48 (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 -- Australia is a long way from the continental United States for a pure pleasure vacation, without definite goals. The travel times mean that a vacation of less than about five days is not too practical (i.e. it's not a weekend getaway), and if you're contemplating taking five days off and traveling halfway around the world, then you're probably also contemplating some alternatives -- and if you mainly want some beach/pool lounging with a little light sightseeing, then there are more accessible (and cheaper) destinations than Australia. Ditto if you're looking for some exposure to exotic cultures. Australia is also less easy to combine with other countries on the same itinerary (the way you can have a sightseeing trip which covers parts of both Germany and France, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite claiming/trying to be a melting pot, and despite having a fair amount of diversity, much of the US is isolated from radically different cultures (I once dated a woman who had never had Mexican, Thai, German, Japanese, Arabic, or Indian food, and had no American Southern food beyond the occasional KFC or Popeyes). (I'm also amazed at how many Americans, even Southerners, have any trouble understanding Gullah). The US (being barely over two centuries old) is also only just "finishing" (as if a culture can do so and survive) developing a unique identity (though the rapidly increasing Latino and Asian populations should make things more interesting), and a lot of that is based on opposition to the left-wing ("liberal") Soviets in the 20th century, and a big (conservative) Romantic "ain't home great?" attitude in the 19th century. Europe became more left-wing and socially liberal while the US was still figuring out whether or not it was going to grant some basic human rights (c.f. Benjamin Disraeli and American Civil War). However, our right-wing politics aren't as commonly insane as other countries. The largest US Neo-Nazi party only has about 400 members (with the non-member votes maybe balancing out the guaranteed felon members lost votes), while in much smaller countries, the UK's National Front has twice that many votes, multiple Swiss groups each have at least twice that many votes, and Greece's Golden Dawn has a hundred times that many votes. The US's far-right may be equally common and crazy, but most of them pretend to be sane, totally-not-racist Republicans like Michael Bloomberg from 2001 to 2007. (Re tipping: leave the server an amount equal to 15% of the bill for acceptable service, 20% to 25% and a quick thank you note for good to great service, but really only 10% at buffets or poor service. Tip delivery but not take-out or drive-throughs. A lot of servers get paid near nothing because they get tip money, and may bring home more that way for doing a better job than not. When paying by card, it is also acceptable to write "sorry, I can't math" in the tip field and give something sorta/approximately/maybe/not close to the correct tip amount to round the total up to some nice even number. If the server takes your payment (instead of paying at the register), it is also acceptable to round up to the next highest $5, $10, or $20 (depending on how expensive the meal is) and tell the server to keep the change because "sorry, I horrible with math.") Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The United States is one of, if not the, most multicultural country in the world (Brazil has a strong claim on this too, but I can't think of any other country of any size who would otherwise). If you lump all western European nations together and still continue with the "not a melting pot" line, over 10% of Americans are foreign born and the U.S. Our article on the U.S. says "It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries.[6]" Ian seems to have gone off on a rant about food, which is kind of interesting were it on his blog, but it's completely irrelevant here. Shadowjams (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

ATTENTION ATTENTION!! Read this previous discussion: [14]. And Merry Christmas. --140.180.249.194 (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"I don't understand why you're not more fascinated with this! I mean, we could be living next door to a murderer, Larry."

"New York is a melting pot!" Shadowjams (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Types of criminal gangs

From my extensive knowledge of television, I have become aware of three different types of organised crime gang: the "traditional" Mafia -style mob (including Irish, Jewish, etc. mobs) like on The Sopranos, biker gangs such as the Hells Angels like on Sons of Anarchy, and street gangs like the Crips and Bloods, of the sort depicted on The Wire. I was thinking about this earlier and I got to wondering how different these organisations really are. I could tell you that Mafiosi wear suits, and bikers ride motorbikes, but does anyone know what the major differences between how these gangs work and how they're structured are? That is, if there really are major differences. --149.135.146.66 (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This is also based on my extensive knowledge of television, but the Mafia seem to penetrate more deeply into a society than any other type of gang, and enjoy something close to social respectability in some circles. They also assassinate judges, which I think is very rare for other types of gangs. Bikie gangs typically espouse the "one-percenter" lifestyle, that is, they officially deem themselves outside the law. Not that the Mafia follow it, but they seem to try to control the law, so perhaps you could say bikies see themselves as outside the law, mafiosi as above it. IBE (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

And maybe I could add that street gangs are below it? IBE (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

books set in maine

i would like an exhuastive list of all childrens and young adult literature set entirely or partially maine (including fiction set in imaginary places in maine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.60.254 (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can contribute a few books (so by no means is this exhaustive): From my own collections: the Emergency Rescue! series by James and Lois Cowan, and Santa Paws and the Christmas Storm by Kris Edwards (takes place on a fictitious island off of Maine). Also, on Google Books, I found a book called A celebration of Maine children's books; if you could get a hold of that, that would provide you with quite a few books set in Maine as well. Brambleclawx 21:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We have Category:Novels set in Maine and Category:Maine in fiction. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You may also wish to look at Maine#Maine in fiction. Brambleclawx 21:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Mecca, California Muslim populated place before

Is this true that Mecca, California used to have Arab-speaking Muslims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The United States is a diverse country, and Southern California is among the most diverse of areas. I would not be surprised to find at least one Arabic-speaking Muslim in any community there. I have no data one way or the other, but it would not be a surprising thing either. --Jayron32 00:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)