Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 26

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 26

How many men are in Canada's jails for child support?

HOW MANY MEN ARE IN CANADA'S JAILS FOR CHILD SUPPORT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.174.34 (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not nearly as many as are in for failure to pay child support. StuRat (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably very few. It seems courts will negotiate, garnish bank accounts and seize personal property before resorting to jail time for child support defaulters. [1] [2]. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

According to these stats, there are about 35,000 or fewer adults in jail in Canada. According to these stats, between 2 and 9 per cent of court cases are for "Fail to Comply with Order". Only a fraction of these again would be about child support, so you're looking at fewer than 3,000 people - I expect the real answer is far, far lower. I could not find stats on exactly what you are looking for, but keep checking back as someone else may well turn them up soon. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That table doesn't seem to separate "failure to comply with a court order" and "failure to comply with a probation order", which are different sections of the Criminal Code. If they're lumped in together that may skew the numbers - breach of probation is commonly used to get gang members off the streets, so it's a fairly common charge. --NellieBly (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't Muslims know what day Eid-ul-Fitr is?

Pretty simple question, but I have yet to get a satisfactory answer to it. People say it depends on the moon, but we already know what the moon will do tomorrow, the day after that, and hundreds of years from now. We have known exactly what the moon will do tomorrow for hundreds of years. We can predict eclipses, new moons, full moons... the whole shabang. So why the confusion? Wrad (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Our article on Eid-ul-Fitr says, "Although the date of Eid ul-Fitr is always the same in the Islamic calendar, the date in the Gregorian calendar falls approximately 11 days earlier each successive year, since the Islamic calendar is lunar and the Gregorian calendar is solar. Hence if the Eid falls in the first ten days of a Gregorian calendar year, there will be a second Eid in the last week of the same Gregorian calendar year. The Gregorian date may vary between countries depending on the local sightability of the new moon. Some expatriate Muslim communities follow the dates as determined for their home country, while others follow the local dates of their country of residence. In the Islamic calendar, a new day, and therefore also Eid ul-Fitr, begins at sunset." Looie496 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They don't? Eid-ul-Fitr falls on the first day of Shawwal every year. I'm pretty sure the Islamic calendar is well established and not mysterious at all. Where did you hear that it was mysterious? I've never heard this. (post EC comment after Looie's answer). As Looie points out, the exact timing of when Eid-ul-Fitr is celebrated will vary from place to place locally, but they all know when it is, at least for themselves in their locality. --Jayron32 05:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That's just it. They don't know when it is. I was in Morocco this summer, and everyone said that Eid would be on one of two days, "depending on the moon," but that doesn't make any sense, given that we can predict with breathtaking accuracy exactly how the moon will appear in the sky on any given day or night years into the future. Why the uncertainty? Wrad (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I see the source of the confusion. The article Islamic calendar explains it well. To quote: "A majority of theologians oppose the use of calculations (beyond the constraint that each month must be not less than 29 nor more than 30 days) on the grounds that the latter would not conform with Muhammad's recommendation to observe the new moon of Ramadan and Shawal in order to determine the beginning of these months" There's cites there too. It seems that Muhammad proclaimed that direct observation of the new moon was required, and that many Muslims take this to be a prohibition on actyally calculating when that should be. I stand corrected. Of course, it would be trivial for anyone to "look up" when any given new moon would be, but many faithful muslims would see this as a sort of blasphemy, and instead wait each night to observe it directly. That seems to be what's going on here. --Jayron32 05:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

According to [3] scholars differ as to what "seeing" the new moon means. Wrad (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's just a tradition really, not that they can't otherwise figure it out. Sort of like a serious version of Groundhog Day. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrad -- there's a schematic (i.e. fixed in advance) version of the Islamic calendar which is used for some limited purposes, but for determining the date of religious observances in any one region, the criterion for the start of the month (according to traditional Islamic legal interpretation) is the date when the thin crescent moon is first observed in the west around sunset in that region. There are algorithms to predict when the new crescent moon will likely be visible or not visible on a particular day in a given area, but any such algorithm will always have borderline cases, and few Muslim religious scholars would feel confident in replacing actual eyewitness testimony with a mathematical algorithm. Of course, there's a problematic trend in some areas of crescent sightings being reported and accepted on days when on astronomical grounds it seems extremely unlikely that a crescent would be visible.

The Islamic calendar could be considered to have problems in accuracy (i.e. since the year is always 12 lunar months, the Islamic calendar rotates rapidly through the seasons, so that an observance which is in summer one year will be in winter 17 years later), and with indeterminacy (i.e. it is not known in advance exactly when each month will begin, and months can begin on different dates in different parts of the world). However, one advantage of the Islamic calendar is that there are no calendar schisms -- all you have to do to maintain the Islamic calendar is observe young crescent moons at sunset each month and keep track of where the current month is in a cycle of 12. So Muslims everywhere should never disagree by more than one day as to what the current date is. By contrast, in Christianity the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Armenian churches use quite different calendars from the Gregorian calendar, the Old Calendarists still use the Julian calendar, most eastern Orthodox now theoretically use the "Revised Julian" calendar (though the revised Julian calendar will not differ from the Gregorian calendar until 2800 A.D.), and western Christians vs. Orthodox use different methods for determining Easter. Historically, the Jews of Hellenistic and Roman times had competing calendars advocated by different sub-groups (though many of the details of such calendar schisms have been lost -- see Enoch calendar etc.), the calendar used by the Parsees of Iran was a month off from the calendar used by the Parsees of India, etc... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As others have said: it's not just the shape of the moon (to formulate it rather clumsily) it is also when it is observed by Muslims. This, of course, begs the question, what if it happens to be cloudy on the day that the new moon should be visible? (Given that a month shouldn't be longer than 30 days, I suppose it means that they just wait till the next day.) V85 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Jewish lunar calendar, and the lunar calculations involved in determining the date of Easter among Christians, are based on calculating the absolute new moon (astronomical conjunction) and/or full moon (astronomical opposition), events which have an objective astronomical definition, and whose timing does not change depending where on the earth you're located. The beginning of the Islamic month is sometimes called "new moon", but this is not meant to be astronomical conjunction, but rather first crescent visibility, which varies between different geographical areas, and usually occurs at least 18 hours (often more) after astronomical conjunction... AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Immigration to the Americas Over Western Europe

How much there was much greater Jewish immigration to North & South America (from Eastern Europe) in the 19th and early 20th century than there was to Western Europe? Western Europe was far closer, and it had roughly the same standard of living as the United States and Canada. You could point out nationalism, but nationalism wasn't too widespread in all Western European countries and the U.S. had its own fair share of ethnic (and racial) prejudice during this time period as well. Futurist110 (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

America had the reputation of a land of opportunity, and (until the 1920s) an open door policy. Western Europe had been hostile to Jews over the centuries, and still was not exactly friendly, and might not be thrilled by Jewish immigration. America had not had pogroms, had the reputation of a less-stratified society, and it was said you could become wealthy in the goldene land. Both of my grandfathers came over in the early 20th century (one after a stint in Montreal). I went back to the ancestral village in southern Poland four years ago, with one of my brothers. It did not look like it brimmed with opportunity.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. had some anti-Semitism as well, and did Western Europe actually have any pogroms in the 19th century? Wait--your grandfather is Jewish and currently lives in Poland? That's pretty cool, considering that there are extremely few Jews in Poland right now. I wasn't talking about Poland, though, but about such countries as France, Britain, Germany, the Scandivanian countries, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, the Low Countries, and Austria. Also, I want to point about that some Western European countries (France, etc.) did have an open door immigration policy in the 19th and early 20th centuries as well. Futurist110 (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My grandfather is no longer with us (these 37 years) but he came from a small town in what is now Southern Poland. He vastly preferred the Bronx, and subsequently Miami Beach. We did get to speak, when we visited Wola Raniżowska, with an elderly man (through a translator) who remembered the 1940s, though he was reticent.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, France had the Dreyfus Affair. That'd turn me off, right there. --Activism1234 06:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It would have probably turned me off as well, until Dreyfus would have been exonerated and the French would have admitted that they made fools of themselves. After that point, I'd be more turned on by France. Futurist110 (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. French anti-Semitism still ran high at that point, and was only really exonerated due to outrage from some French sectors and a load of evidence that would've ashamed France. There were still newspapers which were openly anti-Semitic and discrimination, as in any European country. And the fact that Dreyfuss was imprisoned to begin with, when it was known that the accusations were false and baseless, would've been deeply disturbing (indeed, sufficient to trigger Herzl's motivation for Zionism). Of course, this is just one example of such (not saying that there wasn't discrimination either in the U.S., but certainly wasn't as full-blown). --Activism1234 06:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

At least according to legend, the opportunity of America was a big deal. Streets paved with gold and all that. Chance to make it big.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that has proved true for many immigrants, such as Andrew Carnegie. --Activism1234 06:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Many Jews landing in England actually intended to go to America, but about 120,000 stayed in this country."[4]. See also History of the Jews in England. Alansplodge (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I will just add to what others have pointed out before, namely that there was still anti-Semitism in Western Europe in the 19th and early 20th century. Apparently Jews weren't granted equality before the law in Sweden till 1910. Even if the actual situation might have been better in the past, rumours and attitudes have a tendency to die hard, so that restrictions on Jews, even if they might no longer be in force, might still be seen as a deterrent. (Even if they were no longer in force, the fact that such regulations had once existed could imply that they would be re-introduced.)

As for choosing America over Europe, I think it was probably due to the fact that it was a trend in the times. In addition to Jews going to America, there were also a lot of Western Europeans leaving Europe for America. Between 1850 and 1930, about 5 million Germans immigrated to the United States, along with 3.5 million Brits and 4.5 millions Irish. This would seem to imply that even if living conditions in Europe were 'comparable' to those of the USA, there was still something that was more alluring in the US compared to Europe. As others have pointed out, the perception that you could make it big 'across the pond'. In addition, of course, this was a period when the US was growing territorially, so there was enough land for the immigrants (pace Native Americans), whereas in Europe, the land was already settled. And, if you're first going to relocate, why not go to where you believe your life can be the best it can, as compared to going for 'somewhere close', where it will be OK? V85 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a well-trodden path, due to competition, steerage fares were relatively low, and there was some expectation of help on the other side from those who had already made it across. There were mutual aid societies, often broken down by religion and then by home town or country, that helped out with initial loans, and of course you repaid. My maternal grandfather was a member of such a society, though, unfortunately, I cannot remember the name of it, but it was the name of a town, though oddly enough, not the place he came from (he was from Minsk). He and my grandmother are buried in a plot in a section which the society bought for its members, and you paid for so much a week. Wages were often higher in the US, too, for the same work, that was a great attraction and far from unknown, in fact it was advertised, as were the prices of goods, selected of course for best effect.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

who are considered to be the 3 most greatest men who ever lived?

who are considered to be the 3 greatest men who ever lived? Or, if there is no consensus, what are some common suggestions for the 3 greatest men who ever lived? --80.99.254.208 (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there is no consensus. If you polled the world's population, probably lots of people would list Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha. Most people listing one of these as #1 probably wouldn't put the others in their top 3. Staecker (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Define "great" or "greatest". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If one defines it by the person's impact on humanity and human history, then Alexander the Great and Adolf Hitler would be candidates for the top three along with the religious figures already mentioned. (Hitler's impact was overwhelmingly negative, though, whereas Alexander's ideology was pretty harmless, and his biggest flaw was alcoholism.) Some might make a case for Karl Marx or Mahatma Gandhi.

Going with more traditional definitions of greatness, maybe Leonidas is your man. Or Socrates, who was also a keen soldier as well as his other qualities, according to a biased source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The romantic image of Leonidas prevails after 300 I see. The reality was darker. Leonidas was a Spartan citizen, a spartiate. True, the spartiate hoplites are unparalleled in battle in Ancient Greece, but that's because from childhood, all they did was train for combat, and I mean all. Ask yourself who farmed their fields and did the rest of the labor required for their city and you'll get the darker truth. Spartans were like the Nazis of Ancient Greece, eugenics and slavery. They even had their own version of the Gestapo. I personally prefer the Theban boeotarch Epaminondas. Elected by democratic assembly, cheeky in his spiting of the Spartan King Agesilaus II, a genius in battle and defeated the Spartans several times (something that had never been done for decades prior to that), shattered the Spartan hold over Peloponnese, and freed the Messenians from 200 years of Spartan slavery.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why Demiurge went with the traditional definitions of greatness. By that definition, Hitler would certainly be one of the greatest people to ever live. He wasn't even particularly cruel compared to the Spartans, the Mongolians under Genghis Khan, or the Spanish conquistadors--he just happened to have far more resources and better technology. --99.227.95.108 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Just saying. Most people who've watched the movie think Leonidas was a pillar of virtue and personal sacrifice. He wasn't. He was simply a product of his upbringing. Like all spartiates, he was arrogant and bloodthirsty, literally bred to be unquestioning supersoldiers of the Spartan state. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For one version of the most influential persons in history, see The 100 (version of 20:47, 24 August 2012), where sentence 3 of paragraph 3 is incorrect grammatically and ambiguous, because "substituted … with" should be either "substituted … for" or "replaced … with", which have opposite meanings.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The article "List of books about Jesus" (version of 19:01, 22 May 2012) mentions a book titled The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived and published in 1990.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Leonidas? Heh, give me a break. This is an unanswerable question, all you got is personal opinion, and completely against reference desk guidelines. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hah! What a joke, Saddhiyama. I've raised this issue more than once of recent times, but it's clear the implicit consensus is for answering any and all questions with unreferenced opinions. The more the merrier, it often seems. Please join me out in the wilderness, where our pitiful cries may yet one day stand a chance of being heard. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Who from wikipedia wrote the Cyclops page. Also Who wrote Asclepius on Wiki Doc.

Sorry about the mistakes in the first page. Ignore the first question I wrote. I got drunk yesterday. I still have the effects from it. Read the edited question I wrote right now.

No one here seems to know the answear to my question. So do any of you know who does. I want to talk to them. I read three pages on wikipedia that says. Zeus retured Asclepius and the Cyclops from Hades. I know Asclepius was made into a god. Greek mythology teachers confirm. One told me that no writer said who made Asclepius into a god. That does not madder. What I want to know. Two Greek mythology teachers told me that no soruce ever says. That Zeus returned the Cyclops from Hades. After Apollo killed them. I know that a Sicily legend says. The ghost's of the Cyclops dwell under the volcano mount Etna. If it is true that Zeus returned the Cyclops to mount Etna. I want to know who put it on the wikipedia pages. And how they got that information. What ancient writer says it. It is not written by Hesdoid. I cant spell his name. However I know for a fact that hesdiod did not write about it. Neither did the guy who wrote the play about Apollo killing the Cyclops for Zeus killing his son Asclepius. He was a slave to a king for one year. I know that. I also know how ever. I cant spell his name. I'm not going to try. I will just say. I know the play says nothing about Zeus returning the Cyclops from Hades. because I read it. So what writer wrote about Zeus returning the Cyclops from Hades. Because none of the writer's on the Cyclops page. Said anything about it. Who wrote the Cyclops page and the Asclepius page. Sorry about this question being long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Revision history of Wikipedia's page Asclepius - this tells you who wrote it.
• Revision history of Wikipedia's page Cyclops - this tells you who wrote that.

How do you know that Hesiod did not write about these things?

Also, are you aware that Zeus, Apollo and the Cyclopes are fictional, or at best mythological? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The play you are referring to is Alcestis by Euripides, by the way (and you're right, it doesn't say that). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP is correct that Hesiod's Theogony contains nothing about the Cyclopes' being released from the underworld by Zeus. It does say that Zeus freed the Hekatonkheires from Tartarus and enlisted them in the fight against the Titans, but basically all Hesiod recounts about the Cyclopes is their parentage, names, and one-eyedness. Everything in Cyclops#Hesiod after the first three sentences is incorrect as an account of what's in the Theogony. Deor (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Me again Thankyou for your feedback. And by the way Demiurge1000. Thank you for helping me contact the writer's. My responce to your commet about Greek Mythology not being real. Doesn't madder. Greek Mythology madder's to me. I'm obessed with it. In the most crazy way. You can say I'm insane. Because I have OCD. I also have Bio polar. Greek Mythology is the most important thing in my life. I decided when I was a kid To put it first in life. Before everything else. Even people and my life. I have OCD really bad. It's a serious Illness. So accuse me for being weird. And insane. And obessed. I am a over emotional person no one can understand that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Is a Unitarian Universalist church a religious organization or an interfaith organization?

Definition of Religion: Religion is the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that generally involve a faith in a spiritual nature and a study of inherited ancestral traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to faith as well as to the larger shared systems of belief.

OK. This definitely does not match up to the Unitarian Universalist church, which seeks to include different religious traditions into its own. It originates from Christianity and Judaism, but allows members to have their own theological beliefs. At the same time, they refer to God as if they are monotheists, not polytheists. They claim themselves to be a religious organization, but I suspect they lie closer to interfaith organization or monotheistic interfaith organization. Seldom do they say "the gods"; rather, they would say "God loves all," as if they believe in one god. They lack a specific creed; rather, people of established religions can become a Unitarian Universalist. In that way, the group does not seem to be any different from the ecumenical Christian organization, Habitat for Humanity. So, what's with the "religious" label? What's so religious about the organization when there are no set of codified beliefs or shared creed or set of rituals that every member in the organization share? Do they call themselves "religious" in a sense like Confucianism, which is more of an ethical-philosophical belief system?

Just wondering.

75.185.79.52 (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

From my understanding, as one who would call themselves a Unitarian Universalist, God is all, is in all: in whom we live, move and have our being. The religion side is taking religious practices, rituals and beliefs from wherever they occur, examining them to see how they work and fit together, and whether they have any benefit to others on their spiritual paths. We meet together on a regular basis, but services tend to be - em, interesting and thought-provoking. If you're looking for the same ritual week after week go to an Anglican church! The idea is to support each other on our spiritual paths. We have atheists attend our services too. Personally I don't call myself "religious" because of the connotation of "ritual": I call myself "spiritual". The closest we get to a shared belief system is the Seven Principles, listed in the article I linked to. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Interesting insider's perspective. However, this brings up some concerns. If there are atheists in your church, how in the world are atheists going to be interested in participating in theology? Atheism is by definition the lack of belief in a god. If one does not believe in a god, then how can one "study" gods? Atheists can, however, study religion or sacred texts, which may or may not include gods. By the name "Unitarian", it implies that there is one god. By the name "Universalist", it implies that God is everywhere. See how this claim can easily be perceived as doctrine? If this is one of the doctrines of the church, then someone who is an atheist or polytheist will most likely disagree. They may agree with the humanitarian principles, but they will disagree that there is no god or that there are many gods. In addition, the Seven Principles are so humanistic that that it is inconceivable to think that other religions will disagree with them. What kind of religion in the world would promote cruelty and suffering? What kind of religion in the world would promote torture and killing? What kind of religion in the world would condone evil? Based on the points I have addressed, it seems that there really is nothing unique in Unitarian Universalism; it seems that it's leaning more towards interfaith, or a monotheistic interfaith group that welcomes people from different religious backgrounds and worships together as one. 20:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.79.52 (talk)

The "Universalist" started out as a counter-Calvinist position, in other words that everyone was "saved" by the death and resurrection Jesus Christ, as opposed to only a limited number of believers being saved. The notion that God is everywhere and in everything is called panentheism. "Unitarian" church started out as one of the first sects of Protestant Christianity: indeed the one I go to is over 400 years old. It started out as recognising that God is one being, rather than divided into three (Trinitarianism). The ethos of the modern religion is to promote this sort of discussion and to see where truth may lie. To this end we try and avoid the "you're wrong and you're going to hell" type of religious dialogue, which gets us nowhere. As to "what kind of religion in the world would promote torture and killing", see Thuggee. I wouldn't disagree with your analysis of the UU religion, but it has a history which is valued and recognised. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to be fair on the first point, I am a Christian who is a member of a Southern Baptist church, and I can say unambiguously that we want athiests in our Church. From a Christian perspective, that's kinda the entire point, per Matthew 28:18-20 and Acts 1:8. Again, just speaking for myself as an Evangelical Christian, we believe that our message is for the unbeliever as much, if not more than, for the believer. For any missionary religion, which seeks converts, reaching other with their message seems like it would be a goal, and I don't find it surprising that the UU faith would seek out athiests. Again, I am not a UU, so I don't want to speak for them, but I know as a Christian, I definately want athiests to attend my church. --Jayron32 22:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The quote is known as the "Great Commission", and reading straightforwardly, it's about baptizing people in the name of the father, son, and the holy spirit. I do not think Unitarian Universalist has an official creed, but rather "a diverse theology" where everyone chooses his or her own path to a monotheistic god or higher power. Unitarian Universalist tolerate other religious views and traditions and allow them in the church, because they see different theologies are personal pursuits to God. Christianity does not tolerate other views and traditions and allow them in the church, because it has a fixed creed that varies across denominations, but united in the belief of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, I think Christians expect members in their churches to believe in the same core beliefs as they do: that Jesus is the Christ, that Jesus died for their sins, that Jesus is their savior, that Jesus resurrected from the dead, etc. 23:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.79.52 (talk)

Yes, but as a Christian, how do you bring someone to those beliefs unless they are sitting in the Church getting the message? If Christians only worship with other Christians, and keep everyone else out, then it is a closed system. Of course, some Christian churches work that way, and some Christians work that way. But my personal theology doesn't read that as Christ's intention for his church. --Jayron32 01:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think we are on the same page. I am not talking about allowing or disallowing atheists to join a Christian church, which I think is what you are talking about. I am merely wondering in the original inquiry whether or not Unitarian Universalism would be considered a religious group versus an interfaith organization. In my opinion, it seems that the group leans more toward interfaith organization. Religion is a set of cultural beliefs that explains the world around a society or group of people in some way and may influence how to live one's life. It binds people together, because it is typically a single coherent worldview. Individuals may add their own intricacies, habits, personal lifestyle choices, but the underlying religion - which is a deep facet in those people's lives - connect the individuals together into one culture. Religion is not just about religious beliefs or rituals; it is a culture with a set of beliefs handed down from generation to generation and gives people a cultural identity. Therefore, people can be a "cultural Catholic" or "cultural Mormon" or "cultural Jew" or "cultural Muslim". Those types of people do not believe in the personal god of the religion, yet they identify with the human side or the cultural side. For Unitarian Universalism, there is a different situation: is it possible for one to be a "cultural Unitarian Universalist" or would that kind of person would simply be known as a "secular humanist"? In any case, Unitarian Universalism is a very strange "religion", simply due to its self-described "diverse theologies", in which individuals borrow concepts and rituals that mean to them from their native religions and put them in a new "religion". It seems as if these individuals tear away the original meaning of those rituals and place them in a new situation - a situation that simply uses the original rituals as a religious display rather than a deep religious meaning. Diversity and the acceptance of diversity are great, yet I think there is something lacking with something so diverse - unity. And since what unifies Unitarian Universalists together are really shared human values in many religions, it seems that it is more of an interfaith group with a leaning toward monotheism. I wonder how the monotheistic aspect work with the "diverse" aspect. What? Polytheists don't count? 00:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.79.52 (talk)

See 1 Corinthians 1:10 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 and Ephesians 4:5.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Colton Harris-Moore

How many years he has to serve in jail? I don't really understand how it works. There are the federal charge with 6.5 years and the state charge with 7 years. So he will end up getting 13.5 years in prison? Or will he end up getting 7 years total?184.97.225.6 (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

His article says, 'his federal sentence will be served jointly with state prison time'. I understand that to be 7 years in total. Dalliance (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And when did he start stealing things? I mean not when he was little. When he started to steal thing like cars, boats and airplane that eventually leads to his capture in 2010.184.97.225.6 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Most Evil

I like the TV show Most Evil, and I saw the episode Deadly Desires in which several serial killers are featured, and one of them is Westley Allan Dodd to whom they categorize as one of the most evil serial killers in history. Our own article on him agrees with that. Is that right to categorize someone as evil rather than sick or something like that? Nienk (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It might or might not be right, but I doubt it's encyclopedic. The refdesk is not really the place to suggest corrections to articles, though. You might deal with that article directly, or start a conversation on the Wikipedia:Village Pump if you think it's a more systematic problem --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I've looked at the article — it doesn't say he was "most evil", just that he "has been called" that, and that claim appears to be sourced. I'm not completely sure it belongs in the second sentence, and I'm also not sure it should just say he has been called evil without naming those that called him that in the same sentence, but it is not as bad a problem as would be an article that flat out called him evil itself. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? I don't think he is the most evil at all. He is evil hell yea but not the "most". I have heard and read way worse people than him, like killing more people, more evil ways of torture or killing...65.128.133.237 (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps... but what you or I think does not matter... what sources think, on the other hand, might (That depends on the source). Since apparently several sources have called him "most" evil, we at least need to examine who called him that... then we have to decide whether their opinion is worth mentioning in the article (See WP:UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to better understand where Wikipedia's sources come from.

When writing on History. The people that work for Wikipedia. Where do they get all their information on History. What can cause it to be incorrect. Why is their allways a disbute. About Wikipedia giving false information. I know they ofter change things. They correct mistakes. Ive also read that they have had false information about people in pages. That have sit out for years. I know its hard to give correct information about famous people. There's allways rumors about people. I like to know how the writer's who are working for Wikipedia for free. What is the system they use. To write their pages. On history can they ever give incorrect historic information. What is their editing system they use. And the people who edit articles. I know how that works they debate. I'm just making sure that Wikipedia on history is not ever a persons opion or mistake on memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles (the good ones, anyway) cite their sources. You can look up the reference for a particular fact for yourself to verify it. Mistakes can certainly happen, which is why we recommend anyone using Wikipedia for serious research check the sources themselves instead of relying on Wikipedia. --Tango (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Contributors get their information from reliable sources that have previously been published elsewhere and can be verified. Personal opinion and unsupported anecdotes are not acceptable, and may be removed on sight. Disagreements over wording, use of reliably sourced information, or controversial topics, are dealt with by discussion. The blue links will take you to certain key policies that direct the work of the volunteers. - Karenjc 22:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is edited by thousands and thousands of people: some of them are careful and conscientious about getting solid references. Some of them mean well, but do not understand about reliable sources. Some of them are vandals. --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS for the standards for sourcing for history articles. Like most standards, they are regularly neglected in production environments. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Wikipedia, the vast majority of qualified historians with unlimited access to public libraries and typically own an extensive personal library prefer to get paid for their time-consuming work, therefore Wikipedia must needs make do with us stumbling, bumbling amateurs and plebs who have to hunt down sources on the Internet.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There are also world experts in various fields who like to give some of their time gratis, and with their true identities concealed, as a form of public service. For some, it's a kind of magnificent obsession. Modesty prevents me from naming myself as the prime example of these noble, inspirational and, most importantly, self-effacing contributors. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Race/Ethnicity/Religion in Historical National Censuses

Which (national) censuses were the first to record race, ethnicity, and/or religion? I know that the U.S. recorded data/info about race since its very first census in 1790, and likewise Russia for ethnicity since 1897. What about other countries, though? Futurist110 (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the table in Census in the United Kingdom, a question on "ethnic group" wasn't added until 1991, so I think we can safely say the UK wasn't the first. --Tango (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this info. I'm actually very surprised that it took the U.K. until the closing of the Cold War to add an ethnicity category to its census. Futurist110 (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. census is forbidden from asking about a person's religion. AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I knew that, but why? Also, I was asking about at least one of the three things that I mentioned, not necessarily all three combined. Futurist110 (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. government has an uneasy relationship with religion owing to the clauses on religion in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. While asking an open-ended question on a census would likely be OK, many govenrment organizations and functions tend to take the most restrictive approach, which is to ignore religion altogether, that way they stand no chance of being accused of violating constitutional rights. --Jayron32 02:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Well, at least the U.S. still keeps collecting data on race, which is very useful and interesting for demographic purposes. Futurist110 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It says on the Argentine Jews and German census of 1895 Wikipedia articles that some ethnicities (Jews in Argentina, Germans and Poles in Germany) and/or religions (Catholics and Protestants in Germany) were counted in those countries in the censuses in 1895 there. Futurist110 (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the answer would be much older than previous suggestions. I don't know if race/religion was included in the censuses organised by the Roman Empire, China's Han Dynasty, Ancient Egypt etc, but it was definitely relevant to the Rashidun Caliphate, who had different laws and taxation for muslims and non-muslims. According to Michael the Syrian, the purpose of the census was specifically to introduce a poll tax on Christians (he's biased, of course, but presumably this was at least part of the reason). 59.108.42.46 (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's called jizya, and since it's a sort of religious discrimination mandated in the Qur'an, I fail to see how a Christian reporting its existence amounts to "bias". Unless you consider complaining about being taxed, rather than murdered outright, a form of bias? μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Biased in the sense of giving an exaggerated importance to Christians, rather than being a general survey of the taxable population which Christians were just a part of. 220.231.34.3 (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a question, though--did the various Muslim empires take censuses by person, or by household? I'm only talking and asking about censuses by person here. Futurist110 (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Article 1, Sec. 2 of the US Constitution requires a census every 10 years, with the first being held in 1790. As each state’s number of congressional representatives is determined by population (“the number of whole free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, [and] three fifths of all other persons”), the need for a periodic census was evident. The subsequent law (March 1, 1790) directed that the names of the heads of families be recorded, the number of white males sixteen and older, the number of white males under sixteen, the number of white females, the number of all other free persons, and the number of slaves. Slaves were first identified by name in the US census of 1850.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but I knew that, as evidenced by my first comment in this thread. Futurist110 (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. census only began recording individual names in 1850. Before that only the head of family's name was recorded and data on other family members (so by household, not individual). 75.41.109.190 (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but the total population count before 1850 was by individuals, not by households. Futurist110 (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember something about Jesus, and Herod, and a census, and his father Joseph's ancestral hometown? Was that in the 1830's?μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

But did that census ask about race and/or religion? If we're just looking for the earliest census, there are plenty of pre-Roman examples 220.231.34.3 (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I only want the first censuses that asked for ethnicity, race, and/or religion and which calculated the total number of people rather than merely the total number of households. Futurist110 (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is there were tribal implications in the idea that people had to return to their hometown for that census. My understanding is that its existence is dubious historically, but the fact that it was described matter-of-factly implies that sort of thing wasn't unheard of. The OP has expressed his desire for a modern interpretation of race, etc., and he is entitled to ask the question he wants to ask. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You do realise the person you're replying to is the OP, don't you, Medeis? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep--I'm the OP. Futurist110 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Release Date of Newest U.S. Population Projections?

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natproj.html

• Based on the above website, it appears that the U.S. Census Bureau releases new population projections every election year. My question is if anyone knows the timing for the release of this year's new U.S. Census population projections? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)