Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 22

= February 22 =

Golden Rule buyout in fiction
"In a Golden Rule buyout, the parties agree that in the event they disagree to such an extent that the company effectively cannot function, each partner can offer to buy the other out for a price determined by the offering partner. The other partner then has a period of time (usually thirty days) in which to do one of two things: he or she can either agree to the price and terms offered by the offering partner and sell their ownership stake, or he or she can turn around and buy the offering partner's stake in the company for the same price and terms that the offering partner proposed."

Basically applying Divide and choose on a company.

I'm looking for works of fiction that contain a Golden Rule buyout, preferably as a major plot element.

I asked this question 2 weeks and received a blind guess. Dncsky (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This question sounds familiar. Did you check the recent archives? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Look at the date of the question. They copied it right out of the archives, Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 11. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Suppose I want to build a bomb. God, I have a headache! Is the humiliator plugged in or not? μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I asked it 2 weeks ago but didn't get any leads.Dncsky (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want guesses, I'd say Heinlein, Number of the Beast era. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm looking for something more solid than guesses. Links to plot summaries or if you read the books and recalls clearly there being a golden rule buyout in it would be great. Dncsky (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You got one lead and said you will look in to it. Did it turn out the book didn't cover what you asked in your question or are you just looking for other possibilities? If you're going to ask a question again, it always pays to explain why previous answers weren't sufficient. It's particularly a bad idea to suggest you didn't get any answers when you did. Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't receive an answer. I received a blind guess. I don't plan on buying a novel just because it has the words "buyout" in the title. I'll add the explanation to my question above. Dncsky (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems a little misleading to call it a 'blind guess' or imply they were solely going by what was in the 'title' when the person involved took the time to research for an answer and read reviews to try and confirm what was in the book and found evidence from those reviews, which they pointed out to you, that it covered what you were asking about. It would have been helpful for them to clarify this to a greater extent in their answer or otherwise make it clearer when answering that they couldn't be sure it covered what you were asking about, but then again your followup here didn't clarify your apparent demands of answers and didn't even mention that you'd asked before until it was pointed out. Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate their help and thanked them personally both in the RD thread and on my talk page. But that still doesn't change the fact the novel Buyout was suggested simply because the title matched "buyout" and an in-novel object called "Golden Needle" happened to match the word "golden". There is nothing in the review to suggest the novel contained anything near what I'm looking for. Dncsky (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Erm. was most definitely not a blind guess. I did spend time looking and I did read reviews and to me, the plot device in Irvine's Buyout did appear to be similar to your requirement. More similar than you imply above. Fiction, Buyout in the title, Golden needle, trade-off within 48-hours and hints of deals going bad. The only thing I did not say originally was that I hadn't read it but  where I also explained why I had not directly linked my answer to the commercial site Amazon. Frankly, I feel it is a little disingenuous to call my response a blind guess. Thank you @Nil Einne for drawing my attention to this discussion --  Senra (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, this really does sound like a device one would come acrost in either Heinlein or Piers Anthony, but I am not sure how one goes about searching for plot devices, and I can't remember any specific story where this would apply exactly. Number of the Beast has a lot of this ultimatum stuff going on. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's the thing, I'm absolutely fascinated by this device but there's really no good way to search for it. This particular business strategy has dozens of names, and could even be referred to by an in-universe name in an SF or fantasy setting. Novel summaries and synopses usually don't have enough space to describe all the business exchanges within the book. So I'm pretty much down to asking fellow readers: "Hey, have you seen this cool gizmo in any of the books you've read?"Dncsky (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, are you just looking for reading material? If you like this sort of thing you should like most anything by Heinlein.  Piers Anthony is actually more of a juvenile writer, although some of his books are adult/adult level.  There's also John Grisham. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are no surefire hits then yes, I'm pretty much just looking to expand my reading list of legal/business/entrepreneurship themed novels until I stumble upon one with the device. Thanks for your suggestions, I'll chalk them down.Dncsky (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you like stories with gimmicks you'll also probably like Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, although the legal tricks are secondary, and the first book takes a good 70 pages to get into. As for Heinlein, his best works are:
 * Citizen of the Galaxy--coming of age thriller
 * Tunnel in the Sky--coming of age politics
 * Starship Troopers--military politics
 * Stranger in a Strange Land--cult classic
 * Farnham's Freehold--postapocalyptic freedom and responsibility
 * The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress--The American Revolution and the nature of sentience
 * I Will Fear No Evil--a rich old man buys happiness
 * Time Enough for Love--the immortal nature of love
 * The Number of the Beast--Dr Who meets incest and orgy
 * Friday--apocalyptic spy thriller
 * μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm a huge Heinlein fan, but that wouldn't have been my list at all. On my top ten, the only of those I'd keep is Tunnel in the Sky.  Let's see, in no particular order &mdash; Gulf, The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag, Double Star, The Door into Summer, The Puppet Masters, Waldo, Job: A Comedy of Justice, The Man who Sold the Moon.  I might come up with a different list on a different day.  Dncsky, for what you're asking about, definitely check out the last one.  Probably we have an article:  The Man who Sold the Moon -- see if that's blue. --Trovatore (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Already second thoughts &mdash; definitely scratch Gulf and substitute Lost Legacy. Dncsky, I can't emphasize this enough &mdash; The Man Who Sold the Moon is absolutely smack-dab in the middle of the kind of thing you're asking about.  You might also like Magic, Inc.. --Trovatore (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. The Man Who Sold the Moon is now definitely on the top of my list.Dncsky (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it have been helpful in my reposting to mention that the novel Buyout contains an object called "Golden Needle" and so if you googled "golden rule buyout" you would get hits to summaries of the novel even though it's completely unrelated? I made a judgement that this explanation doesn't clarify the question at all and would introduce needless confusion. If my judgement was wrong then I apologize, but I made the judgement in good faith.Dncsky (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I know the proposition as a "shotgun clause". It is common in shareholders' agreements and corporate real-estate agreements. A "golden buyout" sound more as if it would be related to  "golden parachutes" and  "golden handshakes". There are a few mystery novels where corporate ownerships are structured this way, often in family-owned businesses, and lead to murder.  Emma Lathen wrote at least one with this theme. Bielle (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes! Thank you. I've been collecting alternate names for it as well since it helps to broaden the search.Dncsky (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Anna Christine Lofstedt responsible for housing and education for Pasadena Mexican Americans
Because of a published thesis by Anna Christine Lofstedt, a USC student, the city of Pasadena was moved to appoint a Special Housing Committee to recommend solutions for Mexican Americans housing needs. The Board of Directors meeting of the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce and Civic Association meeting of June 20, 1922 described a housing crisis. "The need is urgent. Seventeen families are obliged to give up their homes immediately because of the gas companies need of a new gas tank.  Some of the families will probably be housed temporarily in tents.  The number of housed that can be rented to Mexicans is very limited and this often results in Mexican families being crowded together to a disgraceful degree.  Many of the houses that are available are such filthy shacks that they should not be tolerated.  If a constructive work is to be done in teaching the Mexicans law and order, something must be done to help them secure decent homes." It was decided that the Mexican American families would prefer to stay in the area where schools, churches and welfare agencies were already available. "The committee also said, "The residents of Pasadena would not welcome any encroachment on their residence section on the part of the Mexicans.

This 1920's mover and shaker lit a fire under the community and because of her thesis 24 homes were built as "Broadway Court." (now Arroyo Parkway) Anna Christine Lofstedt, who had studied the neighborhood, became principal of the fine new Junipero Serra School. ññ Mary Ann C. M... (surname and email removed) 71.92.71.193 (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you have a question for us? This page is for asking questions that require references. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Need help
- why delete the article because of small errors? There is a whole category Category:Russian words and phrases. Please correct the errors. Thank you in advanceVyacheslav84 (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't a ref desk question, and the problem wasn't small errors. It is not something that people can follow. However, it looks like a good faith contribution, and I encourage you to keep working on things. Start by collaborating on an established article that needs a bit of work. And use the ref desk if you have any reference questions about it. IBE (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * and - complete destruction of the contribution???? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears that Scientific Myth was a Google translation of ru:Научный миф and I suspect that your other articles were, too. The Google translations are mostly impossible to read, and as such don't reach basic quality standards. Please do work on other articles, for instance the articles your edits were redirected to. You can create a subpage to your talk page where you can edit the rough translation from Google until it's passable English.Sjö (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was rather thinking the OP had been having a time with Google translate. Still, we encourage this sort of enthusiasm, so keep at it, and you will gradually absorb the culture here. IBE (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have alot
what did they to the get Louisiana purchase. why did the want to get the territory for? what did they do to capture Texas? why did they want the territory for? who was responsible for the capture of organ country? what did they do to get organ country? where did they get the territory from? when did they get it? why did they want the territory for? who capetured the war with mexico? what did they do to get it? where as they territory located? when did it happen? why did they want it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuahhhw (talk • contribs) 05:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See Louisiana Purchase, Mexican-American War, History of Texas, and Oregon Territory (I sure hope that's what you were asking about). StuRat (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I could summarize by answering the questions individually: money, expansion; annexation, expansion; us, treaty, British, 1840s, expansion; us, war, Mexico, 1840s, expansion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Joshuahhhw -- I hope you know that the events you mentioned happened over several generations (from 1803-1848 at least). As for "why", see Manifest Destiny... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Manifest Destiny was kind of a cover for the desire for more land and power. For a survey of these acquisitions, see United States territorial acquisitions.  Marco polo (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The cash for the Louisiana Purchase was borrowed from a British bank, and Napoleon promptly spent the whole lot on his planned invasion of England. Nearly the only time that a country has financed her own defeat. As things turned out, the bank made a profit and Napoleon nearly bankrupted himself, so it turned out all right in the end. Alansplodge (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Kind of a political version of Brock for Broglio. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Politics left right wing strongholds Italy France Netherlands Belgium Spain Portugal UK Israel
Which first-level administrative divisions of Italy are traditionally left wing stronghold?; Which first-level administrative divisions of France are traditionally left wing stronghold?; Which first-level administrative divisions of Portugal are traditionally left wing stronghold?; Which first-level administrative divisions of Spain are traditionally left wing stronghold?; Which first-level administrative divisions of Belgium are traditionally left wing stronghold?; Which first-level administrative divisions of the Netherlands are traditionally left wing stronghold? Which first-level administrative divisions of United Kingdom are traditionally left wing stronghold? Which first-level administrative divisions of Israel are traditionally left wing stronghold?--Donmust90 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90
 * DonMust90, please stop bombing the reference desk with questions, especially without showing what research you have already done on them. --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) Regarding the Netherlands, I think none of the 12 provinces can really be called a 'stronghold' for either right-wing or left-wing politics. Party results vary wildly between elections and quite a few parties are not particularly right or left. However, see http://www.google.com/elections/ed/nl/results for an impression of vote distribution. You'll see that the most important right-wing party (VVD) is strongest in the west: North Holland and South Holland, the left-wing PvdA is strongest in the three northern provinces Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe, while the Socialist Party is strongest in the south: North Brabant and Limburg.
 * We would first have to agree on the definitions of the first-level administrative divisions. In the UK, do you just want to know about Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, or do you also want to know about the English regions? Note that left strongholds are unlikely to correspond with the administrative geography. In France the "red belt" around Paris is well known, but Ile de France region as a whole is split between the Socialists and the UMP. The left also had strength in the Massif Central and in Languedoc, but that depended on economic and social structures that are long gone. In the UK, the Conservatives do much less well in Scotland and Wales than in England, but that does not mean that Labour has a free run in those countries, as nationalist parties are also very popular. In Spain, the mining region of Asturias was known for its left politics, but may not be now. The left has been strong in Catalonia and the Basque country; nationalist parties are too. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Donmust90 -- are you aware that Israeli parliament elections have no geographical basis (i.e. the whole country is one big district)? AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if that were true, it wouldn't mean that certain regions of Israel didn't tend to vote certain ways. There may be geographic voting patterns even in the absence of single-member disticts.  Though, I should remind Donmust as I have everytime he's asked this is the best place to start his research in these directions is at "Politics in XXXX" articles.  -- Jayron  32  01:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason I ask this question was because I forgot to mention about Italy's People of Freedom and Democratic Party popular support. According to People of Freedom#Popular support, it said that its stronghold is in Lombardy, Veneto, Sicily and Apulia. Campagnia has been traditionally a left-wing stronghold. Democratic Party strongholds are Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna.--Donmust90 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Gerhard Heilmann
I have a Juleplatte 1906 painted by Gerhard Heilmann. I have tried to search for information about his art during this time, but cannot find anything & also wanted to find out how/where to find out about getting evaluations on his artwork from that time. Any help on this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thank you... Katie9991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie9991 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Start with our article; Gerhard Heilmann. Alansplodge (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Criminal charge for serious poisoning
In the United States, what criminal charge would apply to a suspect accused of poisoning someone else to the point of causing serious injury (for example, permanent physical disability) but without killing or an intent to kill, so that it would not be either murder or attempted murder? My initial guess was grievous bodily harm, but the Wikipedia article on that topic, though not too clear on the subject, seems to imply that charge exists only in the British Isles but not in the United States. Also, what charge would be leveled for an unsuccessful attempt to seriously poison? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 19:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The United States does not have just one law code, it has 51 at least: a separate code for each of the 50 states, and the federal code. Exactly how poisoning is handled varies among these different jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, (effective) poisoning is a separate felony that can be the basis for a criminal charge.  In many jurisdictions, an unsuccessful attempt at poisoning would be considered assault.  Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Re: "In some jurisdictions, (effective) poisoning is a separate felony that can be the basis for a criminal charge." Yes, and that's my question exactly: what then is the name of that charge? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 21:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As Marco Polo suggests, in some US jurisdictions an effective act of poisoning without the intention to kill would be an assault, but only in those jurisdictions that have removed the distinction inherited from English common law between assault and battery (e.g. New York). In those jurisdictions where this distinction is maintained (e.g. California), it would be a battery. I misread Marco Polo's point. An effective poisoning might be an assault where the term incorporates battery or a battery where it doesn't, but I presume an ineffective poisoning could only be an assault where the two terms are distinct (and where the victim was "caused to apprehend violence").


 * Browsing through the criminal codes relating to offences against the person of a handful of states  , what's striking is that US state law seems more concerned with who is being assaulted/battered (with lots of specific types of individuals whose involvement as victims makes the offence aggravated) and why they are being assaulted/battered and less concerned with the means of causing injury. This is to some extent in contrast to the Offences against the Person Act 1861 in English law which in its original enactment  spends more time talking about the different means of causing harm, with a legal distinction between shooting "with loaded Arms", and wounding (essentially an injury where the skin is pierced), and other forms of causing bodily harm, and separate sections for such acts as using chloroform (etc.), or choking, or gunpowder, or poisoning (Section 23 when "so as to endanger Life or inflict grievous bodily Harm" and Section 24 where there is "Intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy any other Person").


 * In many codes the means of assault/battery are largely elided and the issue is that the assailant "[i]ntentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to another" or "[i]ntentionally or knowingly causes serious physical injury to another" or similar wording, which would seem to cover most attempts to cause harm without specific intent to kill. Again just randomly browsing different state codes:- Virginia does have a specific offence relating to "Attempts to poison", but this offence doesn't distinguish as to whether there was an intent to kill or only to injure; Arizona has a specific offence re: "Unlawfully administering intoxicating liquors, a narcotic drug or dangerous drug" but it's not clear to me whether all poisons would fall under those labels - presumably this would be partly down to case law in that state; Idaho has a specific offence of poisoning  which sits in its own chapter unlike some of the other offences which fall under a general "assault" or "crimes against the person" chapter. You can look for others yourself by googling the state codes of individual states. Federal law on assault similarly refers very generally to "assault resulting in serious bodily injury" etc.  which would seem to cover an effective poisoning where there was no specific intent to kill. Valiantis (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry that it's taken me a while to get back to this, but my understanding is that in some states a person can be charged with poisoning. Marco polo (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

How often do Christians pray or are supposed to pray in public?
From my experience in the USA, I have encountered more Muslims praying than Christians. On the other hand, if Christians do pray, then they perform a prayer that is not directly observable. Could it be Jesus's commandment in the Book of Matthew that Christians ought not to be like the hypocrites near by the synagogues who show off their religion and therefore Christians are not obligated to pray publicly because doing so may indicate excessive pride or false piety? 140.254.121.40 (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Practice varies widely. Some Christians pray before meals, whether at home or in a restaurant. Others do not. Islam does not require public prayer but it does require prayer a certain number of times per day, at specified times. That might be why you saw more Muslims praying in public. thx1138 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, there is actually more diversity in the Christian population than the Muslim population, presumably because Christianity does not specify prayer. It may require a person to pray (I can't imagine a religious person who doesn't pray), but does not specify the prayer or how it is done. 140.254.121.40 (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is more diversity in the Christian population, but you might be interested in reading about the Divine Office/Liturgy of the Hours. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooooh. Thanks! 140.254.121.40 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Matthew 6:5 μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if that is really interpreted to mean a caution for false piety or a caution to literally praying outside the synagogues or something else. It's not so much what a book says, but how it is interpreted to say that matters. I wonder if it may contribute to Christian views of Muslims. 140.254.121.40 (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, there is a specified prayer, The Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13), but in the preceding verses (Matthew, 6:6), Jesus advises that it should be said in your own room with the door shut. However, in Matthew 18:20, Jesus says that when two or three are gathered together in His name, he will be with them. This is the text which supports the practice of communal prayer, such as in church. It is quoted at the start of the Anglican service of Morning Prayer. More advice about prayer comes in the various letters of Saint Paul to the early churches. But I broadly agree with Ndteegarden's comments above.
 * Also, have a look at our articles, Christian prayer and Salah, which explains the Islamic perspective. Alansplodge (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To be on the safe side, the Christian prayer page looks ill cited. They reference to the direct pages of the Bible without explanation on why or how it is being interpreted, leading one to the assumption that those interpretations about prayer are general throughout Christianity. 140.254.121.40 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200274587 and scroll down to "frequency".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Wavelength is providing guidance from a single denomination, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and may not represent views held by the preponderance of all Christians. Which only highlights the point that there are many different denominations of Christianity, and each of them is likely to provide different guidance on this; there is probably no universal understanding within Christianity regarding prayer.  -- Jayron  32  22:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking totally anecdotally, we always said grace at meals served at the house, and never at restaurants, because that would be "showing off", as per the words of Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See, and I wouldn't read Jesus's words to be a total condemnation of public prayer. Jesus is clear in other places when he speaks about such matters is that a person's internal mindset is what matters, NOT a person's outward actions.  Jesus clearly prays in public at times, and as noted above, also advocates it in places.  What he's advocating is a proper mindset in prayer such that the purpose of the prayer is to communicate with God, and not to make oneself appear pious merely to impress one's peers.  -- Jayron  32  00:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For a Russian Orthodox, it's recommended to pray after and before sleep, before and after every meal, in some special occasions, at church every Sunday. To follow all these there are special prayerbooks. Not all of them should be done in public, for example, before sleep one prays in private, but before meal one can pray in public. No one thought of this as a sign of false piety (at least for lower classes; for noblemen it could look indeed as hypocrisy). But nowadays only tenths of percents do this, and in the modern atheistic society a personal public prayer would be perceived as strange at least. Though collective prayers led by priests still happen.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe your society is atheistic. Ours certainly is not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it was clear from the context that I was speaking about Russia/CIS (where >90% of at least "declared" Russian Orthodox Christians reside) and not about Uganda or the USA.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 90% believers doesn't sound like an "atheistic" society. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * These are "so-called" believers. Theoretically all the ethnic Russians are Orthodox Christians but this is far from reality, such optimistic claims are only said by the Russian Church's officials. Better say they are "declared" or "ethnic" Christians, but not practising. The only "Christian things" the majority do are baptizing their children and burying the deceased according to the Christian rites. Some also marry at church, and many "celebrate" (in their sense) Christmas and Easter. Russia is a semi-atheistic/agnostic society with ritualistic remnants in the popular culture.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignore it, Luboslov: your meaning was and is quite clear, and this discussion will go nowhere productive. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a lot denser than you are, so maybe you could explain which "modern atheistic society" he's referring to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He said 90% of the Russian Orthodox, i.e. of every ten Russian Orthodox believers in the world, more than nine of them live in Russia. That would be true even if there were just one hundred Russian Orthodox believers worldwide and ninety-one lived in Russia.  Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Russia is one of the European countries with the high percentage of people who do not believe in God at all or believe in some "supernatural force" but never attend church or follow any religion rites.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)