Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 October 14

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 14

Free buffalo

From Steal This Book, obviously many years out of date, but reading through it again I found something really interesting...

Every year the National Park Service gives away surplus elks in order to keep the herds under its jurisdiction from outgrowing the amount of available land for grazing. Write to: Superintendent, Yellowstone National Park, Yellowstone, Wyoming 83020. You must be prepared to pay the freight charges for shipping the animal and guarantee that you can provide enough grazing land to keep the big fellow happy. Under the same arrangement the government will send you a Free Buffalo. Write to...

And there ends the relevant bit. My question is, is the process as simple as Hoffman makes it sound? Was there really a time when the US government just gave out elk and buffalo, and if so, when did they stop doing it? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As recently as 2009 the National Park Service was trying to unload surplus elk meat for free. It isn't as simple as asking for it; it seems that there are usually more people than available elk corpses, so they hold a lottery. But it still is true (at least it was 5 years ago) that the National Park Service does periodically cull its elk herds and give away the meat for free. --Jayron32 01:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as buffalo goes, they do cull the population by shipping them off for slaughter. See here. According to that site, there are agreements with nearby American Indian groups who use the buffalo for food and materials (hides, bones, etc.). --Jayron32 01:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff, and the Native American arrangement makes a lot of sense. Thanks, Jayron! Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Do I want to move to Milton Keynes?

My American company has offered to relocate me to their new office in Milton Keynes. I have been unable to determine what living expenses, lifestyle opportunities, and nightlife options would be available there. Is there some Milton Keynes guide site which can help me? 76.88.167.15 (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The WP article has an 'External links' section at the bottom which includes the official visitor's website which might be useful, but don't expect unbiased info. Numbeo has stats relating to cost of living, etc. here:[1]. -Which lists the CPI as 107.24 (quite high) and 'Rent Index' as 41.63 (quite low).  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a few opinions on this forum thread [2]. Personally I don't like the place but YMMV. --Viennese Waltz 06:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

For what my opinion's worth, Milton Keynes is an interesting experimental town but not really the sort of place I'd like to live. However, the two counties around there - Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire - are beautiful, quintessentially English shires which you might like to explore. It's close to Silverstone and quite a few Formula 1 carmakers are based round there. And it has excellent rail links to London and Birmingham. But a lot depends on you and your values and attitudes. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As Tammy says, it all depends what your expectations are. Are you relocating from the US or from somewhere else in the UK ? Milton Keynes is what is called in the UK a "new town" (our link for that term redirects to planned community), so it is not nearly as quaint as its double-barrelled name might suggest. It consists of a series of retail parks, lesiure parks, industrial parks and housing estates linked by wide roads, cycle paths and roundabouts. It is bisected by a busy A-road dual carriageway. It has a "non-hierarchical devolved city plan", which means there is no well-defined town centre and no suburbs (or maybe it is all suburbs). It used to be well known for its concrete cows. And it is about as far from the sea as you can get in England. On the other hand, as has been said, if you want to live and work in Milton Keynes but spend your lesiure time elsewhere, it does have very good road and rail links. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you are North American beware that "retail park" is what we'd call "mall sprawl" or "conglomeration of strip malls", and a "housing estate" is just a neighbourhood. I've been to Milton Keynes; its like an English version of Saskatoon, only a bit more depressing. However it's within easy North American driving distance from many very pretty villages and towns if you were willing to commute. --NellieBly (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Aren't they offering incentives? I'd wait till Ebola is over and ISIS is defeated, but it's England, Yeah Baby! μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in Milton Keynes Locations which highlights Stony Stratford as a nearby place with a bit more history and character (its charter was granted by Richard the Lionheart). Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Vehicle towing/recovery industry (A history): South Africa

14 October 2014

I would like information that will help me to write an article entitled, Vehicle towing/recovery industry (A history): South Africa.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.77.38.189 (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You'd probably get a better response at WT:WikiProject South Africa. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Economic, social, and cultural rights

I was just reading a paper that maintained that economic, social and cultural rights are derived from "socialist theory" or something like that. I suppose socialists might support those rights, but I'm not seeing the connection here. Anyone care to help me out here? — Melab±1 ☎ 04:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no connection. All thinking humans should support those rights. You should stop reading libertarian nonsense. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Libertarians distinguish such "positive" rights, which impose a duty on other people to create specific goods or provide specific services, from "negative" rights, which require others merely to refrain from certain actions. —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Melab-1 -- The United States was formed within an 18th-century tradition of individual and political rights, and has not been affected too much by post-1848 European developments in the area of economic, social and cultural rights. Some political orientations in the United States strongly uphold individual rights, while strongly rejecting any form of "group rights" (i.e. people have individual rights not to be discriminated against because they may belong to a particular group, but groups themselves have no rights as overall collectives). In this context, "socialist" is probably a vague derogatory term which is not 100% accurate, but not completely irrelevant... AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Blood types and how it relates to race and ethnicity

How does the environment play a role in different people groups having different blood types like 100% of the Peruvian Indians having the O blood type and the Lapps predominantly having the A blood type? Despite of that, since many people believe that race is more of a social construct than a scientific reality, why would the relationship between blood types and race/ethnicity be insignificant anyways, or not clear and relative in other words as with other characteristics used to scientifically attempt to define race? Willminator (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Type B seems to be a disadvantage when the Black Death is about. Otherwise there's always founder effect. —Tamfang (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the founder effect. Races exist due to isolation of populations, and it stands to reason that isolation is likewise the cause of more specific genetic oddities, like everyone having the same blood type or the same shape of the nose or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There's something about the disadvantage of type B when dealing with the plague in Black Death? Couldn't find it.Contact Basemetal here 10:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Pollution and privatization

Sorry for two questions within the same period of time. This time my question concerns the issue of pollution, environmental protection, and privatization. I've been told by some libertarians that pollution is only a problem because a commons exists and that without public property there would be no such thing as pollution. Does this making sense to anyone? They've also told me private property resolves disputes and that "balancing rights" wouldn't be necessary if public property was privatized. I think most of the kinds of arguments originate with the less than astute faculty at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. — Melab±1 ☎ 05:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no rule against multiple questions.

I've never, ever heard a libertarian argue that public parks are somehow the cause of pollution. You would need to find some citations for that claim before (or if) we could begin to discuss it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not the parks, it's the air and water; some libertarians have argued that these ought to be private property, so that there's someone with clear standing to sue polluters for damage and a relatively unconflicted interest in doing so. (It's been thirty years since I read an exposition of that concept; I can't say what other legitimate benefits they imagine to accrue from owning air.)

Others would say it's enough to remove the limits on liability for pollution, which were imposed by legislation in the name of balancing the individual's interest in not being poisoned against the public interest in economic growth; such balancings customarily result in externalizing costs and thus throwing economic calculations out of balance. ("Will this factory's products be worth more than the pollution costs?" "Never mind, we're immune to pollution claims, thanks to wise legislation, so those costs don't exist for us.") —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Never underestimate the usefulness of payola. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Tamfang, you don't need ownership to hold someone accountable. 173.69.63.178 (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure I didn't say you do. —Tamfang (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The number of lawsuits that would be filed would completely clog the system, if every polluter had to be sued by everyone who could individually be affected. How many people would be in the smoke fallout area of just one factory's smokestacks ? Now multiply that by the total number of factories. Using lawsuits as the primary way to regulate pollution is a patently absurd idea. Government is needed for some things, and this is one of them. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@StuRat: You're assuming that there would be multiple property owners. But provided that a single capitalist has already made a libertarian deal to take over ownership of the roads, presumably owners served by that transit monopoly could be persuaded to sell at an appropriate market price and be converted into renters. So there would only be one owner, and assuming he also held the local workplaces it would be up to him to sue himself. (See also Congo Free State, the anarcho-capitalist utopia) Wnt (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Pollution exists as a problem because of a lack of love. (Mark 12:31)

—Wavelength (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Often, people who own and operate family farms are motivated to take good care of their natural resources. Often, people who own and operate agribusinesses are motivated to use genetically modified organisms and terminator seeds and synthetic fertilizers and synthetic pesticides and growth hormones and manure lagoons.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For convenience, here is a link to the article "Ludwig von Mises Institute".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Police Driving Through Red Lights

Please can someone point me to the piece of legislation that allows police in the UK to drive through red lights? Thanks. 89.248.18.153 (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh are you 100% sure such legislation actually exists? This forum posting seems to imply that even police are not above getting whacked by the ol ts10 ~Helicopter Llama~ 11:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the response to this FOI request:

I will first confirm that traffic signals are prescribed for use by local traffic authorities in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD). Regulation 10 makes it an offence to disobey a red signal, bringing in Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Regulation 36 [as amended] gives the meanings of signals, including red, and also sets out which organisations are exempt under certain circumstances. For completeness it’s fire and rescue, ambulance, bomb and explosive disposal, national blood service, police, Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and special forces. The exemption only applies when they’re on an emergency call. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(EC) That discussion appears to be about police running red lights in non-emergency situations. It's hardly uncommon that exceptions from normal law for police (or whatever other governmental personnel) only apply to the cases when they are deemed necessary in a lot of countries with a strong rule of law and where the government is also held to account. (See e.g. [3] [4] in NZ. And I recall reading many years ago of a police officer who was prosecuted, I think after running a red light after turning on their siren, despite there being no reason.)

Anyway such exceptions are AFAIK, usually part of the law which sets out prohibitions and offences in the first place. So after some searching I found the meaning of traffic lights is partially covered in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions which sure enough also provides the exception (which isn't just for police) [5]. (Someone may want to tell [6] that they're still referring to the old law 8 years or so after the 2002 one came in to effect.)

I said partially because as with a lot of UK law, this isn't UK wide law. According to our article (and other sources and Road signs in the United Kingdom#Northern Ireland, Crown Dependencies and overseas territories) it applies to England, Wales, Scotland and partially to the Isle of Man but doesn't apply to North Ireland and other parts of the UK. If you're interested in Northern Ireland, you'd need to check out The Traffic Signs Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997 available here [7]. A quick look confirms there is a similar or perhaps the same exception in regulation 33 of part V, which is coincidentally on page 33.

If you follow the stuff here [8], I expect you'd find the speed limit exception is similar. Of course, I don't mean there's exception for every possible road rule that the police may break, the Crown Prosecution Service or whoever may also use their discretion not to prosecute in cases where such an exception doesn't exist, but it's felt it was necessary and not sufficiently dangerous where it doesn't [9].

Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• In the two states whose laws I am familiar with, a police car or ambulance with its sirens on on duty has the right of way for all possibly opposing traffic, and drivers who would otherwise have the right of way (at, say, a green light) are required to pull to the side of the road and allow the official vehicle to pass. This makes sense only if we assume it means the police car has the right of way regardless of the light color in such situations. I have seen impatient cops stopped at red lights with no other traffic flash their lights once and proceed through. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like it, vote against it. —Tamfang (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Having once witnessed a group of police officers speeding at 80+ MPH through several red lights on the way to a Dunkin Donuts, I am convinced that some people exist solely for the purpose of reinforcing stereotypes. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

On a related tangent, there's also the issue of the use of sirens and lights generally in police vehicles. Fernando Henrique Cardoso in his autobiography The Accidental President of Brazil theorises that the continuous use of sirens and lights by police vehicles during the Brazilian dictatorship was calculated to cause fear in the population. Hack (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Cynics could also theorize that every country needs somehow its share of the legends of the modernity. London had had his Blitz. Fortunately with the help of technology (and progress) the citizen today is not anymore completely devoid of the means of defending democracy against dictatorship: Boombox. Tomorrow the drone:: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8nFtTkpn24. --Askedonty (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Blind Corporation"

What is a blind corporation, is it the same as a "dummy corporation" or "nameless corporation"? I am specifically remembering it from the Swordfish film "listed by a blind corporation". Thanks. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Blind corporation" is not a standard term. Swordfish (film) seemed to use it to mean a dummy corporation whose real ownership cannot readily be ascertained. John M Baker (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, but I thought it was somehow analogous to a blind trust, or even a blind experiment. The idea being that the operations (or even existence) of said corp. is obfuscated to outside parties. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

With blind trusts and blind experiments, information is kept from insiders - from beneficiaries in the case of blind trusts, and from the experimenters in the case of blind experiments. The context in Swordfish indicates that the existence of the corporation was intended to be known to outsiders, but not who owned or controlled it. Presumably insiders did have that information. John M Baker (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, blind experiment includes the type where only the experimental subject is denied information. If the experimenter is also denied it, it's "double-blind". --174.88.135.88 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I agree with John M Baker that the context of the film is that insiders do know about it, seems just one of those Hollywood dramatizations, maybe even the writers & actors didn't even realize what they were saying just that it "sounds cool". ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Error needs fixing

Hi! Just pointing out that the article on 'Revolutions of 1848' says they ended "the Capetian monarchy in France." This is not accurate since it fell 300 years earlier. The Revolutions ended the Bourbon Monarchy. Would have edited it myself but couldn't figure out how. Best, RAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.47.4 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bourbon were a branch of the Capetians. The name that was given to Louis XVI at his trial was "Louis Capet". There is no error. The French Capetians dynasty in France is divided into several branches (a branch starts when the crown has to go not to a direct descendant but to a descendant of a collateral branch) but they're all ultimately Capetians, i.e. descendants of Hugues Capet. Btw 1848 did not end the Bourbon but the Bourbon-Orléans. The Bourbon were ended in 1830. Contact Basemetal here 15:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please go to Talk:Revolutions of 1848 and raise the issue there. That's what Talk pages are for, and every one of our 4 million+ articles has its own dedicated Talk page. This page is where you come to to ask for help in finding published references for information. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Scopus-archived journals for ethnomedicine article

One of my friends is researching traditional Balinese medicine and hoping to publish in an American or Canadian journal which is included by Scopus. Are there any recommendations regarding journals to which he may submit? Or any journals interested in ethnomedical research? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's one [10]. A journal on Ethnobotany might also be appropriate, depending on how strongly plant culture factors into the traditional Balinese medicine. Here's a list of journals like that [11]. But really, your friend should be talking to their academic advisers about this. Sadly, if your friend is not already an academic and connected with a skilled mentor, there is only a small chance of ever getting work published in a journal indexed by Scopus. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fortunately, he is already a lecturer at Ganesha University in Singaraja, so it's mostly a matter of networking and language barriers (still nothing to sneeze at, I know). Thanks for the suggestions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I can't give any more suggestions for ethnomedicine per se, but some of this stuff often gets blended in with conservation of biodiversity, cultural diversity, land management, etc. So branching out into a conservation perspective might help the work get noticed/funded/published. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Age at which an IRA / Roth IRA is started

Since finance is listed as a sub-topic of the Humanities desk, i take that as sufficient evidence that this is the appropriate place to post this question.

Today i rolled over my Roth IRA from one bank to another. A bank employee at the newer institution remarked that i was getting a "Good head start!". I am 29 and think I've started at a reasonable, but not early time. I am curious to know at what age most people start an IRA!

I do not ask "What is the best time to start an IRA?", because the answer I've heard is as soon as possible. My question is what age people are at a real bank when they open their account. Obviously, some experience from an actual bank worker is especially appreciated. I tried to google this, but the only results i get only indicate what an IRA is, not what average/earliest starting ages have been from real world data.

Am i really that young to start an IRA? Thanks in advance for any help!

216.173.144.188 (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In general, the longer time over which you save, the more time you have to accrue compound interest. But we don't know your medical condition or other factors. You need to contact a licensed professional. The Wikipedia:General disclaimer forbids giving financial advice. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Im not asking advice, i want to know the average age people are when they start an IRA. I already have an IRA and my action will not be changed by an answer on wiki reference desk

216.173.144.188 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask Éamon de Valera, or Gerry Adams? Honestly, I'd never heard of any IRA other than the Irish Republican Army. Please understand that this is an international website, and acronyms you're familiar with that apply only in your country may be meaningless to most other people. I'm now supposing that you're asking for information about an Individual retirement account. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't ask what the average age people were when they started Roth IRA's. Look above. You'll see you asked, "Am i really that young to start an IRA?" And comments by other people who can't google the term Roth IRA should be hatted--just not by me. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

... so the answer to the OP's actual question is "no". Perhaps someone from the USA can answer the implied question about the Roth IRA, but, like Jack, I immediately thought of the Irish meaning of the TLA. The British equivalent would be a SIPP (though that's a FLAB). Dbfirs 07:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

According to page 4 of this 2012 study, 36% of women aged 25 to 32 have an IRA (individual retirement account) or Roth IRA. The study does not similarly break men out by age, but men generally are somewhat more likely to have an IRA or Roth IRA. In addition, 36% of women in this age range have a 401(k) account and 6% have a pension fund account. So I would say it's extremely common for people in your age range to have a retirement account of some kind, though of course not everyone does. Incidentally, although the likelihood of having a retirement account does correlate with age, it better correlates with income. Households with annual income of more than $75,000 are much more likely to have retirement accounts than are households with annual income of less than $75,000. John M Baker (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you John, that's the kind of info i was looking for! Perhaps the comment that i got from the bank employee indicates that people in my specific area don't match your less regional data.

216.173.144.188 (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, User: 216.173.144.188. I thought it might be an interesting and novel approach to just answer the question. I suspect the bank employee meant that you have done well in amassing as much IRA savings as you have, not that you're starting unusually early. John M Baker (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Were African Americans allowed to vote in the 1960 US Presidential election?

Were African Americans allowed to vote in the United States presidential election, 1960, or did it depend on which state they lived in? --Plannerton (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Certain states had things like literacy tests that ended up being applied stringently to blacks and not so stringently to whites, depending on the polling place. No state that had been in or readmitted to the Union after the Civil War explicitly outlawed blacks voting. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So this happened as late as 1960? So it didn't matter whether I was an African American in New York or in rural Alabama, I could still face obstacles? --Plannerton (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility for voting is determined by state law. Such Jim Crow laws seemed to have occurred south of the Manson-Nixon-line. We can't really give you a full accounting of the history of fifty states here. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a lot worse in the South, where violence would be used on anyone who "didn't get the message". In many places in the North there was no attempt to stop blacks from voting. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Legally they were allowed to vote in every state. However, in many Southern states they were prevented from voting by a combination of violence, laws designed to make it difficult for them to vote, like poll taxes, literacy requirements, etc. Incidentally, the US Republican Party is trying to re-establish many of those legal barriers to minority voting today, like requiring a picture ID, which many minorities don't have, if they lack a car and hence a driver's license (although this could also be seen as an attempt to prevent poor people from voting, regardless of race). One method which was used was to close the office where you would register to vote, whenever a group of blacks arrived, and not re-open until they left. (If they refused to leave they would be arrested for disturbing the peace and resisting arrest, after being beaten.) StuRat (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Some Republican-dominated northern states have also tried this voter-ID thing. Their official position is that it's to prevent "voter fraud". What they leave out of that is that their idea of "voter fraud" is voting Democratic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Our article Voting rights in the United States, and notably the section on African Americans and poor whites, provides some good information, links, and references. - Eron^Talk 20:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Blacks would have faced few obstacles to voting in New York. The obstacles mainly occurred in states where slavery was practiced in the 1850s. Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

MJ's ambulance

The photos and video show a red LA Fire Department paramedic car dispatched for the resuscitation of Michael Jackson. Why a Fire Department ambulance and not ordinary ambulance or the ambulance of UCLA Hospital? I thought 911, where the emergency call went, has medical ambulances. Brandmeister^talk 20:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt if the reason is in the public record. Maybe the fire department ambulance was closer at the time, or the regular ambulances were all on other runs. StuRat (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael Jackson died in Holmby Hills, within the city of Los Angeles. According to this reference (the Epicenter LA - Los Angeles 911 System), "If a person needs to be transported via ambulance, the LA City Fire Department will use its own vehicles to do so." The LA Fire Department backs this up; in 2013 over 80% of their calls and responses were for emergency medical services. UCLA has its own EMS but they serve primarily the University and surrounding areas. - Eron^Talk 21:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Living in LA, my (limited) perception is that medical transport in life-threatening scenarios is (pick one: largely, mostly, partly, significantly, not unusually) in the form of Fire Department ambulances. I certainly see nothing unusual about it, and wouldn't assume (as I'd guess you are) that it was his celebrity getting him "special treatment" 75.140.88.172 (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Related question - Fire engines on medical calls

Not quite the same question as Brandmeister's, but this is something I've noticed in many (most?) of the places I've lived in the US — even when 911 is called for strictly medical purposes, the first of the first responders to arrive are typically in a fire truck. There are paramedics on board, of course, but it does seem odd that a fire truck would be the first choice in such a situation. Couldn't they as easily keep ambulances at the fire department and use these for obviously non-fire-related calls (say, someone showing symptoms of a heart attack)? Why the mixing of roles between patient-to-hospital transport and what ought to be firefighter-to-fire transport? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

They have lots of equipment aboard, and calls cannot be always trusted for giving all the necessary details about the context. There is always a short delay before deciding that nothing more should be done without driving the patient away. You do not see the ambulance be late that step in the process. Last that pattern is optimum in keeping firefighting staffs on the move (depends on the area). --Askedonty (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Development of neopaganisms in a post-Christian environment and ancestor worship

I was reading a Wikipedia article called "Veneration of the dead", and I noticed that ancestor worship, or veneration of the dead, was actually practiced in pre-Christian European societies prior to christianization. I think this is very interesting. It makes me wonder if these same neopagans who are descendants of the European Christians use their age-old family bibles in their religious practices, as many families did record genealogies in the family bibles. Are there neopagans that continue the All Saints' Day/Day of the Dead ritual and include that into Neo-Pagan thought? 140.254.136.170 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If I understand your question, it seems to come down to, "Would non-Christians use historically relevant documents written by Christians?" My follow up would be, "Why not?" Let me know if I am getting you wrong. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was expecting to see real neo-pagan communities that do such a thing. It may also tell me how individualistic or collectivist the religion is. If everyone does his or her own thing, then that will certainly paint a very individualistic approach to the practice of religion. 140.254.226.224 (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Concurring with μηδείς, and to enlarge on All Saints Day/Day of the Dead – Neo-pagans such as myself certainly observe various rituals on and around Samhain, of which we regard the Christian Halloween (the Eve of All Hallows/All Saints Day) or the Day itself as a Christianization of the original Pagan festivals of that time of year. {the poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about Halloween at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102013325. Point 3 indicates that there are.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)