Humanities desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

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.

November 16

Republic VS Democracy

I was just wondering if this is correct Republic is a form of goverment where the people elect someone to make choices for them Democracy is a form of goverment where everyone votes and their voice is equal and if something wins by 1 vote it passes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamewall2 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a super-simplistic way of looking at it. Better to have a good read of Republic and Democracy, and come back if you have more questions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "super-simplistic", it's dead wrong. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of what I was getting at. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) No, there don't refer to the same thing and are therefore not mutually exclusive. A country can be a republic but not a democracy, a democracy but not a republic, both or neither. Refer to this famous table (courtesy of Mwalcoff) for example:

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Germany, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Brunei

(I took the liberty of replacing Italy with Germany not to send any message but avoid any possibility of unneeded debates)

Nil Einne (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the search archives function at the top of this page republic ve democracy has been beaten to death here multiple times and recently. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that both terms have a fairly wide spectrum of meaning, many of which do indeed overlap. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last part of the question is also incorrect. Simple majority is not the only voting system in use in democracies and there is probably no system where literally everyone can vote. Suffrage or franchise (right to vote) may be limited or denied by age, nationality, place of residence, criminal record, sex, class, income, property ownership, occupation or other factors. Rmhermen (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most Partisan U.S. Counties

Which U.S. counties were the most pro-Romney and pro-Obama in 2012? For Romney, I got King County, Texas, with 96% voting for Romney. I'm unsure about the Obama info. Also, has any U.S. county ever beaten King County's partisan record? What about only after World War II? Futurist110 (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to that article, he got 95.9%. Going through election result pages on http://uselectionatlas.org, it looks like the most recent election where any county was more partisan than that was 1964, when 5 Mississippi counties gave over 96% of their vote to Barry Goldwater, led by Holmes County, Mississippi and Noxubee County, Mississippi at 96.59% each. In 1956, Adlai Stevenson II won 96.07% of the vote in Baker County, Georgia. In 1948, Harry S. Truman won 96.52% of the vote in Duval County, Texas and 96.45% in Greene County, North Carolina (and 95.85% in King County, so it has a long history of partisanship!). It looks like those are the only counties to beat out King County's 2012 performance since World War II though, with the two Mississippi counties from 1964 narrowly winning out as most partisan. Going back further, candidates have at times won 100% of counties, most recently in 1944 when FDR won 100% of Armstrong County, South Dakota. -Elmer Clark (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And their 2012 page indicates that Shannon County, South Dakota was the most pro-Obama county at 93.35% (less bewildering when you find it is located entirely within the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation). Number two though was (the obviously much, much larger) Bronx County, New York at 91.25%. King County was indeed #1 for Romney, with Madison County, Idaho #2 at 93.29%. -Elmer Clark (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

96% is 95.9% when rounded. Thank you very much for all of these links. I did not notice some of them before and they are all extremely useful. Is there any way to get exact county data for U.S. elections before 2000 (including for President) for free? Futurist110 (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The District of Columbia is divided into wards, which are still more populous than most of the counties where these high percentages are seen. In ward 8, he took 99% of the vote, in 2008. The 2012 ward results don't seem to have been released, yet. Warofdreams talk 14:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to nominate someone for the Order of Canada?

Thank you. Kenkentucky (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow these instructions. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Succession of Monaco in 1919

Prior to 1919 when Princess Charlotte, Duchess of Valentinois was adopted and became second in line to the throne after her father Hereditary Prince Louis, who were in the line of succession after the descendants of Princess Florestine of Monaco. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, they were followed by the descendants of Princess Marie Camille of Monaco, the only child of Prince Joseph of Monaco to have children. Her son left no issue, but her daughter's grandson (Leonor Alfred Aynard Fortune Guigues de Moreton de Chabrillan, Marquis de Chabrillan) was very much alive in 1919 and was very French, for that matter. By 1919, he had already had a son and two daughters. The son died childless six years later. His only living descendants are French nobles descended from his elder daughter.[1] Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that Chabrillan's younger daughter was the last in the line at the time, as Chabrillan and his children were the only living descendants of Prince Joseph. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human sexual behavior:

I have a couple of questions concerning human sexuality, asking them out of curiosity:

At what age do American women typically begin engaging in sexual intercourse or become sexually mature or active?
At what age do American men typically begin engaging in sexual intercourse or become sexually mature or active?
At what age do American men and women begin using contraceptives?
How do the above questions relate to foreign counterparts, such as people from Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, Central America, and South America?
What is the most popular contraceptive method or device used in the United States? In other places? Among different age categories?
Is sexual abstinence really the least favorable choice for Americans?

Hope you can answer my questions, thank you very much. 140.254.227.140 (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions would imply a huge effort trying to find the right statistics. The last one is kind of asking for opinions. If you want to read about sexuality in America check [[2]], maybe you find the exact numbers that you want. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the OP meant "favoured" rather than "favourable", which would make it a statistical question. Marnanel (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that when someone becomes sexually active and when they become sexually mature is not the same. They can become sexually active before, after, or not at all. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The prevalence section of our article on virginity is a good place to start. --Daniel 21:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Alister Macdonald portrait of Teuruarii IV

How do I find anything about a portrait of the King Teuruarii IV painted by Scottish artist William Alister Macdonald in 1925? I found it mentioned in here ("Macdonald's pictures included a portrait, done in 1925, of le roi de Rurutu (the last king of Rurutu), whose grandson, now married to an..."), but I highly doubt the magazine has the portrait illustrated. PS: this is not a question that simple searching can solve.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-practicing Muslim or whatever"

How does a person become a non-practicing Muslim or non-practicing ___________? Perhaps, a person may travel to a country or place dominated by Muslims, and to blend in with the locals, the non-Muslim person may declare that he is a "Muslim" and don on special Muslim garments and pray in a mosque with other Muslims. Likewise, a person may travel to a country or place dominated by Christians, and to blend in with the locals, the non-Christian person may declare that he is a "Christian", just so he can step inside the cathedral or church or whatever, since the church officials may only allow baptized individuals to enter the church. The non-Christian may ask for a baptism and be baptized in the baptistry, which would be a separate building, before ever entering the actual church. Sort of. 140.254.227.140 (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no Christian church will turn anyone away, regardless of professed religion. It may prohibit non-baptised people from participating in certain rituals, but "whosoever will may come" to any church. The phrase "non-practicing" usually refers to someone who used to be one once: maybe they were baptised as an infant but are Christian only by culture, or maybe they were born into a particular religion but choose not to practice that religion later in life. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many people who have zero practical association with any church, still answer "Christian" or "Methodist" or "Presbyterian" or whatever on a census form or a hospital admission form or similar, because that faith is what their parents professed and what they were raised as members of. Even if they now honour the faith totally in the breach and never in the observance, there's still that emotional tie that comes out on certain occasions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain cultural connections to religion. Religion does not exist in a vacuum, and there are cultural, social etc. connections that a person may have to the religion without being a believer or practitioner. Millions of people still "celebrate" Christmas without being "practicing" Christians (whatever that may mean). Also, I don't know of many Christian denominations that refuse entry to non-Believers, excepting perhaps Mormons. Almost every other widely practiced Christian denomination readily allows anyone to attend any public worship service they hold, though some may place restrictions on certain levels of participation (such as receiving Holy Communion, or holding lay offices within the church governance) to registered church members. The vast majority of Christian churches are quite open to anyone attending. Indeed, I've never been in a Christian church for the first time and had anyone ask to see my credentials or demand proof of my beliefs. If I am noticed as a stranger (and I am not always), then people will, at the best, greet me with a polite hello, introduce themselves, and sometimes invite me to a Sunday School class or bible study. But there is never any attempt to exclude me or make me prove myself merely for being in the building. --Jayron32 21:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor nitpick with Jayron, services of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) are open to everyone. The only thing closed to non-members are the LDS temples. As for being a Non-practicing Muslim or Christian or whatever. As was said above, it means you have a cultural connection to the faith or adhere to certain practices or parts of the faith without following many or all of the tenets of the faith.Tobyc75 (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tobyc75... perhaps I am missing something... but how can the services be open to everyone if non-members can not go into the temple to attend the service? Blueboar (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most typical LDS services are not held in the Temple. They are generally held in Meeting houses, which don't have the same restrictions as temples. Mingmingla (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Normal weekly services are held at meeting houses which are open to all.Tobyc75 (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would say that you can be non-practicing but still fully beleive in the principles of a particular faith, you just don't attend public worship. Alansplodge (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, see Temple (LDS Church). Basically, temples are places for certain special events (e.g. weddings, baptisms) in which non-members wouldn't participate anyway; the issue is that non-members can't witness these events, while monotheist churches typically permit nonmembers to be present in their church buildings for those events. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply... ~~so where do other LDS services occur?~~ (sorry, I see now that this has been already answered.) Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I belong to this "non-practicing" category and in fact this has happened very recently so good thing you ask this question. A big group of non-practicing whatever comes from being born in a religious household (and mentioned above) and then changing later in life. Islam for example, one might be born in a Muslim house, be given a Muslim name, and he is brought up and raised as a Muslim. His parents take him (since the child has no choice) to the mosque all the time and he learns Arabic and reads/studies the Koran. But then over time as he grows up, he moves further and further away from religion. By adulthood, he may rarely read the Koran or pray but he may still do things like celebrate Eid and stay away from pork or alcohol. What has happened is that this person is not a practicing Muslim because he doesn't really practice Islam but he does follow some tenets not because he is afraid of burning in Hell but rather he's been brought up with them and he's comfortable with them and they are just so deep-rooted in his psyche. He's become something called a "cultural Muslim" where he celebrated Eid every year with his family but he may not fast. He may like dates and sweets because that is the tradition but he doesn't pray five times a day or go for Hajj his whole life.

Here in America there are so many people I know who are cultural Christians and Jews who have never since being five year old have set foot inside a Church or a Synagogue but every year they celebrate Christmas and Rosh Hashannah because we are all such social creatures and our families, friends, and others around us are doing so. In Islam and Judaism eating pork for example is just really really looked down upon so a person born Jewish, even if he becomes a complete atheist might still not eat pork. I know plenty of people like that. They are okay with mixing dairy with meat but they'll never give up Challah and they will not eat pork no matter what. I know a guy who told me that his mother (still a devout Jew) gave him an ultimatum that he can date/have relationships with anyone BUT if he gets married and has kids, their mother needs to be Jewish and he intends to follow that restriction. I know Muslims who have had alcohol but they won't drink on a regular basis. Some won't even drink socially. They just had some to try and see what it was like. They have never had pork and probably never will no matter what even though Islam dictates nothing in their life. By the way there are Muslims who consume alcohol/pork regularly. So pooling all of these people (including myself) when you ask them are you Muslim/Christian/Jewish. Well the term is so broad. Some will say I am Muslim/Christian/Jewish but then they will tell you right away that I am non-practicing. I am not devout, in fact I may not even follow/agree with some of the basic beliefs which by definition kicks you out of Islam/Christianity/Judaism but I don't eat pork, I don't drink, my parents are Muslim/Christian/Jewish, I born and raised in a Muslim/Christian/Jewish household and I was given (and still have) a Muslim/Christian/Jewish name. I celebrate the important holidays. Therefore I am a cultural Muslim/Christian/Jew. If you ask me and I must answer then I will call myself Muslim/Christian/Jew instead of atheist/agnostic even if I am closer to being an atheist/agnostic.

For most people, the answer will also depend on who is asking the question. Remember in such conservative societies social pressure is great. It may depend on a random guy on wikipedia asking me versus my mother asking me. It takes balls to stand up in the middle of a crowd of a thousand Muslims and declare that you formally renounce Islam. It depends on where I live, am I in Canada or in Saudi Arabia where the punishment for apostasy is death. It depends on if I still agree with the basic beliefs or not. It depends on whether you have accepted yourself that you are a non-practicing whatever. This is what took me the longest. My story is typical. Born and raised rather conservatively but had been moving away as I grew older. Then years later I realized that I have been non-practicing for so long and then I started questioning some of the core beliefs too. But I also realized that there are some habits which I can't let go no matter. My future family will probably be dictated by my birth-religion too so I am a non-practicing whatever. I am a cultural whatever.

As for the other category where people may declare themselves Muslims/Christians/Jews because of others around them, I haven't seen too much of that. I imagine that usually happens where it may be a matter of life or death like a Muslim mob killing a Jew in Iran. I have never known anyone personally doing that. Usually, if you are a Christian for example in a Muslim dominated country and everyone around you knows you then they are biased against you anyway so no point in pretending to be a Muslim. And even if you are a new stranger, Christians wouldn't pretend to be Muslims so that they can step inside a mosque or anything. You can go to a mosque anyway (the only exception I can think of is Mecca). Why would you really want to anyway? And even if you lied and got in, your mannerism would probably give you away. In fact, it can flip on you. It can be more dangerous if people think you are a Muslim and then they find out that you lied and you are a Christian. So even if it is just for curiosity, I have never had to lie to get into a place of worship. In fact, I would tell them specifically who I truly am and ask for help from a friend/priests/others visitors so that I NOT do anything offensive and observe propriety. If I am not welcome or are not wanted, then I don't think I would lie to get in there. Religion (and politics) are as far removed from logical/rational thinking as one can get and they both can upset people a lot VERY QUICKLY. In this case I think honesty is the best policy with the only exception (noted above) being your life in immediate danger.184.96.226.214 (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War

I read an earlier question on the American Civil War children and I want to ask why is it possible that now, more than 150 years after the war started, there are nearly 300 living children of Civil War veterans. Were they wished and desired men back in their old age? or what? Kenkentucky (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a young man were to flout the age requirement and fight at around the age of 14, for example, he could have had a child at the possible age of 70, a child of a veteran of the civil war could be 92 years of age. 99.156.168.30 (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above scenario is approximately what happened in two cases: [3]. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A 90 year old veteran might marry a 17 year-old who becomes impregnated by a younger man while married to the veteran, or who was pregnant at the time of the marriage. This could be an act of charity on the part of a pensioned veteran, since the young wife and child would receive a pension in some jurisdictions. A disabled child might receive a pension for life. In some US states, a child born in a marriage is regarded as the child of the husband, unless he makes a legal issue of it. The child could be born 70 years after the war, and would reach age ninety 160 years after the war. Legitimacy (law) says " At common law there was a presumption of paternity that a married woman's child was that of the husband. However, that presumption could be questioned." Thus it takes a long time to determine the total cost of a war. Edison (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, because, as some people here said, one could be 14-20 when the Civil War ended and still fight in it. This would mean that this individual would have been born between 1844 and 1851. This individual could have a child at ages 60-90, or 40-76 years after the Civil War ended, which would mean that this child would be 70-107 right now. This is similar to Civil War widows (the last one of whom died several years ago, I think). A woman aged 15-25 could have been married to a Civil War veteran aged 60-90, and thus could have outlived him by several decades if she herself lived to a ripe old age. Futurist110 (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Over 100,000 boys younger than 15 enlisted in the Union Army, there were even 300 boys younger than 13."[4] Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who still thinks 300 is a little too high? IBE (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense that fewer boys of that age (preferably none at all) should have been involved? Or in the sense that the figure overstates the real situation? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two who have their own Wikipedia articles; John Clem and William Black. Clem finally retired from the US Army in 1916, and died in 1937; his son died in 1958.[5] Alansplodge (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable figure to me. It happened in World War II, where there was much better recordkeeping (e.g. 12-year-old Calvin Graham). ~~In fact, methinks I'll start Category:Underage soldiers.~~ Oops, we already have Category:Child soldiers. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two other Civil War examples are Willie Johnston (Medal of Honor) and Orion P. Howe, 11 and 12 respectively when they enlisted and both Medal of Honor recipients. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]