Humanities desk
< April 19	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 21 >

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

April 20

US Police Statistics

Was wondering what percentage of police in the US have a college degree. My google-fu is coming up empty. Thanks in advance!2601:8:B380:23E:999D:A0FF:D204:E0BA (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to This only 1% of U.S. police agencies require a 4-year degree. But that doesn't say how many officers actually have one. --Jayron 32 02:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has some really interesting statistics. I haven't read it thoroughly, but it may lead you interesting places. --Jayron 32 02:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Florida in 2006, 24% had bachelor's degrees, 16% had associate's degrees and the remaining 58% high school diplomas.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This thesis used data from a 1998 survey (p. 26) of 925 officers: about 24% had at least a bachelor's before being hired, and 31% had at least a bachelor's at the time of the survey (pp. 38-9). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that it won't be evenly distributed. That is, far fewer beat cops will have degrees, while higher level officers, and especially technical workers, will have much higher levels of education. How each department handles lab analysis will also make a big difference (if they send out samples for DNA analysis and such, versus doing that in-house.) StuRat (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union-Vietnam mutual defense treaty

Our article on the Sino-Vietnamese_War says that: "On November 3, 1978, the Soviet Union and Vietnam signed a twenty-five year mutual defense treaty..."

1. Where can I find the text of said treaty?

2. Why wasn't the treaty triggered when PRC later invaded Vietnam? Did the Soviet Union back out of its treaty obligations? WinterWall (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. This link appears to have the "official translation" of the treaty.

2. Looks like the Soviets did back out. Other link: "When Moscow did not intervene, Beijing publicly proclaimed that the USSR had broken its numerous promises to assist Vietnam." 2601:8:B380:23E:999D:A0FF:D204:E0BA (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The USSR did support Vietnam during the invasion by China. It supplied arms and ammunition, and had military advisers there. That was sufficient. Vietnam pushed China back. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Literature: Deliverance (novel)

After all these years that I first read this book, I still have difficulties with its title. I have my ideas - but what "Deliverance" is being referred to? GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 07:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deliverance from the appeal of the wild, perhaps? Akseli9 (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and the Antichrist

Was Hitler the Antichrist?

Johngot (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the existence or otherwise of the Antichrist is a matter of religious belief and doctrine, rather than verifiable fact, we clearly cannot answer the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only answer that can be given is that in Revelations, the Antichrist is supposed to reign for 1,000 years (which is not possible, given the human lifespan of 80-odd years). Hitler didn't, and he shot himself.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

09:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book of Revelations doesn't mention the word Antichrist at all, let alone that he would reign for 1000 years. The only explicit mention of Antichrist or anti-christs in the Bible are in first two the epistles of John. Some people may interpret the beast as a reference to this Antichrist, but that's not universally accepted, and this connection is not made anywhere in the Bible. - Lindert (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knew it was something like that. I gave up this stuff when I was 12 years old, and just preferred to play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay instead. Lots more interesting Gods in there, and you can even make your own.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

14:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was not a demon, an alien or some other type of otherworldly evil force, he was a human being like all of us. Nazism, as a political phenomenon, is so as well: it is not the result of some unnatural force of evil, but the result of a political doctrine taken to extremes. If the same context takes place elsewhere, and government and society react in a similar manner, something similar to nazism may arise again. Have in mind that if we ignore that fact, if we think that "someone else" completely unrelated to "us" started the Fuhrer, then we relieve ourselves from learning from that mistake, and risk commiting it again. Cambalachero (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hitler was a terrible military leader (although many of his generals and admirals were brilliant). His decisions to invade Poland (thus bringing war with England and France), then Russia, then declare war on the US, as well as his many numerous smaller military blunders, ensured the defeat of Nazi Germany. I would expect the Antichrist to at least be competent. The early military success of Nazi Germany was due to the vast industrial capacity of Germany, the brilliance of his generals, and the slowness of the allies to respond (due to Chamberlain in England, isolationism in the US, and the placement of Communist Party members over military professionals in the Soviet Union). StuRat (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One little nitpick: the last book in the bible is singular, Revelation, not Revelations. That may seem like no big deal, but it does have implications. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put this into perspective (and not for a second being any kind of Nazi apologist): the 21st anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide is currently being commemorated. "In a 100-day period from April 7, 1994, to mid-July, an estimated 500,000–1,000,000 Rwandans were killed". The usual figure given is c.800,000. That was in 100 days. Now, Hitler was in power for 12 years, in which time he destroyed more than 6 million lives. Had he murdered people at the same rate as occurred in Rwanda, he would have had 35 million lives on his head. Yet who remembers the name of the person in charge in Rwanda? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but then use the right perspective. The Nazis systematically killed about 6 million Jews, but another 5-6 million other victims, from gypsies to gays to political opponents. And WW2 in toto killed between 50 and 85 million (or so claims our article). So it's the same ballpark. On the other hand, the Rwandan Genocide killed about 20% of the population, the Khmer Rouge 25%. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that the Revelation of John does refer to someone as "the Anti-Christ," but that has been interpreted by some scholars as meaning that perhaps he is simply referring to the only "Anti-Christ" active at that time. The supporters of that position suggest that it may not have been initially intended as a title, as many have since taken it, but as a description which could be applied to any number of people, only one of whom appears in the Revelation of John. If that is true, and there may be any number of other "Anti-Christ"s who exist before the prophesied end, it is possible that Hitler could be counted as one of them. John Carter (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, that first statement is incorrect. At no point does John's Revelation refer to "(the) Anti-Christ". It's a term used only in the epistles of John. Your main point is still valid, though. - Lindert (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler did claim to expect the Third Reich to last 1,000 years...103.230.107.2 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Lewis is the Antichrist. Verifiable here. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Robert Van Kampen wrote that Hitler "best meets all requirements to be the Antichrist". But there's a whole list of fictional Antichrists. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does "half-cent sales tax" means?

What does "half-cent sales tax" means? For example, if a municipality in a state with a sales tax rate of 7.00%, but the voters approve a half-cent sales tax raise, what does it mean? WJetChao (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means an increase of half a cent on 1 dollar, or an increase of 0.5%. In your example it means the sales tax rate will be raised from 7.00% to 7.50%. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Properly speaking, if the rate changes from 5% to 5.5%, it has increased by 10% (the amount of tax increases by 10% of the old amount) or by 0.5 percentage points (the amount of tax increases by 0.5% of the price of the purchase). However, people sometime get careless and don't make that distinction, as in Sluzzelin's response. You can assume that a reference to a half-cent increase means half a percentage point). Note that the original phrase was about a half-cent raise (increase), not a half-cent tax as in the title. --65.94.49.82 (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might be confused because, on a bill totaling one dollar, you can't pay 7.5 cents tax. It would then be rounded to either 7 cents or 8 cents, depending on how the law is written. A $10 total would have 75 cents tax.

Tenth of a cent (thousandth of a dollar or "mill") taxes are common in land and real property (building) taxes. See millage. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal anywhere to express tax rates as just "cents"? It's obviously short for "cents per dollar" and is equivalent in value to a percentage, but still ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the standard terminology in the UK - politicians will talk about a "5p tax cut" when they mean 5%. See, for example, this BBC article. Tevildo (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the same, though, because the UK uses "pence" rather than "cents". --65.94.49.82 (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hold that truth to be self evident. It was more complicated before the UK changed to decimal currency in 1971; prior to that, a tax rise of "one penny in the pound" meant an increase of 1/240 or 0.416666666666667%. Alansplodge (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Word for "acorns turning to ducks"

I found this curious old Usenet post alluding to the existence of a word for "the process by which an acorn falls into the water and becomes a duck." However, what language this word is from is not known, and the last commenter seems to be sure the word exists but doesn't have a source or info. I assume this has something to do with the "barnacle goose" myth, although I haven't heard of acorns being involved in this folklore. Does anyone know what this word is, and what language it's from? (I would suspect Latin.) (P.S: I wasn't sure if I should post this here, on the Science Desk, or the Language Desk; I chose this desk because it seems to be the most active of the three. Is cross-posting alllowed?) 75.4.19.172 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that people used to think that horse hair transformed into baby eels,[2] which may be partly understandable since eel spawning has never been observed;[3] however, it defies belief that anybody could fail to notice that ducks lay eggs. Alansplodge (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that ducks lay eggs doesn't actually prevent one from believing that some ducks used to be acorns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right, I hadn't thought of that. Alansplodge (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, the barnacle geese breed in the far north, so nobody (in Europe) actually saw where they laid their eggs. 75.4.19.172 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be a metaphorical reference to Wood ducks, aka Acorn ducks due to their diet. Abecedare (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably from this post on creating Lojban compound words. I don't see any mythology refs. There is, of course, the AcornDuck pokemon/fakemon. --Mark viking (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. However John Cowan's posts were in response to Nicolas Knoth's original query on another usenet board, and so don't explain why anyone was looking for a word for "the process by which an acorn falls into the water and becomes a duck" in the first place. Maybe someone can email Knoth and find out. Could have been been simply dreamt up, or... Abecedare (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict-- I was adding the same link as Abecedare. So this word does predate the jocular Lojban coinage; I can see how such a definition would be irresistible to conlangers... Cute Pokemon, too, but I prefer Cactowl (and when I learned that there was a barnacle Pokemon in the newest gen, incidentally, I hoped it would evolve into a tree sprouting geese). 75.4.19.172 (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest artic expedition

I remember reading once about an artic expedition (for the north west passage?) of about 4+ ships and >300 men that resulted in everyone dieing.

Does anyone know the name of this expedition? I believe it was well before Franklin's lost expedition.Dacium (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Martin Frobisher's third try in 1578, with 15 ships and "almost 500 men"[4]. No large-scale deaths, however. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking Vitus Bering, not that large, but famously died on an Arctic expedition. Wikipedia has a List of Arctic expeditions which may help. --Jayron 32 00:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Northwest Passage expedition in which everybody died was John Franklin's lost expedition which left England in May 1845. There were two ships and 128 men, which became trapped in the ice that winter. No survivors were found alive despite numerous rescue expeditions, however the last survivors may have struggled on as late as 1858 according to Inuit testimony. Alansplodge (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]