Humanities desk
< November 3	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 5 >

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 4

Who is more Protestant in Switzerland, the French or Germans?

Calvin and Geneva were the center of the Swiss Reformation. And looking at the map of denominational divisions can comparing it to language demographics, it seems like the Western French part of Switzerland is the most strongly Protestant, while the central German part is more Catholic. It would be ironic, considering France and Germany, if Switzerland were a nation of French Protestants and German Catholics. But sometimes maps can be misleading. I googled but couldn't find linguistic-religious breakdowns.

Of the French or German speaking populations, which contains a higher percentage of Protestants? --Gary123 (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Statistical Office has as an Excel file listed here (titled "Ständige Wohnbevölkerung ab 15 Jahren nach Sprachregion und Religions- und Konfessionszugehörigkeit", can't link directly, or, rather, don't know how) giving the following figures:

1,664,730 Roman Catholics (34.6%) v 1,469,399 Evangelical Reformed (30.54%) (v 286,181 other Christian demoninations (5.95%) in the German-speaking regions

673,804 Roman Catholics (41.95%) v 272,438 Evangelical Reformed (16.96%) (v 88,356 other Christian denominations (5.50%)) in the French-speaking regions.

These figures are from 2013, and they apply to residents (not necessarily Swiss citizens) who are at least 15 years old (excluding people living in "collective households", diplomats, international functionaries, as well as their families).

I limited the reply to the categories you asked about. Further language regions are: "Italian-speaking" and "Romansh-speaking"; further religious categories are: "Jewish", "Muslim", "other religious groups", "unaffiliated with any religion" (the third-largest group), and "unknown". ---Sluzzelin talk 08:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for interpretation, there are a lot of factors at play (immigration during the last 50+ years from more Roman Catholic than Protestant countries, such as Italy and Portugal, intermigration within Switzerland, and let's not forget that especially Zwingli in Zurich, but also Oecolampadius in Basel etc were also important for the Reformation in Switzerland, not just Calvin in Geneva. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Reformation in the German speaking cantons (Zwingli, etc) actually started before the French part. The Reformed movement actually went from the German part of Switzerland to the French part, but in a roundabout way: from the German speaking Swiss cantons, then to Southern Germany, then to Alsace (Strasbourg), then to France and then back to French speaking Switzerland (Geneva, Lausanne and Neuchatel) brought by Frenchmen Jean Calvin and Guillaume Farel. The two branches ("Zwingli and friends" vs "Calvin and friends") came together in 1549 (Consensus Tigurinus) despite theological differences. It is a misconception to see the Reformed church as originally French in contrast to the German Lutheran church. In actual fact both movements ultimately originated in German speaking lands. Maybe this misconception is caused by the use of the term "Calvinism" to designate the Reformed church. It may be justified theologically but not historically. If there's an original French contribution to the reform it would be the much earlier (12th c.) Waldensians of Lyon (not far from Switzerland actually). The Waldensians eventually merged with the Reformed church but the question whether the Waldensians can really be considered a proto-Protestant movement has been debated back and forth. Contact Basemetal here 12:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another pre-reformation religious movement from France was the Cathars/Albigensians, though it was largely suppressed centuries before the reformation, and had little effect on it. --Jayron 32 16:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking down an Australian entity

Before I move this image to commons: File:Atrocity Propaganda used against the Germans in WWI.jpg I'd like to try and establish who the Smith mentioned in the bottom right is, Any Australian contributors have any thoughts? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is Mr Smith's obituary from the 24 May 1912 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald, which states that his printing firm was founded "about 40 years ago" and was, at his death, "one of the largest printing houses in the State". Tevildo (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war isolated strongholds

What's going on in the two isolated Syrian government held strongholds in the east[1]? I don't imagine the Syrian air force being powerful enough to resupply them with air drops, so how are these cities still holding on? What do they do about ammo, food, and water when they're besieged on all sides? 731Butai (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Deir ez-Zor offensive (December 2014) which has some background. It appears the last major push against the area was a year ago, and it was successfully repelled by the government troops. --Jayron 32 15:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is in a Kurdish held area. I don't believe the Assad government and Kurds are fighting each other much at this time, as both would prefer to fight ISIS. (Of course, once ISIS is gone, things may quickly change.)

As for the other, ISIS may have higher priorities than retaking that city, especially now that Russian air support would likely kick in if they tried to take it. StuRat (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth remembering that a lot of this area is very sparsely populated. Given modern GPS and vehicles it is entirely possible that Army supply convoys can get through. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Syrian refugees

The demographics of some European countries appear to be changing remarkably due to an influx of refugees from a number of countries. In particular, I am interested in refugees from Syria who are migrating to Germany and Sweden. A German woman commented to me that she would not be surprised if Germany became an Islamic majority country in a few decades. That seems unlikely, but does Wikipedia or do reliable sources have information about what particular faction of Islam (Sunni, Shia, mixture of the two, other) and how liberal/tolerant they are (desire to assimilate, tolerance of other beliefs and customs) or how traditional/extremist their views and practices might be (honor killings, repression of women, requirement they wear headscars or burkas, desire to impose Sharia law, intolerance of their religions, antisemitism, opposition to the state of Israel). How does their birthrate compare to those of say Germany and Sweden where many have said they are going? Edison (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put A German woman commented to me that she would not be surprised if Germany became an Islamic majority country in a few decades and other PEGIDA nonsense in perspective, if the entire population of Syria moved to Germany they would constitute less than 25% of the population of Germany, and around 3% of the population of the EU. Don't believe everything the extreme right tell you. ‑ iridescent 18:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is their birthrate compared to that of present Germany, and what is their degree of religious fervor compared to that of non-Islamic Germans?That could have a bearing on the religious makeup of Germany et al several generations down the road. The article Refugees of the Syrian Civil War says nothing about the questions I asked regarding what they are like. Most news stories just show their numbers, routes, and degrees of desperation, along with specific desires to live and work in a select few countries. Has the UN, a scientific polling organization, or some other reliable source interviewed or characterized them? Edison (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syria used to be a secular, at least de-jure socialist state. According to Religion in Syria, it tracks religion of the population by birth, and by that criterion, about 90% are Muslim, with 5 out of 6 Sunni, the rest various versions of Shia, and about 10% Christians. I would assume that Christians and Shiites are more likely to flee the IS, but all denominations to be likely to flee the civil war condition. Refugees are likely to be more educated and well-off than the average population (they need to be able to pay for the trip), and that typically goes with more liberal views on religion. Here is a German language article on the topic, but with no more hard numbers than I found on Wikipedia. Birth rates in Syria are not particularly informative for future birth rates of Syrian refugees in Germany, but Demographics of Syria says 2.35 birth/1000 (estimated in 2012, but sourced to the CIA World Factbook, which actually has 22.17/1000 for 2015 - we may have a slipped decimal point in our article), with a shrinking population. By comparison, Germany has a birth rate of 8.42 births/1000 (in 2014). If (and that is a big if) the refugees maintain their birth rate and (another big if) all refugee children are Muslim, there will be less than 500000 Muslim children in the next 20 years, or somewhat over a million in 50 years. There are 80 million Germans, 96.x% of which are currently not even nominally Muslim... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding birthrates, consider the demographic economic paradox. Birthrates in less developed countries are much higher than in developed countries. However, once people have become integrated into the society of the country they have immigrated to, their birthrates match that of the target country. That is, while the birthrate of the Syrian refugees is much higher than Germany, so long as Germany integrates those people fully into their society, Their birthrate will match that of the rest of the Germans. That is, several generations out, the descendants of the Syrian refugees who are still living in Germany will have birthrates indistinguishable from the other Germans. So, no, Germany will not become a majority Muslim state, even though the Muslim countries that the refugees are coming from have higher birthrates than does Germany. Because by the time the next generation happens, their birthrates will match that of the rest of the society they are now a part of. The only way that doesn't happen is if the target country isolates, shuns, or segregates the refugees/emigrees so they do not integrate into society. So, oddly enough, as the data reliably shows, the apocalypse the ultra-right nationalists predict will only happen if the refugees are treated like the ultra-right nationalists want them to be treated. If you give people shelter and support, and let them get jobs and support themselves, they become part of your society, and start to mirror the demographics of the rest of your society. --Jayron 32 20:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A decade or more ago, I read an article in Time or Newsweek asserting that the secular climate of Europe was in a state of change, as Islam could well become the majority religion in places like France and Germany within 50-100 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some statistics about German Muslim immigration here from the US based Gatestone Institute, which has been accused of being anti-Muslim, so treat with caution. Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article is written by Soeren Kern; we don't have an article on him, but reading his website or Googling Soeren Kern should give a pretty good idea of how seriously his ramblings should be taken. ‑ iridescent 20:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the secularist socialism mentioned above, see Baath, especially Ba'athism. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrians tended not to be very fundamentalist before the civil war, and those who flee now would tend to be even less so, as the fundamentalists would prefer to stay and either join or fight ISIS. One issue that has come up, though, is that some Syrian men are bringing with them wives who are below the age of consent (in the nation where they are seeking refuge). StuRat (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Citation needed] for that, as it reeks of UKIP/PEGIDA scaremongering. The age of marriage in Syria is 18, and there's not a single country in Europe with an age of consent higher than that (the age of consent in Germany and Sweden, the two main targets for Syrian migration, is 14 and 15 respectively). ‑ iridescent 23:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. As for what was legal in Syria, note that isolated areas often ignore national laws, even without the added anarchy of a civil war. Once that happens, all bets are off. StuRat (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[CAL+Backgrounder+08+-+Syrians+FINAL.pdf] says of Syria "In a 2005 survey of 1,891 people, about 9% of urban men and 16% of rural men had more than one wife.] Do polygamous migrants have to divorce all but one wife in Europe, or do they pick one as the "public" wife and present others as guests or cousins? And I've never heard of "pegida." Edison (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pegida is a German anti-Muslim organization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Edison, we can't read files on your personal computer. Regarding the state of Polygamy in Europe, I didn't find much on Wikipedia, but did find Conflict_of_marriage_laws#Polygamy which discusses the situation in the UK, which is sort of Europeish, and is taking on refugees from the current situation. Legal_status_of_polygamy#Europe has a bit more, but is probably not comprehensive enough to make any general statements continent-wide for all of Europe. --Jayron 32 01:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The UK situation discussed there appears to relate to a case where one of the polygamous marriage is entitled to live in the UK, and determines how many of their wives are entitled to come with them. It's not quite the same question as which parts of the polygamous marriage are valid where all members of the marriage are entitled to live in the UK (e.g. since all of them are refugees). MChesterMC (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any country requires a divorce, but the question is "do authorities in the new country recognize the marriages, and if they do in what contexts?" One datapoint is this Swedish article [7] which basically says that some authorities do and some don't. The Swedish immigration office doesn't, and only allows one wife residency as a family member. The tax agency recognizes polygamous marriages and the social security agency decides on a case by case basis. Sjö (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a divorce perhaps, but the US basically requires you to designate one wife, and more or less give up on ther other wives. See e.g. [8] [9]. Even if they have no intention of the other wives ever coming to the US, I'm fairly sure if they still consider them their wives let alone go back to see them occasionally (as their wives), they'll be considered a practicing polygamist. Interestingly however, US courts may still consider such marriages when it comes to inheritance rights [10].

Canada recently adopted something similar [11] [12] as part of their "Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act". Our article Legal status of polygamy suggests Turkey may be similar although after finding an archive of the source, it doesn't actually say that.

France has tried to encourage the other wives to leave [13] but I think still doesn't forbid people who are polygamists from migrating [14] [15]. I think in some countries if one of the other wives does somehow legally migrate to the country and lives with the husband along with the designated wife who migrated with the husband, the husband could probably be prosecuted under local laws forbidding polygamy even if the marriage happened before migration, although I don't know how often that actually happens.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps also mention that I was primarily thinking in the general case. In the specific case of refugees, it's likely as has been mentioned, that all will be able to come to the US etc independently were it not for the polygamy. However the polygamy will complicate things. I'm fairly sure anyone who intends to practice polygamy will generally be denied asylum. See [www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/refugees-fact-sheet] [16] [17] for example.

I couldn't find good references for these rest, probably because it doesn't come up as most successfully hide it e.g. [18] but if they are already in the US, things may be complicated, the US probably can't send them back to their country of origin. However if they came to the US from somewhere else, the US may try to send them back there. I'm not sure if the US will detain them until they are able to find somewhere to send them back or what.

Things will be similar if someone comes to the US and is granted asylum perhaps because they hide the polygamy or convince the official they've given up on it, and they start it up again when another wife also makes it there and someone from immigration finds out. There is also the risk of criminal prosecution anyway although the previous ref and some others I don't provide make me things that these probably don't happen much as most prefer to turn a blind eye.

And although I mostly mentioned the husband, the wives may also be at risk. (And yes, I'm thinking nearly exclusively of polygyny because that's what the majority by far of these cases involve.)

Definitely anyone who comes to the US and practices polygamy shouldn't consider their prospects of staying long term in the US good. Unless they are able to successfully hide it, which as the earlier ref and the others I didn't provide suggest, a fair number of people obviously do. OTOH as I understand it, such people are always technically at risk even if they gain citizenship and have lived in the US for decades.

BTW, [19] discusses the old Canadian way of handling such matters, as well as that in the UK.

P.S. I appreciate the OP's original question was about the US. I assumed when the issue of how countries treat polygamous marriages came up, the discussion wasn't being restricted to Europe, but apologise if I was wrong.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Edison was referring to [20]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian refugees may be the flavor of the month, but the Muslim population in Germany is mostly made up of persons of Turkish and Kurdish origin, and the current flow of Syrian refugees is small compared to those two groups. They are not at all homogenous, with Kurds having a reputation of not being particularly religious even if nominally Muslim, while the Turks, in contrast, often come from more rural areas which are more conservative. However, neither group is particularly militant, except for fringe elements, and neither speaks any Arabic. By now, many of the adult members of these groups are third-generation German citizens and are quite well integrated into mainstream society. So the idea of the Syrian refugees turning these populations into a large anti-German mass unified by religion is just a fantasy spun by paranoid racists. Those are, unfortunately, too numerous for everyone else's good. --Xuxl (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic models are fraught with problems.

One assumption there is that "assimilation" will take place. The notable cases where this has not happened is with religious groups.

The second assumption is that people are only Muslim because they are born Muslim. Clearly this is false. (Conversely those born Muslim may not remain Muslim - or may become "secular Muslims".)

The third assumption is that the demographic economic paradoxic will continue to hold indefinitely: it won't. Moreover Islam has been at least somewhat successful in recruiting the disaffected, who by the demographic economic paradoxic are likely to have a higher birth rate.

The fourth assumption is that immigration is an event. It is not, it is a process. For the EU it was runn1ng at approximately 1.5 million people per year,

Some data:

There are currently (according to Wikipedia) 44 million Muslims in Europe. However there are 77m people in Turkey (due to join the EU some time in the next decade, let us say) of whom almost all are Muslim, so 44m seems like an under-estimate.

Islam in Europe#Projections suggests that the percentage of Muslim will exceed 10% by 2050, and maybe 25% by 2100. The variables are too uncertain to put much credence in these numbers other than as "possibilities".

There are an estimated 200 million "potential migrants" (Immigration to Europe). Of course not all or probably even the majority would be Muslim, but there would be a sizeable percentage. The number who would choose the UK as first choice would increase the UK population by 62%.

Separately the current European migrant crisis is estimated to be a "wave" of 60 million people. A significant percentage would be from North African states or other Muslim communities.

Islam is not generally against contraception. This mitigates against population growth compared with certain other groups.

If this is not enough data to convince you that the question cannot be convincingly answered, then nothing will.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]