Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 March 7

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 7

Contents of the casket

What was in the casket Phyllis gave to her husband Demophon that so horrified him? (A library book scroll Demophon forgot to return before setting out for the Trojan War?) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhea was all about the dead babies. They're pretty unsettling, so make a good (bad) final jab in lover's quarrels. Mostly a guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Another Demophon was a dead baby himself. Almost eternal. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No one ever recorded what was in it. It's the original MacGuffin. What's in the booooox? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Stupid! You so stupid! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It sure wasn't no stinking badgers. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"Still, some feelings will be familiar. We know what it’s like to fear. We know the courage necessary to protect our loved ones. But there are some things we’ll never fully understand. That ignorance is why we read, why we look. Sometimes, it’s why we play games." InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If the mythology doesn't say what it was, then we don't know. We are compelled to use our imaginations. My first thought was that maybe it was his own wife. Or, even scarier, a pre-nuptial agreement. Or worse, an insurance salesman. Hitchcock used to say that what the MacGuffin specifically is does not matter. Its purpose is to drive the story, so it can be anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

At least anything that fills the brain with the wildest chimeras. So not tin. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A MacGuffin, eh? Must have been the work of Alfredicles of Thespiae. Bad enough that he ripped off Aristophanes. Then he had to go and omit that important detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll be damned. Cybele was Rhea and Demeter's Phrygian counterpart, Aristophean Cybele was an ostrich mother and Cybele was in a reboot of Lysistrata. Small world, after all. And in the Underworld, Demeter's screech owl shares a name with Ares' dead son from the Trojan War. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

How do doctors assess whether someone is malingering and faking a mental illness?

This question is about malingering. (The Wikipedia article does not provide any answers.) The question arises in the context of someone who commits a crime and then "pretends" to be crazy, in order to avoid prison. But, my question is not really limited to that scenario. I assume that some mental illnesses are easier to "fake" than others are. And some individuals are better "actors" than others are. So, my questions. (1) How exactly do doctors distinguish the real from the fake? How do they know when someone is faking? And (2) Is the determination subjective? Or objective? In other words, are there some set of strict criteria that need to be observed? Or is it simply an "opinion" and one doctor might conclude that the patient is faking, while another doctor might disagree? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm no psychiatrist, but looking at someone's history (from sources other than the "patient") can often provide clues. He's "suddenly" lost his mind? Most mental illnesses don't work that way (though there are exceptions). They last over many years. So the first obvious clue is probably to look at how the person has behaved in the years leading up to the crime. (e.g. Jared Lee Loughner had a long history of bizarre and nonsensical outbursts at university, so was clearly no fake. Ditto John Hinckley, Jr. had a clearly establish-able history of mental problems in the years leading up to his attempt to assassinate President Reagen). Some actors such as Borat could stay "in character" for days at a time, but very few people have the ability to put on an "act" which spans years.

In fact, the real scary and dangerous ones are the exact opposite - the genuinely insane who can keep a convincing mask of sanity for years, behind which lurks a very dangerous mind. Anders Behring Breivik may be the perfect example of a man with paranoid and grandiose delusions who hid them very well - plotting silently and meticulously until his day he let his pent up well-planned evil insanity explode. NOTE that he fiercely argued in court that he was perfectly sane, as many mentally ill defendants do.

That said, some issues do inevitably arise. People who have experienced combat or other life and death situations seeking disability pensions for post-traumatic stress disorder can be a tough one. Once upon a time, it was generally assumed that all PTSD was "just acting" to get money. Militaries nowadays accept that PTSD is very real, but yes, there is inevitably an issue there with the potential to fake one's symptoms, and difficulties in verifying the claimant's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyohub (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You know who are great at playing crazy for years on end? Wrestlers. They can also pretend to be fine. Or actually be Kamala and The Wizard. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, three years after that Kamala match in Boston was the first National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in Montreal. Experts still aren't sure how crazy that guy might have been that day. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

At least in Nebraska, "the weight and credibility of an expert's testimony are a question for the trier of fact, and triers of fact are not required to take opinions of experts as binding upon them". So if you can convince the judge, you can be legally insane. And psychiatrists who actually know the patient/defendant best are advised to not testify, for ethical reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Expert witness and trier of fact might be useful. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Question one assumes that they can. They cannot. See Rosenhan experiment. In response to question two; subjective, although there usually is a list of things to check for, check out a DSM-IV or DSM-5. And "doctors" often disagree with each other. So, in theory, if you wanted to fake a mental illness, and you did a bit of research beforehand to get a realistic list of symptoms and you claim that you have those problems then you could fool everyone. Well, almost everyone. In the article about the Rosenhan experiment it is mentioned that 35 of the total of 118 patients expressed a suspicion that the pseudopatients were sane... So patients are probably better at detecting fakery than "doctors". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but imagine if a patient simply read the DSM and claimed to his or her local forensic shrink to have those symptoms in an attempt to evade justice. Wouldn't a simple "background check" with others who know the patient and who have no reason to lie on the patient's behalf (assuming you could identify such individuals) readily reveal the "symptoms" as a sham? As I said in my earlier response, wouldn't you need to establish a plausible "history" (involving others willing to lie on your behalf that they heard you express delusional ideas, for example), given that most mental illnesses don't suddenly develop out of the blue, at least not without some significant triggering event (in which case you can try to independently verify whether the "event" did in fact occur, and the patient was present or involved)? A bit similar to the difficulties in establishing the "authenticity" of a counterfeit painting? IMHO, for many of the total shammers, some pretty simple detective work would quickly unmask their lies. It's more a job for an investigator (police or private investigator) than a Psychiatrist. Eliyohub (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eliyohub: A witness who says that this person used to be sane at some point in the past is not evidence that that person has faked his current insanity. Some forms of mental illness can occur without any warnings, and are quite difficult to predict. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It was as obvious as the nose on your face that Loughner was mentally ill, but he was still found competent to stand trial. The legal definition of "insanity" is a lot narrower than just being mentally ill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

As to faking it, Vincent Gigante is an interesting study. Was he insane? Was he faking being insane? Was he faking being sane in order to fake being insane? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have admitted faking in 2003. That's believable enough for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a famous experiment, the Rosenhan experiment, analyzing the validity of psychiatric diagnostics.

On the legal side, I doubt that many criminal would benefit from being considered mentally ill. That could imply even a longer time locked away. Having a good lawyer convince the court that you were temporarily insane is another thing. Llaanngg (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Generally true, a successful insanity plea can result in an indefinite incarceration in a psychiatric facility, potentially many times longer than a prison sentence may have ever been. But one group are a glaring exception: those potentially facing the death penalty. They have every reason to attempt to persuade the judge or jury that they are insane. Their life may well depend on it.

Also, lawyers do regularly attempt to raise defendants' mental health issues (either genuine ones, exaggerated ones, or sham ones) as a mitigating factor in sentencing. In many jurisdictions, psychological or psychiatric reports on the defendant are regularly tendered at sentencing hearings. Eliyohub (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's true that being found "insane" could potentially result in you being locked up for much longer than the likely prison sentence - but for someone faking their insanity, they could also arrange to convincingly recover from their mental issues after a period of treatment, and thereby escape the system much sooner than they would if they'd gone to prison. A smart faker could perhaps even pick a highly treatable mental condition to fake, make a fast, but complete and convincing, fake-recovery and return to society in relatively short order. But it's definitely a risky matter. SteveBaker (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a reason that most legal rulings use the phrase "a history of mental illness". Suddenly claiming to have some condition when a crime was committed, and never previously, is unlikely to get you off the hook. Having evidence of a significant past history of that illness is what is needed. Of course there is still no guarantee that justice will prevail, but it's fairer than having someone who has been arrested to suddenly start faking symptoms and thereby attempt to circumvent punishment. It's also a fairly dangerous route to travel in a trial since it basically requires you to accept evidence that you committed the crime, so if the "insanity" defense doesn't work, it's too late to deny involvement. SteveBaker (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a temporary insanity plea, which seems like a rather convenient way to claim they were insane at the time, so not responsible, but they are all better now, so we should just let them go free. StuRat (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Crime of passion is another useful link here. SteveBaker (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

One problem with getting accurate mental illness diagnosis in court is the adversarial system, which virtually ensures that the prosecution will hire whatever doctors they think will find the defendant sane, while the defense will hire whatever doctors will give them the diagnosis they need. The idea that the truth can be found midway between two opposing lies is highly questionable, and the side which spends the most money to hire the most convincing paid "experts" often wins. StuRat (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's why the "history of mental illness" test is more convincing. If the person can be shown to have been diagnosed with a problem over a matter of years - and perhaps had even been treated for it (albeit unsuccessfully), then that body of evidence would stand up well in the face of "experts" examining the persons' current state of mind. But if you have to resort to duelling experts looking at the person after the fact (when, let's face it, being arrested and locked up weeks or months pending the trial could drive anyone crazy!) - then it's a crap-shoot. SteveBaker (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

One problem at looking at their history of treatment is that those records are often sealed, so how does the jury know if they were treated for their fear of spiders or for wanting to kill everyone they meet ? StuRat (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

They're not sealed, but protected under physician–patient privilege. This privilege can be waived, which usually starts with a subpoena duces tecum. If relevant, and the interests of justice can be argued to outweigh privacy concerns, the treating shrink should see that patients have a lawyer and ask them to sign away their privilege. Of course, maybe they don't want to. Then that's another battle. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If a criminal brings up his mental state at the trial (e.g., claiming that he has mental problems), then that "opens up the door" to his medical records. And the prosecutor can get access to them. In order to "defend" or rebut against the claims of mental illness. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Defendant, not criminal yet. It's not typically something that comes up during a trial, rather in pre-trial discovery (for competency or culpability) or sentencing (for mitigation). If the defendant announces she's crazy on the stand, that's just testimony. Does nothing without a lawyer making a motion, but may inspire one. Not sure if anyone's ever claimed to be incompetent while representing themselves, but that would be amusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A "defendant" can still be a "criminal"; they are not mutually exclusive. Also, when I say "trial", that involves pre-trial proceedings (like discovery, etc.). Not just the actual trial itself. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The "innocent until proven guilty" assumption requires us not to call them criminals until found guilty. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Charitably, we can be talking about the trial in the past tense after the then-defendant has become a criminal. Once someone has been found guilty, you can call them a criminal from the moment they committed the crime. Anyway, the nit that's being picked at here has no bearing on the answer to the question. SteveBaker (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The MMPI-2 has some scales and well-known result patterns that are correlated with malingering/symptom magnification. None of them are uncontroversial, but they provide another piece to the puzzle. See, e.g., Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That's sort of what I was getting at. What types of things would doctors look for, to conclude that someone is faking? There must be typical "patterns". Also, the common layman knows nothing (beyond the surface) of mental illness and the psychiatry/psychology of it all. They just think if you "act crazy" (for example, scream and wave your arms or mumble irrationally), that that should be enough to do the trick. I assume mental illnesses involve more than that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There was an episode in the TV series 'Escape from Colditz' where a character faked insanity to obtain a repatriation, but effectively willed himself mad. So far as I can see, however, this was fictitious. However, see also Ion Ferguson. 217.38.99.0 (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no crying in baseball, and no waving or mumbling in the diagnosis of schizophrenia. That (or a shorter schizophreniform disorder) is probably the surest bet for playing the "nothing made sense" card, though anything related to mania or psychosis is pretty good. They all have their checklists, which can only be checked by licensed professionals, but can be read in most (all?) of their Wiki articles. Licensed professionals have a knack for spotting fakes through real experience with all sorts, so in the case of a "stalemate", a judge might be wisest to trust the older doctor. Practice doesn't always make perfect, though, and anyone can believe their own eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Bible translation

There was a particular Bible translation project that I'd look into off-and-on every few years, but then kind of lost track of during college and forgot the name of.

It's a fairly literal translation, though it attempted to indicate puns and similar literary devices where possible. What I remember of what they had of Genesis, Adam was translated as something like "earth-man," "clay-man," or something along those lines. The "birds" and "fish" of the fourth day are directly translated as just "flying things" and "swimming things." As I recall, it also stuck to the Masoretic, though they said they were considering adding notes from the LXX later on.

It was not finished in 2010, to my knowledge. Any ideas? Thanks.

Ian.thomson (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A Literary Bible: An Original Translation, by David Rosenberg - perhaps? 109.150.174.93 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

List of English Bible translations might be of some help in tracking it down. SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Literary Bible's not it, though I may have to look into that one as well.

Already checked the list. It wasn't exactly a notable project. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I know I just asked this, but in my own searches I'm starting to suspect that the project (which wasn't the largest) fell apart and was overshadowed. If it was out by now, it'd be the perfect companion to the Comprehensive New Testament, but the Amazon page for that doesn't link to this. So I'm thinking it's either not finished, or never was.

On the off chance someone happens to remember the name of the project and/or can direct me to the website (which would have been well designed in the 90s) or its remains, I'd be glad to know. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm...Miscellaneous_English_Bible_translations suggests the Original Bible Project...and thence to: http://originalbible.com - which claims (Dec 2015) to be under redesign...but it's a bizarre redesign that hides all of the old content during redesign! (That's pretty inept!) - however, you can look on The WayBackMachine and you'll probably be able read the website before the content was removed/hidden.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs)

http://biblegateway.com has a LOT of translations available. One of those, perhaps? --Jayron32 16:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Tend to use that pretty often. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Could be the recent translation by Everett Fox. He uses lots of awkward hyphenated expressions. The Torah was published in 1995, and "The early prophets" (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) was published in 2014. Staecker (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, looking through the Wayback machine results, it was definitely the Transparent English Bible (i.e. Original Bible Project). I'm amazed we have an article on it while The Comprehensive New Testament only has a mention in a few articles. Thanks everyone. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, you know how to fix that...right? Articles only exist when someone cares enough to write them. SteveBaker (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources of info for UK referendum.

I'm a British citizen, living in the USA. I don't generally vote in UK elections because (a) I'm not usually sufficiently well informed to make a good decisions and (b) It seems wrong to impose my preference when I'm unlikely to be very much affected by the results.

However, for the referendum in June on whether the UK should remain in the EU or not - I feel that I may be significantly affected by the decision - and so I need to understand the ramifications, point them out to British friends and family and cast a considered vote. I have a completely open mind on the matter right now...I have no idea what the best thing would be.

Can someone point me to some reasonably unbiased pro- and con- arguments online? Preferably somewhere with links to facts and statistics that I can check up on?

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You could start at BBC News EU Referendum coverage. As well as news stories, towards the bottom of the page you will find a selection of features and analysis. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I recommend starting with the BBC's regularly updated Q&A, which seems relatively neutral although possibly slightly and subtly pro-Remain, then have a browse of recent Telegraph and Guardian coverage of recent topical issues (read both, for balance). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) BBC News has some pages on the subject, which are probably going to be reasonably fair to both sides. There's also some information from The Guardian. And of course there's United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. You might not be eligible to vote, though, depending on your exact circumstances, as you have to be (from the Guardian page) a British, Irish and Commonwealth citizen over 18 resident in the UK; or a UK national living abroad who has been on the electoral register in the UK in the past 15 years (I don't know if that means "continuously" or "ever"). Not that that should stop you taking an interest, of course. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

For information about voting as a UK national overseas, see About my vote - overseas voters. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah - that might be a problem - I'm not currently resident, but I think I voted less than 15 years ago. Well, either way, I want to be well-informed, if only so I can harangue other Brits into voting "intelligently". :-) SteveBaker (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The BBC pages include a Reality Check - where they have technical experts looking at all of the claims to see if they add up or not. Very informative. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388 109.150.174.93 (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times editorial board has weighed in on the "remain" side, which might interest you as a British national living in the States. See here. Neutrality^talk 19:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Fwiw, your approach is right, because no information will be truly without bias. See historiography. See also the Wikipedia version, WP:POLE. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If you liked WP:POLE - check out my comment about it on the talk page!  :-) SteveBaker (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for Template:Mayors of the largest cities in the world by GDP

Don't know if this is the right forum, but can anyone see what the inclusion criteria is for {{Mayors of the largest cities in the world by GDP}}? Hack (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The template was created by User:Lucas Landin, who is still somewhat active, his last edits were about a month ago. You could ask him what he was doing when he created the template. --Jayron32 17:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Commercialisation

Is the NHS the only organisation in the UK that hasn't become increasingly commercialised and about cost recovery, and is still about its core values and outputs? 82.132.246.0 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like an essay question which would require people to give their opinions. That's not really the purpose of this desk. --Jayron32 19:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really. I'm asking for facts, not opinions. An organisation is either commercially driven or not. 82.132.246.0 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

How about the military and Anglican Church ? StuRat (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, military, Anglican Church and I suppose police and fire brigade. Are those, including the NHS, all what we would call paramilitary organisations? 82.132.246.0 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Since when is British socialized medicine a "paramilitary" organization? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not. Ok, let me rephrase that so the NHS and Anglican Church are the only non paramilitary/military organisations that are not financially driven but driven by its core values and outputs? 2A02:C7D:B907:6D00:898:57DD:C11F:36F3 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have non-profit organizations in Britain? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes but many are commercially driven as they have to recover their costs and don't receive funding from government. 2A02:C7D:B907:6D00:898:57DD:C11F:36F3 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

How does that make them "commercially driven"? In America, non-profits typically cover their costs by donations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(three times) Unfortunately, the NHS has become increasingly commercialised, though I agree that most employees are still concerned about its core values and outputs. There are many other organisations (including lots of not-for-profit ones) in the UK that are more concerned about their core values and outputs than about commercial matters, but most of them have charitable status. Why pick out the Church of England? Dbfirs 21:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Because they have to think about how much they're spending and will cut corners etc to save money or they will try business tactics to get donations. This seems to apply to most charities. Really? The NHS is commercially driven? Is that management? 2A02:C7D:B907:6D00:898:57DD:C11F:36F3 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, management, but that now includes local GP practices who have delegated budgets. Dbfirs 22:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggest you look in to art collective, communal living, cooperatives, and maybe some Anarchy_in_the_U.K. (more seriously, we don't have an article on Anarchist organisations in the United Kingdom but we do have List_of_anarchist_communities). Things cost money, even charities have to keep the lights on. We do have an article on Social_and_psychological_value_of_money. You don't have to like living in a capitalistic consumerist, commercialized society: lots of people don't like it, but searching for organizations that don't care about money at all puts you into the domain of organizations that are often considered WP:FRINGE though we might just say marginalized to keep it more WP:NPOV ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The NHS isn't very marginalised though. It's the largest employer in the uk. 2A02:C7D:B907:6D00:79A0:E092:D859:E713 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes and I hold that they do care about money quite a bit. OP seems to be asking for groups that have no commercial interest and no need or interest in money, so I gave some links along those lines, and I do think something like an art collective is marginalized compared to NHS. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Which European nationality group votes most Democratic in US elections?

I know that Jews as an ethnic/religious group, are among whites the most pro-Democratic by far. I was wondering what number 2 was? Which non-Jewish white ethnic group is the most relatively Democratic-leaning?

Among Christian-majority European ethnic groups in the US I was wondering which has the most Democratic voters? --Gary123 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not think pollsters normally ask voters what ethnicity they are when they ask them their political allegiances. I've never seen it mentioned in a poll, I've seen race, religion, gender and state location included. But I don't think ethnicity is usually asked. Jewish voting preference is known because, like evangelical voters, it is considered a religion, not an ethnicity. Plus, most people are a mixture of multiple ethnicities so I don't know exactly how a Polish-Scottish-German voter would identify their ethnicity in the limited "checkbox" type of survey used in political polling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as someone unfamiliar with American politics, there often seems to be reports about the "Latino" or "Black" vote. Your answer seems to draw a distinction between "race" and "ethnicity". If that's what you meant, and at the risk of taking the thread on a tangent, I'm curious about what counts as a "race" versus an "ethnicity". Is "Latino" regarded as a race or an ethnicity in that dichotomy? What about "Slavic", "Sub-Saharan African" or "Australian Aborigines"? Or "Mongoloid" (i.e. East Asians and Native Americans), which is a canonical "race"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hispanic (=Latino) and non-Hispanic are considered the only ethnicities for Census purposes. It is not a Census race. Mainly because 1. There are single race Hispanics like descendents of the Peninsulares 2. The majority of Hispanics have white ancestry (mestizo) and are considered as white as anyone by the Census (but usually not the public) 3. Hispanics are over 1/6th of the population instead of a tiny fraction so they bother to make distinctions. And maybe also cause they wanted to distance the Census from America's past where someone was treated as a "n*gger" if they couldn't hide not being quite 100.0000% white (one drop rule). Words like Slavic, Mongoloid, Celtic, Alpine, Nordic or Germanic.. aren't used probably because Nazis used them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating. Reading across the two tables near the bottom of the page in the article you linked to, "Filipino" or "Korean" (for example) is a race, but "Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish" is an ethnicity? Does that reflect reality or is it just a strange byproduct of the way the census questions are set out? What about a Portuguese person? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Census is pretty idiosyncratic. Usually races are very general like White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander (rare outside the Pacific Islands territories or Hawaii). Specific countries (like Korean) and peoples (like Aborigines) are ethnic groups. The article you looked at said

Use of the word 'ethnicity' for Hispanics only is considerably more restricted than its conventional meaning, which covers other distinctions, some of which are covered by the "race" and "ancestry" questions. The distinct questions accommodate the possibility of Hispanic and Latino Americans' also declaring various racial identities (see also White Hispanic and Latino Americans, Asian Latinos, and Black Hispanic and Latino Americans).

and this is still true today. "Hispanic" has the root Spanic (Spain-ic) so Portuguese and Brazilians should seem to be excluded but they say South American without explicitly excluding Brazilians so that makes no sense. It seems like they made a poor definition and there's not enough perplexed Brazilians to get them to change it, lol. I believe Hispanicness has more to do with language than Spaniard ancestry. There are people from Central and South America that are pretty much Native Americans after all. Then again, Belize is ex-British Honduras in Central America and the language is English. Are they Hispanic? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I would guess the Scandinavian nationalities, since they seem to be rather liberal in Europe, and also tended to migrate to the northern US, for the similar climate, which is a more Democratic area. Probably not a huge difference, though. StuRat (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

European ethnicities are barely relevant in the United States any more. They were relevant in the early 20th century, when many white people were immigrants or the children or grandchildren of immigrants, with strong ethnic traditions. Today, a large majority of the white population of the United States is at least 3 generations away from an ethnic immigrant background, there has been lots of intermarriage, and relatively few white Americans maintain a strong ethnic identity beyond the (in fact ethnic) identity that comes with being a white American. So, for the most part, there are not relevant white ethnicities to which voting behavior could be correlated. Regional, class, and maybe religious differences among the white population are much more relevant. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the opening statement in the question actually true? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

probably, see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html --Soman (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)