Humanities desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

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.

January 11[edit]

What is the maximum legal age limit for adoptive parents in the United States?[edit]

What is the maximum legal age limit for adoptive parents in the United States? Also does this video over a lady who became at mom at 70 look legit: http://video.orange.com/za/people/giving-birth-at-79-new-world-record-or-fake/ Venustar84 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every U.S. state has different laws regarding adoption. This page is where you initiate your search through the various state laws. --Jayron32 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American-Vietnamese children[edit]

I want to know the numbers of mixed children (1 Vietnamese parent and 1 American parent) currently still living in Vietnam. It must be from a reliable source. Thanks!174.20.35.57 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article from The Smithsonian Magazine from 2009 has some figures. This unpublished thesis may not itself be a reliable source, but it does cite many reliable sources, and is a good launching point for your research. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article Bui doi has a few sources as well. I hope that gives you a start. --Jayron32 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't have the figure I'm looking for nor does this has the number I'm looking for. Bui doi article doesn't has it either and it is not easy to get access to sources that are books.(the library may not has it) I'm not doing any kind of research on this. This is simply a curious question on the subject. I just want to know the number answer.65.128.142.118 (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said, I didn't expect them to have the specific number, but to have a starting point for your research. They all reference further texts. Those texts will also reference further texts, and so on. It's how you're going to find the answer. --Jayron32 06:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sound like it is going to take forever to find out the answer if there is one, I doubt that if someone has ever done the research to get the number I'm looking for.65.128.142.118 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Roe v. Wade baby[edit]

Where is the baby from Roe v. Wade right now? They should be 43 years old currently. According the Norma McCorvey article the baby was given up for adoption. I've googled it but only found unanswered answer.com and Yahoo answer pages.Dncsky (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not be surprised if you do not find any information. The child may have been anonymous ever since to protect he or she from the round-the-clock American media coverage he or she would have received solely for being "the famous baby that Norma McCorvey -- the Roe in Roe v. Wade -- gave up for adoption". Also, McCorvey was not revealed as "Roe" until several years later after both the Supreme Court case and when she put the baby up for adoption, so any adoption worker would probably not have made any connection back then. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish independence referendum, 2014[edit]

As per the said article section of the "issues"/"endorsements" (largely added by me), what is the take of Irishmen on the issue. Both loyalists nand republicans. What is Cornwall/Breton/Mannin's view on the issue? We have already listed one Welsh view, but others would be nice.Lihaas (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Cornwall, the aim of most nationalists there is to achieve the sort of privileges and cultural recognition enjoyed by Wales. Autonomy for Cornwall was the only article that I can find on Mebyon Kernow's website that even mentions Scottish independence. Just some recognition that Cornwall isn't England would be a major victory. Alansplodge (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal phenomenon involving the collective unconscious.[edit]

This may sound like a somewhat goofy question, so bear with me. Is anybody aware of the name of a certain, somewhat paranormal phenomenon involving perhaps crowd psychology? An example of what I'm wondering about is this: Somebody mentions a word/name of something that makes an impression, and then you see this word/name in advertisements perhaps on the street or anywhere else which is obviously a bizarre coincidence (coincidence as described through modern science). This is going to sound really stupid but I saw the name for this particular phenomenon on Uberfacts (twitter) a while back, I googled it, thought I bookmarked the page that gave the most information, end of story. Please let me know, because it's really bugging me. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 07:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon. --Jayron32 07:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thanks. A million credits... Lighthead ^þ 07:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it goes by that name, but it need not involve the paranormal or crowd psychology. If you dig around wikipedia, you'll see that we've had an article named Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, but it was very contentious, and was ultimately removed (lack of notability and reliable sources, if I recall). Now our disambiguation goes to List_of_cognitive_biases#Frequency_illusion, which is offers a fairly simple and well-known explanation. I also like to describe the effect as a salience/ recency bias, as in Salience_(neuroscience)#Salience_in_psychology and Recency_illusion. Basically, "Baader-meinhof syndrome" is a word made up by a blogger a few years ago (I think, I may be suffering from a recency bias ;). It (as a word) has no real currency in academic writing, though the phenomenon is very interesting and well-discussed. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a 3-part series on a cable channel, called BrainGames, which talked about what we observe and don't observe. The core premise is that we observe selectively, as we can't observe everything. They didn't get into this familiar phenomenon, but it's a bit like confirmation bias - you ignore something until you see it, and then you start paying attention to it and ascribing importance to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Methods to analyze sacred texts?[edit]

Some time ago, I found an interesting website that listed different methods to analyze sacred texts. Now, I lost it and don't exactly remember the name. In any case, can anybody list for me the methods to analyze sacred texts (socio-historical method included)? I do remember reading one of Bart Ehrman's textbooks, in which he wrote extensively on the topic, but unfortunately, I vaguely remember a thing. 140.254.227.54 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might find most of what you're looking for at Historical criticism. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see "socio-historical method of analysis" anywhere in the article. There are methods of criticisms. I think I am looking for methods of analysis. 140.254.227.54 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could start at Form criticism... AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control[edit]

Some anti-gun control advocates are using the argument that Stalin, Hitler, Mao and the Khmer Rouge "took away the guns" in their countries. Is that true? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have sources we shouldn't offer opinions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I suspect you mean gun nuts in the US. That would only be a concern if we thought the government was contemplating committing genocide on a portion of the population. I see no reason to suspect that, now, although various groups might have had reason to fear this in the past, like American Indians and blacks. StuRat (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article can clarify things somewhat--http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control. I do want to point out that preventing crazy people from getting guns is not anywhere near the same thing as preventing qualified, decent, hard-working people from getting guns. Therefore, these anti-gun control advocates are guilty of the false analogy fallacy. Futurist110 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gun_control#Associations_with_authoritarianism "Historians have pointed out, however, that the preceding democratic Weimar Republic already had restrictive gun laws, which were actually liberalised by the Nazis when they came to power." Hcobb (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Cuba and Stalin's Russia are concerned, although it's not quite the same thing, both governments issued firearms to a very large proportion of the adult population in order to resist attacks by outside powers (attacks from the USA in the former case, and attacks from Nazi Germany in the latter case.) So the effect of these governments was that more citizens had guns, not less. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in their right mind called that "civilian" gun ownership... neither of those regimes allowed gun ownership in the way the U.S. does. That's a spurious comparison. Shadowjams (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also this recent column, which directly addresses the recent right-wing frothing over the Hitler-enacted-gun-control myth. For a more detailed treatment, see Bernard E. Harcourt, On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians), 73 Fordham L. Rev. 653 (2004). The basic point is that very strict gun laws were introduced in Germany in 1919 (in substantial part due to the terms of their surrender), essentially banning private gun ownership and confiscating most privately-held firearms. In 1928, private ownership gun ownership became legal once again, but was accompanied by stringent recordkeeping; permits were required to buy, sell, own, or carry guns. In 1938, we saw the introduction of Hitler's so-called "gun control" law. For nearly everyone, it lifted regulations completely on long guns and ammunition; it created loopholes for widespread ownership of handguns; for Nazi party members and some other privileged cronies, it allowed essentially unrestricted ownership of all firearms. The legal age to purchase firearms was lowered from 20 to 18. To be fair, Jews (and a few other 'undesirable' classes) were singled out and barred from gun ownership—but this was hardly the only discriminatory piece of legislation that Hitler imposed on those groups.

In other words, the Hitler-was-a-gun-grabber meme is at best a gross distortion, and at worst a complete misreading of the historical record. Then again, even if it weren't, is reductio ad Hitlerum a good reasoning strategy in general? Hitler was also a strong proponent of, for example, the Autobahn. He expanded the network from 108 km in 1935 to more than 3700 km in 1940, directly and indirectly employing more than 400,000 people in its construction. Does that make President Eisenhower a Nazi for championing construction of the Interstate? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the Autobahn. Hitler was also a proponent of mathematics--he thought 2+2=4. Obviously, that means it isn't equal to 4. --140.180.240.178 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. A blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 1919 ban on gun ownership would have been the logical consequence of Article 177 of the Treaty of Versailles: "Educational establishments, the universities, societies of discharged soldiers, shooting or touring clubs and, generally speaking associations of every description, whatever be the age of their members, must not occupy themselves with any military matters. In particular they will be forbidden to instruct or exercise their members or to allow them to be instructed or exercised, in the profession or use of arms. These societies, associations, educational establishments and universities must have no connection with the Ministries of War or any other military authority." -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting clubs could not allow their members to learn how to shoot? That sounds well-thought-out.... --Trovatore (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similar ban on martial arts during the Occupation of Japan in 1945.[1] Seems sensible to me. Alansplodge (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]