Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 October 3

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.

October 3

Arc of Life

Where has this expression come from? It should be much older than this title. Thanks. Omidinist (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

While the trope may well be ancient, if not prehistoric, it was likely best made known through Dante's work,Convivio ("The Banquet"). Jay Ruud attributes Dante's allegorical usage to the alchemical correspondences of Albertus Magnus, in his Critical Companion to Dante, p. 276. Read Richard Lansing's 1998 translation of Convivio, ch. 23-- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, Paulscrawl. Omidinist (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not quite a synonym, but in ancient Greek, this concept of looking at the whole trajectory of e.g. a life is Telos, and from this we get teleology. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Immigrants in Russia

According to the List of countries by foreign-born population, Russia has the second largest immigrant population in the world. Yet President Obama claims that "immigrants aren't rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity". I am somewhat confused here... --217.118.85.87 (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No need for confusion, just remember that Russia's immigrants are probably all from the old Communist bloc - places like Romania, Ukraine, Cuba, Uzbekistan - rather than from the Western world. Countries that were colonised by First World nations tend to still look to those nations for support. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Question: How many foreign-born in Russia are recent immigrants, and how many were born outside of Russia, but inside of the Soviet Union and arrived in Russia before the collapse of the Soviet Union? That would mean that, before the 1990s, they were native-born, but became foreign-born by the events of history, and not because they were migrating. --Jayron32 11:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

These statistics involve immigrants, i.e., non-citizens. Everyone who lived within the borders of Russia in 1991, automatically became the Russian citizen. There's a huge influx of cheap labor from Transcaucasia and Central Asia, to a lesser degree from Ukraine and Moldova. I've heard there's a similar influx from Mexico in the USA. It's a shame Obama does not know a thing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No bashing of unfortunates who don't know what they think they know here, please. Otherwise anyone who asks a question can expect to be answered with acidity and sarcasm. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What statistics are you referring to? The OP linked to List of countries by foreign-born population. For the 2013 (the top list), the article says the source is [1]. If you check out the data sets, for Russia Federation under the "Type of data" field it only has B. If you check out the notes under (a), it says B means "foreign-born population". You need a C for foreign citizens which isn't there for Russian Federation.

If there is further doubt, Russia Federation has stayed fairly static from 1990-2000-2010-2013 going up a bit in 2000 and down a bit again in 2010 and down a bit again in 2013 (as with any large data sets like this, they are probably all estimates to some extent with varying degrees of quality).

Extended content

And if you look at the place of origin for 1990, it included, over 530k for Armenia, 930k for Azerbaijan, 800k for Belarus, 67k for China, 62k for Estonia, 650k for Georgia, 144k for Germany, 2.3 million for Kazakhstan, 430k for Kyrgyzstan, 95k for Latvia, 82k for Lithuania, 290k for Moldova, 420k for Tajikistan, 165k for Turkmenistan, 3.3 million for Ukraine, 890k for Uzbekistan. For 2000 but still we have over 475k for Armenia, 840k for Azerbaijan, 930k for Belarus, 60k for China, 67k for Estonia, 630k for Georgia, 149k for Germany, 2.5 million Kazakhstan, 460k Kyrgyzstan, 100k for Latvia, 85k for Lithuania, 275k for Moldova, 380k Tajikistan, 174k for Turkmenistan, 3.5 million for Ukraine, 910k for Uzbekistan. I can't be bothered to get data from 2010 and 2013. Iin retrospect the way I handled this was probably a bit silly. But I planned to only include a small number of examples and for one year, than expanded to include all above a certain number and included 2 years. (For similar reasons, my significant figures isn't particularly consistent.)

Edit 15:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC) data replaced with table below.

Anyway, we can some degree of movement between 1990 and 2000, and of course, the factors encouraging a certain level may have held. Still, I think we can be fairly sure that 3.3 million people born in Ukraine didn't either leave Russia before 1991, or gain citizenship and be replaced by another 3.5m (or the same for some of those that left) people born in Ukraine by 2000. So we can be fairly sure that the when the UN didn't include C, they did this on purpose. I don't see much else from the data that would be that useful in terms of your claim (there is a percentage of population, but the figure 11 million is too low a percentage of the population at around 8% for it to be anything more than noise).

So from the data we have available, the total number of new migrants by 2000 compared to 1990 should be considered unknown, but I think we can have a fair degree of confidence it's probably a lot less than 11 million. Obviously some people are migrating to Russia for a variety of reasons, as are some leaving (also deaths). Edit3: Oh I forgot to mention before, but it's likely that a fair few of the 11 million are Russian citizens.

If you have some other data, you're welcome to present it but you can't blame us for discussing the data available. I think we'd need better evidence (like the data actually saying), that they mean "foreign citizen" than simply calling them immigrants, as immigrants can often include citizens, particularly those who migrated at a later age. (It can be controversial particularly when it's used to imply these citizens are somehow "lesser" or not true citizens because they are immigrants although conversely many migrants have no problem calling themselves migrants or related terms even if they are now citizens. And it can also be very confusing in a case like the breakup of the Soviet Union. Actually, that's probably why the UN stuck with Russian Federation even when it didn't exist. Still none of these changes the fact the term is commonly used that way for a variety of reasons, particularly among organisations studying migration. Even more so in a case like this when the organisation is I'm guessing primarily relying on data already available and the cooperating of governments.)

Mind you, I'm not particularly sure how useful it is to analyse what is ultimately political propaganda (as with all such statements, whether from Russian, American, British, Chinese, Malaysian, New Zealand or whatever leaders).

Edit: Just noticed for both 1990 and 2000, the origin information for Russia Federation is based on empirical data. Edit2: Also in reference to the other point, according to the same souce, in mid 2013 the US has over 12.9 million migrants from Mexico. In 1990 it was over 4.9 million. The total changed from over 23 in 1990 to over 45 million in 2013. As per Russia, this is foreign born, not foreign citizens and is based on empirical data.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned, the data above is poorly presented. I've now made it into a table. The order is from largest the least in 1990. I didn't include any more countries since if I wanted to include from 1990-2013 without missing out some larger populations ones, I'd need to include a lot more. In any case, the next largest is at highest under 34k.

Extended content

Country 1990 2000 2010 2013 Ukraine 3301928 3539184 2978097 2939083 Kazakhstan 2349697 2569852 2512343 2479430 Azerbaijan 936852 841160 752975 743111 Uzbekistan 890893 912673 1125335 1110593 Belarus 809353 930314 749973 740148 Georgia 656888 625298 441793 436005 Armenia 535266 478516 517418 510640 Kyrgyzstan 433625 460813 580280 572678 Tajikistan 424727 380819 457775 451778 Republic of Moldova 292807 275905 288806 285023 Turkmenistan 165923 174228 182189 179802 Germany 144895 149309 139368 137542 Latvia 95730 101919 87716 86567 Lithuania 82889 85695 69748 68834 China 67405 60135 55120 54398 Estonia 62441 67008 57651 56896

I won't comment much since I'm not really that interested in the topic. Still, now that we have 2010 and 2013, you can see more changes, further emphasising that there have obviously been a number of migrations to Russia in the post Soviet era, e.g. from Uzbekistan. Which shouldn't be surprising, there are a small number to North Korea after all, so your understanding of world affairs would have to be very little if you think there were none to Russia.

Not that we needed it, but I would say there's even less reason to think the lists aren't counting Russian citizens who were born in other parts of the Soviet Union. (By the way, 2010 and 2013 are also B (foreign born) and E (empirical).) Some of the other data may be interesting, e.g. the reduction of the number of Ukraine born (how much of this comes from deaths, how much comes from migration whether back to Ukraine or somewhere else, and how much due to difference in the data I don't know).

I should clarify I'm not commenting on whether Obama had a legitimate point. My main contention is the data presented thus far doesn't either clearly support or refute the point. And that I'm not sure absolute numbers are particularly helpful in discussing the point he was making anyway (and frankly that I find it boring to debate whether he had a legitimate point anyway).

Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just anecdotal, but I have met more than a dozen ethnic Russians (in America) who have said something like "I am Russian but I was born in Kazakhstan/Ukraine/Azerbaijan" and so forth. I knew a Russian professor who considered herself Russian, but who was born in Kherson on the Black Sea coast of Ukraine. One would assume there are a lot of ethnic Russians born in Soviet Georgia who now live in Russia proper. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably a legacy of Uncle Joe Stalin, who would secure his hold on a subject state by packing the educated elite off to Siberia and replacing them with ethnic Russians, who didn't have much say in it either. Of course, we have an article about it; Population transfer in the Soviet Union, which says "It is estimated that between 1941 and 1949 nearly 3.3 million were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics. By some estimates up to 43% of the resettled population died of diseases and malnutrition. ....in their entirety, internal forced migrations affected some 6 million people. Of these, some 1 to 1.5 million perished as a result." Alansplodge (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

educated elite vs ethnic Russians: that's a weird dichotomy. in many places ethnic Russian "transplants" were the educated elite. Some of the best (not to say only) linguists of Caucasian and Siberian languages are Russian, for example Asmrulz (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I am fairly certain User:Alansplodge meant the indigenous educated elite, such as University-educated Georgians and Lithuanians. See for instance Theodore Romzha archbishop of the Catholic Rusyn minority who was assassinated on Nikita Khrushchev's orders. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the policy was to remove local teachers, managers et al and replace them with ethnic Russian teachers and managers. See [2]. Alansplodge (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I analyze current Ukrainian out-migration data for the UN and we are having to be careful about Russian Federation data which count people moving from the greater part of Ukraine to Crimea, which the Russian Federation proudly characterize as in-migrants.Hayttom 13:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

Patton quote

George S. Patton#Postwar states:

On June 7, he arrived in Bedford, Massachusetts, for extended leave with his family, and was greeted by thousands of spectators. Patton then drove to Hatch Memorial Shell and spoke to some 20,000, including a crowd of 400 wounded Third Army veterans. In this speech he aroused some controversy among the Gold Star Mothers when he insinuated that men who die in battle are "fools" (Axelrod, 2006, pp. 163–164) and that the real war heroes are the wounded.

Reference: Axelrod, Alan (2006), Patton: A Biography, London, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-1-4039-7139-5, pp. 163–164

What exactly did he say? Wikiquoes gives:

• It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.
  • Speech at the Copley Plaza Hotel, Boston Massachusetts (7 June 1945), quoted in Patton : Ordeal and Triumph (1970) by Ladislas Farago

I can see how the GSM could feel that they were being called foolish, but it certainly doesn't insinuate that the KIA themselves were fools. Did he phrase things differently at the Shell? I couldn't pull up Axelrod's book on Google Books, so I don't know if he actually quotes from the speech -- ToE 13:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Here’s one reference: “A lot of soldiers get killed because they are damned fools.” – as quoted in a newspaper article a week later asking him to explain the remark. 142.150.38.155 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 142...155! I could understand their response to that remark. -- ToE 20:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen: Patton said no such damned thing as "damned fools" et shit at the god-damned horseshit Shell. Hell, he said a lot of fool things, but not that damned fool thing, not then or there, dammit.

At ease.

What he did say at the Shell is indirectly quoted on p. 721 of The Patton Papers: 1940-1945. This is the source cited by WP's Patton article reference, (as note 17, ch.13): Alan Axelrod, Patton:A Biography, p. 163 (Google Books). Blumenson continues (p. 722) with more detailed, less sensationalized, reactions to Patton's ill-timed statement, as well, going on to Stimson's press conference contextualizing Patton's remarks. (Those 2 Blumenson pages are not on Google Books, though their ebook version offers an unlinkable peek; also try Amazon's Look Inside feature, searching "fool heroes" for verifying snippet; log in to free Amazon account for link to full pages - worked for me. ISBN linked below.) See also the direct quote from another long-time Patton source, which might be put up on Wikiquotes for balance with that damned distortion of Patton's god-given intent:

"It is a popular idea that a man is a hero just because he was killed in action. Rather, I think, a man is frequently a fool when he gets killed." -- Farago, Ladislas (1981). The Last Days of Patton. McGraw-Hill. p. 85.. (Google Books snippet only. Virtually identical to indirect quote in Blumenson source, below.)

It was a popular idea, he said, that a man was a hero when he was killed in action. Rather, he thought, a man was frequently a fool when he got killed. "These men are the heroes," he said, pointing toward the wounded soldiers. Dramatically drawing himself even more erect and standing at attention, he saluted them, then walked towards his seat on the platform. -- Blumenson, Martin (1996) [1974]. The Patton Papers: 1940-1945. DaCapo. p. 721. ISBN 978-0306807176.

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Paulscrawl. His "These men are the heroes," does sound as if he is pandering to his wounded soldiers in the crowd at the unintended expense of the GSM, as I imagine that the severity of the injury which separated the heroic wounded from the frequently foolish dead was largely a matter of luck. -- ToE 12:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as the truth of such statements, some soldiers who die did indeed do something stupid (like giving away their position by striking a match), others were just unlucky, and others volunteered for a "suicide mission" (although depending on your world view, this may also qualify as stupid). Still others may die due to the stupidity of others (such as their commanding officers). StuRat (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think Patton was simply stating a hard fact of military life - and death. His choice of words and the time and place to say them was off, to be sure.

In any case, I've corrected the article - George S. Patton#Postwar - to remove a previous editor's unsourced insertions of "insinuated" and "real" (heroes), replacing the tertiary cited source (Axelrod, 163) with the better one he cited (Blumenson, 171). Left a full edit summary - let's see if my "bold corrective action" survives WWW (Wikipedia Word War). ;) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Found fullest source readily available for Patton's clarification of his June 7, 1945 remarks at the Boston Shell. Used newspapers.com annotated clipping feature to type out in plain text, so this just may be findable in search engines soon. Here it is (link below):

He went to some length to clear up a remark which he said was attributed to him in Boston to the effect that "a lot of damned fool soldiers" get killed.

Saying the dead and wounded are often referred to as heroes, he said he was simply attempting to bring out that some men are killed for trivial reasons.

"I said men get killed foolishly, but I should have said trivially," he said, adding that there are many men who stay alive and still are heroes.

http://www.newspapers.com/clip/1108459/patton_clarifies_remarks_of_june_7/ Clipped from Joplin Globe (Joplin, Missouri), 15 June 1945, Page 6

At rest. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Order of the seven days of the week vs. order of the seven Ptolemaic planets

I don't know why but the question about "Go ahead and make my day" at the Entertainment Desk reminded me of this question I have always been curious about:

The seven days of the week are each paired with one of the seven planets of traditional astronomy (and only indirectly, in European languages, with the gods the planets are named after).

But the order of the days of the weeks does not follow the order of the planets. (The order of the planets being 0 = Moon, 1 = Mercury, 2 = Venus, 3 = Sun, 4 = Mars, 5 = Jupiter, 6 = Saturn.)

Instead it associates planet N with day 2 N (mod 7) like so:

 Monday    Tuesday    Wednesday    Thursday    Friday    Saturday    Sunday

 Moon      -------    Mercury      --------    Venus     --------    Sun  
 ----      Mars       -------      Jupiter     -----     Saturn      ------

Note this scheme works only if Monday is day 0 which is contrary to the religious tradition of Jews and Christians and contrary to the custom of some European languages such as Portuguese where the week starts on Sunday. Maybe this shows that whoever we owe the seven-day week and this association between weekday and planet to (Egyptians?) considered the week started on Monday?

My question is obviously: Why?

Is there anything in WP about this discrepancy? If not, do you happen to know the answer?

Thanks,

Contact Basemetal here 14:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

See Planet#Mythology_and_naming which explains the ordering of the days of the week. While the ancients didn't necessarily understand the correct organization of the solar system, the could work out the distance from earth based on the length of time it took for the planets to repeat their cycles. Each of the seven planets was associated with a God who was assigned a planetary hour, which was basically the hour when that God was responsible for looking over the affairs of the earth. Since 7 gods do NOT divide evenly into 24 hours, the first hour of each day is "governed" by a different god. Whichever "God" got that first "hour" was given primacy over the day. Thus, the day when Saturn got the first hour was "Saturn's day" (Saturday), the day that Mercury got the first hour was "Mercury's day" (Wednesday, known as a variation of "Mercury's day" in Romance languages), and so on. The repeating cycle is preserved in our seven day week. The article planetary hours even has a nice chart of the cycle which shows how the order of the days came from this system of hours. --Jayron32 15:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Neato. Thank you Jayron. You are a regular walking Wikipedia. A Walkipedia. The table mentioned by Jayron implies the order of the planets has to be from far to near, so originally it was Saturday that was the first day of the week. I'll spare you that, but I could speculate how in the Jewish tradition the Babylonian first day of the week was chosen as the Sabbath day, and only later under the influence of the Jewish creation myth was the day of creation chosen instead. Monday eventually becoming the first day of the week it appears has nothing to do with the Moon being the first planet, as in this scheme it is not the first but the last planet. Contact Basemetal here 18:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Jayron is the go-to guy on almost anything, from sports to nuclear physics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't know most of this stuff before I go looking. I just know how to find it. --Jayron32 18:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)