Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 January 26

= January 26 =

Relationship between relative age of students and their academic performance
In most K–12 education systems, the students within a grade differ in age by up to one year. On average, do the older student perform better academically than their younger classmates?

I found two papers that claim this is indeed the case.

But then I also found this New Yorker article, citing this paper, that the opposite is true, surprisingly enough.

So which group of academics is correct here? WinterWall (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely you can come to any reliable conclusion with only 3 papers, only unless one of them happens to be a review paper (i.e. there are actually a lot more papers). At most, you may be able to decide that one or more of the papers isn't particularly good (but this doesn't mean you can be certain that the others are definitely right even if the research is better, you still only have 2 papers). Anyway these papers seem to be looking at different things. The first 2 seem to be looking at academic performance during the children's schooling years. The other one seems to be looking at IQ at 18, educational attainment, earnings, teenage pregnancy and possibly other things. So it could easily be both findings are largely correct (or for that matter wrong). Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Something besides scholastic aptitude that matters is self-control and emotional maturity, especially in early elementary school. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I’ve had a quick dig through google scholar and found three more papers   (that coincidentally come to similar conclusions as your first two) but no systematic review/literature review/meta-analytic review, which is what you want. Some terms for you to keep searching on: “birthday effect”, “relative age effect”, “birth month”, “season of birth”, “birthdate effect” etc. Taknaran (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

what if the USA, the EU-Countries, Russia, China and India suddenly disappared?
what would happen, if, some day about now, the United States of America, the 28 member states of the European Union, the Russian Federation, the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of India (all these nations territory defined by the territory they claim to belong to them, irrespective of how other countries think of these claims or actual territorial control. Territorial waters count. Airspace and space within earth gravity well included) would, without any unusual preceding signs or explanation suddenly disappear (disappear in the sense, that there are nosigns anymore, that humans ever existed in these places - no manmade structures, no artifacts, even ressources exploited by humans are back) ? What would be the global ramifications of such an event? How would the part of humanity that would still be there (and their gouvernments) act in such a situation with all of the worlds major powers gone? (of course I'm aware that this premise is rather fantastical, but so is Without Warning (Birmingham novel)) --134.91.43.42 (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a great question for xkcd What If. I think Randall would also love your exact specifications of the problem. Not that there's anything wrong with asking it here, either. &mdash; Sebastian 08:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing wrong with asking it here is that it says at the top of the page "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." -- BenRG (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See also Darwinia (novel)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The only certain answer is that the USA, the EU-Countries, Russia, China and India would no longer exist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ukraine Would Rule World! MWAHaha HAHaha  HAHaha HAHaha HAHaha   HAHaha  ! μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Switzerland might also have an opinion on the issue. Tevildo (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Swiss will be too busy in their sex boxes for world domination. And don't even mention the Japanese and Koreans with their marriage pillows.  Ukraine Rules!!! μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the Mongol Hordes would deal with them. Mind you, the swastika is quite popular there, so maybe they might get along quite well, especially at football matches.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  09:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Mongkrainia Would Rule World! MWAHaha HAHaha  HAHaha HAHaha HAHaha   HAHaha  ! μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have to take my car to be e-tested anymore...70.30.20.185 (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And the Canadian content TV quota would be easier to maintain. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only that, no-one would have to worry about the Eurozone anymore, without the Greeks, Spanish, and Italians to feck it up. Britain would once again be completely independant (though with the OP's premise, no-one would actually be here). Anybody not in the EU would immediately seize the chance to occupy these islands if we all disappeared suddenly, through some bizarre 'rapture' thingy that Christians fantasize about, only to find lots of clothes lying around in the streets, because, apparently, God is into having lots of naked people around him. Or maybe that was just the artists in the old days, where drawing pictures of naked men was a 'fashion'. Oh, hang on, they were Greek, Spanish, and Italians. Is there a pattern here?  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  19:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Judaism
Suppose that you believe the entire Hebrew Bible to be true (like most Christians), but you don't accept the New Testament. You're also not Jewish by ethnicity and haven't formally converted to the religion. Perhaps you were a Christian who got disillusioned with the New Testament, and because you're black, nobody would think you're a Jew. What would you be called? Do people like this actually exist? Under Jewish tradition, do these people have to follow the Law (including all 613 mitzvot), or can they just follow the Noahide laws? --Bowlhover (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In ancient times such people were known as God-fearers -- kind of hangers-on to Judaism who were reluctant to get circumcised or effectively repudiate their previous ethnic affiliation. Christianity spread in part because converting to Christianity didn't require such steps... AnonMoos (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Our article Noahidism explains that there is a modern concept of Noahidism, but not how many adherents there are. Under Jewish law, unless you're Jewish, you don't need to keep the 613 laws, just the seven. If you wanted to convert, it's notoriously difficult, but I know people who have done this, and this particular motive, which is often taken into account by the Beth Din for orthodox conversion, is extremely noble. There are black Jews. Our disambiguation page has some links.  --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Many "Christian" Conservatives in the US seems to believe in the old testament more than the new. They believe in the existence of Christ, but don't follow his teachings, like pacifism.  They would also like the Noahide law banning homosexuality. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Um -- theologically, Jesus did not teach "pacifism", but "forgiveness." See theological texts on this, and don't read the "popular religion" books which tend to deal in single syllables .  The best example of "Christian pacifism" practitioners I can think of is the Mennonites. John Howard Yoder's discussion about Reinhold Niebuhr and "forgiveness" as not meaning absolute "pacifism" is directly on point.     Collect (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the Quakers ! StuRat (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * More properly Friends. See   for a book which deals at length with the dichotomy between pacifism and civic responsibility for defense in the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in the 17th century.  Complex, but the possibility that "pacifism" was  not present at the start of the Friends movement is interesting.  deals with the slavery issue -- where the distinction between pacifism and anti-slavery  actions were rife in the movement. Not a "one size fits all" situation. Collect (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all! I didn't know that there are former Christians who convert to Judaism, or that black Jews existed.
 * @StuRat: Jesus' position on pacifism was confusing, to say the least. Everyone knows Matthew 5:38, where Jesus tells his disciples to turn the other cheek instead of resisting evil-doers.  But he had no problem with evil-doers being cast into outer darkness or into everlasting fires, with "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Luke 13:27-28, Matthew 13:40-43, Mark 9:47, plus many other places).  In Luke 22:36 he tells his followers to buy swords, but then admonishes them for chopping off the ear of someone coming to arrest him.  We never find out what the swords are for--perhaps the apocalypse that he thought was coming?
 * I also don't think Jesus had anything against the Old Testament. In fact, he quite explicitly says that the Law will not pass until heaven and earth pass away (see my blog post here, under "Jesus' teachings: the Law").  Certainly Paul and many other Christians were explicitly antinomian, but Jesus was probably not.  --Bowlhover (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, further to StuRat's comment above, it's far from clear that the Jewish concept of Noahidism includes a prohibition on homosexuality. We're currently discussing the sources at WT:JUDAISM. --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Questions about Black people in Britain
Hi Kids. I have 2 questions regarding the history of Black people in Britain.


 * Aside from job discrimination and issues with the police, how did the idea of Black power come to Britain in the late 1960s and 1970s?


 * Secondly, is there a difference between Black Power and Black Consciousness? Are they linked or separate? Thanks guys.

--Spoœekspaar (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 2) Our articles treat them separately, but of course there are some links in terms of ideology and goals - see Black_Power, and Black_Consciousness_Movement. The former is seen as starting in the USA, the latter as starting in South Africa. Both had some impacts around the world. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Red Army personal firearms in 1918-1921
What were the main personal firearm models (revolvers, pistols and rifles) used by the Red Army in the Russian Civil War? The ones most often mentioned in fiction are Mauser C96 handgun, Nagant M1895 revolver, Mosin rifle and Berdan rifle. Are these really the main ones, or is this a self-sustaining bias in literary and cinematic fiction? What other types of revolvers and pistols were in use in the Red Army? Dr Dima (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find any direct references, but The Soviet High Command: a Military-political History, 1918-1941 edited by John Erickson (p. 9) says that the foundation of the Red Army were the Red Guard detachments, made up from revolutionaries from Imperial Army base depots and "Fighting Detachments of the People's Militia" which were formed by Bolshevik groups in factories. There were plenty of weapons available from the disintegrating Imperial Army (9 million strong with at least 2 million front line troops in October 1917) and the Bolsheviks had control of the munitions factories. However, they had no allies in the outside world to send them weapons, so I suspect that the arsenal of the Red Army would be limited to weapons made in Russia or imported by the previous regime. The US had been a major supplier to the Tsar's forces, selling anything them that was available including the Winchester Model 1895 lever-action rifle. In many armies, officers were responsible for purchasing their own sidearms, which perhaps explains the Mausers, bought commercially pre-war (I believe that Winston Churchill carried one at the Battle of Omdurman). Alansplodge (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you! This is helpful. --Dr Dima (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

australian aboriginals
Why didn't the Australian Aboriginals domesticate animals or develop agriculture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.96 (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The way they lived worked just dandy for somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 years. Far longer than any other known human societies.  They were perfectly adapted to their environment, to the extent that they made no distinctions between themselves and the environment.  They did not own any land.  If anything, they considered the land owned them.  They knew nothing of the world outside their country, and didn't need to.  This is a bit like asking why Martians don't speak English.  --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really. The people in other places who did domesticate animals and develop agriculture were also adapted to their environment, they just found a new adaptation that worked better for them. Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel goes into why it was that some cultures made these changes and others didn't; as I recall, the principal reason is the availability of suitable species of plants and animals. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I recall it's a combination of several environmental criteria. Only two seasons, always the same temperature, always the same food resources all year long, is not the same thing as four different seasons and the need to store for winter, or the need to migrate thus witness there are different realities out there. The fact that there are four seasons and a sky that changes shape and depth, and a lenghth of day that can be short or long etc, probably suggests more than on other latitudes, that reality could exist in many possible ways? Akseli9 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a lot of generalisation. Not all Aboriginal people lived in the desert or tropical regions. For example in the south west, the Noongar people recognised six distinct seasons. Various groups did indeed employ forms of agriculture and aquaculture. Hack (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Some Aboriginals had fairly sophisticated routines of fire management (surprising redlink, and land management does not mention fire...). Anyway, see e.g. here or here  for some information on what this accomplished. The idea is that by manipulating fire frequency and severity, they could maximize plant and animal resources. Now, this isn't exactly what most people would call agriculture, but it is a way of cultivating plants and animals for human consumption, which is  the broad definition of agriculture.  SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * We do have an article about controlled burns. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would guess that kangaroos aren't as easy to domesticate as animals like sheep. All you need to keep a herd of sheep in line is a few sheep dogs.  I doubt if that would work for roos.  You'd probably need lots of very high fences.  StuRat (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the infeasability has been well-documented. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Akseli9's weather related theory doesn't bear close scrutiny. "Tasmania has a cool temperate climate with four distinct seasons..." yet the Aboriginal Tasmanians are generally held to be the society that developed the least forms of technology. They were apparently unable (or unwilling) to start fires, make clothes and in some places even build shelters beyond a simple wind break. This article says, "Tasmania, however, was cut off from all outside input 10,000 years ago, and the sole inventions available were those of the Tasmanians themselves." It also points out that from the archaeological evidence, Tasmanians lost the ability to make bone tools and inexplicably stopped eating fish, despite living mainly on the coast. Isolation seems to be the issue. Alansplodge (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * True. Akseli9 (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)