Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 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.

March 26

US states: crime rate vs. incarceration rate

Does anyone know where I might find a breakdown of crime rate vs. incarceration rate for various US states over time? - Jmabel | Talk 01:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You'd probably find the relevant tables at Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics or in the sources for those tables.Smallman12q (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure the raw statistics are there, but I'm frankly not interested in taking tons of time to crunch them. What I'm hoping for (and it may not exist) is state-by-state charts graphing for each state over roughly the last 40 years incarceration rates vs. crime rates. My guess is that there is far more correlation of crime rates across states than of incarceration rates vs. crime rates in any given state, and that incarceration rates approach being an uncorrelated variable. Someone must have crunched these numbers; I'm just wondering as a non-expert layman. It's not something I want to put a lot of time into, just something I'd like to see if someone has done it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bach, Mozart, Beethoven

Are there any books which tell the biography and "shortly" describes the work of these and other German masters of music. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Try the young adults section of your local library, there are lots of books like that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(ECx2)Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven weren't young adults all of their lives, PG. I'd suggest the music section of the library. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if you were making a joke, but the reason the "young adult" section was suggested is that books written for young adults are likely to be more concise and less detailed than those written for older adults, and, of course, the library section called "young adults" consists of books written for young adults, rather than books written about them.- Nunh-huh 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was actually a joke, but thinking about it now, I have never seen a 'young adults' section in a library. An 'adult' in the UK is defined as someone aged 18 or over. When does one stop being a young adult? In my local library, there are two main areas: one for adults (12 years and over) and one for children (under 12). All books for teenagers are mixed in with the books meant for adults. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Young-adult fiction implies maybe never. Rmhermen (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Groves Dictionary of Music has such articles. It's a multi-volume work and a library may have a copy. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

For major composers such as the ones the OP asked about, that esteemed publication well and truly fails the "shortly" test. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

AS I am from India libraries do not usually have books relating to Western Classical Music but instead have books catering to Hindustani Classical Music. And I am not searching for any Encyclopedia of Music but only short biographies of the best composers like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and maybe a "few" others. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Random pick from Amazon: The Lives Of The Great Composers by Harold C. Schonberg - covers 40 or so Western classical composers from Monteverdi to Messiaen, each biography is 10-20 pages. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this is me being obtuse, but I still don't get whether you want more or less detail than our articles provide. Or do you need the works on paper? Henry^Flower 15:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Simple English Wikipedia articles on the composers are shorter than Wikipedia's articles. You could start with List of classical music composers by era. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Music (2002 edition, by Alison Lantham) has good short biographies of these composers. I believe the content can be previewed at www.oxfordmusiconline.com, if you don't have subscriber access through a library. This is the location of the article on Johann Sebastian Bach, this for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Beethoven. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What, no full name for poor old Ludwig van? How irreverent! -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Our articles on these men are quite good. Does Solomon want more information than they provide? If so he'll not want a juvenile book. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Outlawed international postal services

According to the Israel Postal Company, there is no reciprocal postal service between Israel and the following 16 countries: Abu Dhabi, Algeria, Bahrain, Dubai, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. How might I find out whether any of these countries proscribe other countries besides Israel? --Deborahjay (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Although the Universal Postal Union isn't what it once was, they might be a good source, if you shot them an email.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

England and Wales Employment law written as from mate to mate

I have a bit of time on my hands and was thinking of doing a bit of reading on English Employement law. I could read the actual laws, from the government websites, but that is a horrible read. I could read a University law school manual/textbook or some government text expalining "your rights", but it doesn't make for as nice a reading time as what I am hoping for.

Are you guys aware of any books or websites that explain law in a manner that is a lot more like if a friend was explaning it to me and how the industrial- (or are they called employment- ?) courts operate? An explanation that would be using straight English words, no non-sense, no latin concepts or rubbish like this. I don't mind if it is properly referenced, as long as it is in the margin and doesn't interfere with the reading. Jurisdiction is England and Wales employment law. --Lgriot (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The ACAS website, while it's not quite written in matey language, is nevertheless written in Plain English and you should be able to find what you're looking for. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am hoping that there is more advanced information somewhere, I didn't find what I read on ACAS web-site very helpful, it is full of very obvious stuff, like "you can't discriminate" and "you should have a written contract". I was more interested in how borderline cases are handled by the courts, what the courts think about cases where "it is not clear that it was discrimination, and lack of promotion was due to lack of competence, not due to discrimination". How do court define competence to agree with an employer on tricky cases like this? Or an other example, what defines your compensation, if you had a "bonus" for 3 years, is your employer allowed not to give you one on the fourth year? What do the courts think of that? If anyone came accross this sort of advanced discussions, I'd be very interested. --Lgriot (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case you may find this site useful. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tammy, this looks promissing. --Lgriot (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Jacksonville and Buffalo, USA ethnic groups

Is there a website where it shows how many Arabs, Bangladeshis, Africans and other ethnic groups live in Buffalo and Jacksonville, individually and separately? Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

I think we went over this before, you can use www.census.gov to do this. Instructions were left on how to do that to find the exact information you want. Gimme a second and I'll search for that prior discussion and see if I can find it for you. And when I do, please make a note of it/write it down/bookmark it... --Jayron32 15:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion here gives instructions on how to use the "factfinder" section of the census.gov website. If you play around with the various functions, you should be able to answer your exact questions. If you have specific questions on how to use that service, let us know, and I'll play around with it and see if I can figure out how to do what you need it to do. But try it out yourself first, it is quite a powerful tool, and it generally can answer any of these questions you often have about ethnicity and various U.S. locales. --Jayron32 15:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Slavery in ancient Greece

I read through the article Slavery in ancient Greece, but one thing left me puzzled. Were the slaves mostly male, or female, or equally of both genders? There is a section that says in famous epics, slaves were mostly female - men were either ransomed or killed on the spot. But from the sections about how slavery in ancient Greece really worked, I couldn't fathom out favouring either gender. All I could find out was that men were favoured for combat and dangerous work and women were favoured for domestic work. JIP | Talk 19:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a specific source to point you to for this, but keep in mind that accounts from antiquity are frequently distorted by exaggeration. I took a class in college where we read accounts of Mesopotamian kings boasting about how they utterly destroyed the property and people of their enemies, when in reality much of both were probably assimilated instead. To some extent, this is true about modern warfare as well. You don't just destroy a building when you could use it for your own purposes. And in the ancient world, the distinction between physical property and people, taken as slaves, doesn't much matter. If anything, I would guess that the slaves tended to be more male. If one city-state defeated another at a point in between, there would be many (male) soldiers to be taken as slaves, whereas obtaining significant numbers of female slaves probably meant going to another city-state and conquering. Statistics are naturally hard to come by when it comes to such eras, but I hope some of these general observations are helpful. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So one city-state defeating another in combat would yield lots of male slaves, but one would have to go to conquer yet another city-state to get female slaves? What's the logic behind that? Why would one city-state yield male slaves and another female slaves? JIP | Talk 18:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What BDD meant was that defeating another city-state in a pitched battle would get you exclusively male slaves, whereas to get female slaves, you'd have to actually besiege the other city-state. But I concur with JIP -- in ancient times, sieges were more common than pitched battles (back then, armies were so small -- even a large army would be no bigger than a modern division or corps -- and the front they held was so narrow due to lack of firearms, that they could often avoid pitched battles simply by maneuvering around each other), and furthermore, when a city was taken after a siege, it was standard operating procedure to sell all the women into slavery but kill all the men on the spot (precisely to DISCOURAGE sieges, and to encourage pitched battles instead). So with that in mind, the slaves would tend to be more female. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hajj outside Mecca?

I'm copy editing an article Madina Mosque (in India), which indicates it was constructed with soil from Mecca so poor Muslims could complete the hajj there. This doesn't really count as a full hajj, does it? Is this permitted only if a Muslim can't make the real pilgrimage to Mecca? --BDD (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's not to Mecca, then it would be a ziyara, not a hajj. Some stricter Muslims are highly opposed to practices which would seem to elevate any other sites to a level of Islamic significance comparable to Mecca or Medina, but I have no idea what traditional views were in British India... AnonMoos (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

India: A Sacred Geography (written by a Westerner) says that it is common in India for holy sites to be linked to more famous holy sites and to receive sanctity by association - so, for example, there are many river sources called "Mouth of the Ganga" even though they are the source of another river. Sometimes this is done by bringing Ganga water there, sometimes the Ganga is just said to flow symbolically in that place. So bringing soil from Mecca to another place and thereby making that place holy by association fits very well into the Indian pilgrimage tradition. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking communion at different churches?

I understand that an individual can't participate in communion of a different church, but what happens if that individual decides to actually become a member of that church in order to participate in communion? Can an individual choose a random neighborhood church, become a member of that church, become baptized at that church and partake in communion, and then jump to another neighborhood church, become baptized in that church, become a member of that church and partake in communion of that church? Would the church membership of the person only be whatever that person is last affiliated with? In other words, the previous church memberships don't count, because the most recent church membership disqualifies the individual from church membership of the previous churches? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, there. Your initial assumption (the first sentence) isn't right, at least not in all cases. See Eucharist#Open and closed communion for details. Some churches will allow only their members, some allow all Christians, and some allow anyone, at least in practice. The individual you refer to probably wouldn't have to go through such trouble. Just about every church I've ever been to has allowed everyone to participate in communion, in practice. Caveat: I've never been to a Catholic church, and don't recall the process at the Orthodox church I briefly attended. --BDD (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"Most churches in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States, also practice their own form of open communion, provided those who receive are baptized and believe in the Real Presence." How strong does the belief have to be? How does an individual prove that he/she believe in it? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've never seen a church challenge the beliefs or credentials of someone taking communion. I suppose it's a bit of an honor system. I'm trying to imagine communion in a church that restricts the practice to Christians, or to its own members, where, say, someone in a Sikh turban tries to participate. The most appropriate response would probably be a member of the clergy discreetly pulling that individual aside and clarifying the church's practice. Since doing anything, really, risks offending the person, I can't imagine such practices would be very common. --BDD (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Would it be correct to say that the Christian denominations are mutually exclusive? In other words, an individual may be a member of one or the other, but not both? A Christian may participate in communion in a different church, of which he is not a member, but is still not considered affiliated with that particular church unless he gives up his beliefs and interpretative traditions from his own church in exchange for beliefs and interpretative traditions at the new church? In other words, an individual cannot be Lutheran, Anglican, and Roman Catholic at the same time? If that is the case, then would it make sense that when Christians perform evangelism and missionary work, they are really trying to convert the non-Christian to their own denomination of Christianity, expecting that the unbaptized would become baptized in their church? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your first assumption is incorrect for many churches. The Methodist Church does not require membership or baptism in order for someone to take communion. It would be perfectly acceptable, from a Methodist's perspective, for a Catholic to take communion at a Methodist church; however, most Catholics choose not to for their own reasons. When I, as a Methodist, go to a Catholic church, I am not allowed to take communion. In regards to a portion of the second part of your question, I am unaware of whether Baptists require you to be a member in order to take communion, but I can tell you that they require you to be baptised as a Baptist in order to become a member. Someone raised Methodist, who still follows its beliefs, would refuse to be baptised a second time as a Baptist (assuming they had been baptised as a child) because Methodists believe you can only be baptised once. Ryan Vesey 23:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Baptist churches practice open communion. Any believer is allowed to partake if they wish. --Jayron32 01:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Wine and bread or water and bread? Individual cups or the same communion cup? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you are specifically asking about baptist churches, it appears that grape juice is used in the majority [1] some of the comments related to that article imply that they use individual cups. Ryan Vesey 02:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What? Christians are divided on what to use during the Eucharist? I suppose this may be why some people identify themselves as members of a particular denomination rather than "Christian". The term "Christian" to them is too vague or broad to be meaningful, especially if a given society is predominantly Christian. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct, Catholic churches give a wafer and wine from a single cup, many Catholics participate in communion without taking the wine. Methodist churches tend to use leavened bread and they use grape juice (The Free Methodist Church goes as far as banning its adherents from ever drinking alcohol). In the majority of instances, I've seen the church use individual cups, but on some occassions the bread will be dipped into the grape juice so they are both taken together. Many churches, particularly nondenominational ones, will serve both grape juice and wine in their communion. Ryan Vesey 03:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That being said, while most Christians identify with a denomination, they usually identify themselves as Christian over their denomination. This is even true with many Catholics. Also, in regards to your question above about missionary work, it isn't really that simple. The majority of evangelism is performed with the ultimate goal of bringing new adherents to the "Christian Church". Evangelists tend to have their own beliefs and will witness with that slant, but will be happy with a conversion to any denomination of Christianity. Still, there are numerous conversion attempts, even within Christianity. Interdenominational marriages usually result in some type of arguments over which denomination the children should be raised in. Catholic Churches require a couple to agree to raise their children in the Catholic faith (not the general Christian faith) in order to be married in that church. Ryan Vesey 03:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What happens if an individual just falls in love with the worship service and Bible studies, becoming inspired by the spiritual wisdom and deciding to follow Jesus Christ? Does that still count as successful evangelism, even if there is no professional evangelist present? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Conversion doesn't require anyone present. It's a private matter between you and God. --Jayron32 03:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, the only "professional evangelists" who have any stake in the process of the conversion are the Peter Popoff's of the world. Ryan Vesey 03:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The only communion I ever took in a Baptist church was grape juice dispensed in individual cups, along with a wafer. Several years ago I attended a Requiem Mass at a Catholic Church, where the Eucharist was dispensed as the Host only (which I think is somewhat common). I've never been baptized, confirmed, or anything else in a Catholic Church, so I'm fairly certain my taking the communion was technically not allowed, though I didn't know for certain at the time. No one checked my credentials or asked for my papers. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, to clarify on that "not allowed", the Catholic Church (like the Orthodox Churches) takes Communion very seriously, and considers it to be the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ himself. They believe that receiving it "unworthily" is not only disrespectful to God, but also dangerous to your own soul. Catholics who receive Communion are not only supposed to have been prepared and educated about it before their first time (hence the deal with "first Holy Communion"), but are also supposed to make sure that they are not in a state of sin before receiving (through the use of acts of contrition and the Sacrament of Reconciliation), and to fast for at least an hour. It's not so much that you were "not allowed" (as you noticed, nobody stopped you), but that doing so is disrespectful to God and dangerous to yourself (both, of course, from a Catholic point of view). As neither a Catholic nor Orthodox Christian, there is simply no way (from a Catholic point of view) you could properly prepare yourself to receive, and you didn't even know you needed to. Of course, if you "accidentally" received (as it were) out of ignorance, that's no sin on your part from a Catholic perspective. But it's still a sad thing to happen. 86.164.59.34 (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is all my personal experience but I believe it exemplifies the situation well. I was baptised as an infant into the Church of England, but was never confirmed. Technically I shouldn't receive Holy Communion in a C of E church because of this, but I do. Nobody has ever checked. However, I was baptised as an adult in an Evangelical church. In the Pentecostal churches I've taken communion in, it has taken the form of a small glass of Ribena and a cube of white bread. I wouldn't dream of taking Mass in a Roman Catholic church. When I worked in a hospice, the Chaplaincy held communion services which I used to attend and Holy Communion was given to anyone who wanted it. The only people who used to decline were Roman Catholics or other members of sects, it seemed that most people who went to the weekly service went in for the full deal. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating in part what others have said above:

• Most churches regard one another's baptisms as valid, and regard it as unnecessary and ineffective to rebaptise people. The exceptions to this are that (i) Baptist churches tend to require 'believers' baptism', and will rebaptise someone who has only previously received infant baptism; other churches recognise the Baptists' baptisms as valid, even if they dispute the Baptists' characterisation of infant baptism as invalid; (ii) there are a small number of so-called 'Jesus only' churches who do not baptise in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Their baptisms are not regarded as valid by most other churches, who use the Trinitarian formula, along with the use of water, as the sine qua non of baptism.
• Some churches have additional qualifications for admission to communion. In the Roman Catholic church, this is simply 'first Commuunion', which has no sacramental difference from other communion. In many Anglican churches, the sacrament of Confirmation used to be required, but some have now moved to match Roman Catholic practice.
• Some churches are in defined states of open communion with one another. For example, the wider Catholic church composed of the Roman Catholic church, the Greek Catholic churches, the Maronite Catholic church and so on; the Anglican Communion; and the Porvoo Communion, which links the Church of England with about a dozen Protestant churches in the Baltic region, such as the Church of Sweden. These are not necessarily transitive - the Church of England's participation in the Anglican Communion and the Porvoo Communion does not automatically put the Anglican Church in Australia in communion with the Church of Sweden. These relationships go beyond the sacrament of Communion; they often entail mutual recognition of clergy and bishops, so that Swedish bishops co-consecrate Anglican ones, and a Welsh bishop was able to become head of the Church of England.
• The existence of formal intercommunion does not inhibit individual churches or congregations from operating open altar policies, although church policy may - as, for example, in the case of the Catholic Mass. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• As a side remark, the Catholic church does technically respect the baptisms of other churches. But converts like my elderly Grandfather who had been baptized as a Lutheran as a baby are given provisional baptisms since there may not be access to the records or a way to guarantee the first baptism was actually properly done. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)