Humanities desk
< April 19	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 21 >

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.

April 20[edit]

Why do American supermarkets have so many varieties of apples?[edit]

For some produce items, there are 2-3 varieties, and some have only one variety. Avocados are typically Hass avocados, but sometimes "Mexican avocados" may appear. But for apples, there may be a whole row of apples. Why are there so many kinds of apples in the United States, even though apples aren't even indigenous plants? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apples certainly grow in much of the US, and that alone probably accounts for much of the diversity. That is, if importing fruit from the other side of the world, you might stick with a small number of types that travel well, while if they are grown locally, you can buy all the varieties that are for sale. Apples are also popular for different purposes, such as cooking into pies, eating directly, making into juice or cider, or even hard cider or apple jack. So, different varieties may fulfill these different purposes. A similarly diverse crop is potatoes, which also grow in much of the US, and are also available in many varieties. Same for onions. StuRat (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's partly due to them being "extreme heterozygotes" (follow the link for more). This fellow also played a part. Apples have also long played a part in American symbolism and culture, leading to them being very popular. However, I should point out that the Americans are hardly unique in having several cultivars of apples in their stores; here in Canada, it would be a poorly stocked gorcery store that had less than 8-10 varieties - more when they're in season locally. Matt Deres (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] A relevant factor is that apples readily cross-pollinate to form new varieties and because of their genetics do not breed true when grown from seed, and a tree will be several years old before it fruits and the new variety's properties are evident, after which 'investment' there's incentive to keep it and find its best use (if found desirable, it can be propagated thereafter by grafting and/or cloning to preserve it from further cross pollination – several now-popular varieties of apple in the UK can be traced back to a single original tree). In contrast, a quicker-yielding plant not breeding true may be spotted and eliminated with much less investment of time and effort. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think apple diversity, or broadly biodiversity, is important. It promotes resistance to disease. Be fruitful and multiply. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While obviously more than avocados, I'm not convinced apple biodiversity is as high as you seem to think. While there are a lot of List of apple cultivars, I think you'll find a lot of the common ones are actually highly related. Actually this applies to a lot of our cultivated crops. If you really care about biodiversity, probably the most important thing is to conserve those in Kazakhstan. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note however the hass avocado is also clonal (Vegetative reproduction), as with apple varieties, so I'm not sure how relevant this is in coming up with a reason for the difference. I believe both apples and Hass avocados often even use clonal rootstocks, see also Rootstock. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because people buy all those different kinds of apples. If people displayed a desire to buy more than cavendish bananas or hass avocados, we'd have those varieties too. Tomatoes also come in a bewildering array of varieties as well. The market determines demand and stores stock what they know people will buy. If people didn't buy a particular variety of food, and it rotted on the shelf, it wouldn't be economically feasible for stores to carry it. This is basic market economics, stuff like supply and demand and marketing. --Jayron 32 02:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then, why do Americans prefer different varieties of apples? Why not just have different varieties of apples for biodiversity's sake but call all the varieties by the same name "apple"? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because they have different tastes, textures, and qualities. Some are great for eating out of hand but lousy for cooking; some are great for cooking but not for baking; some are sweet, some are sour; some are bland, some are flavorful. And different people like different things. I think a Red Delicious is a completely boring apple; to others, they are the definition of apple. And why do you keep specifying "Americans"? Is there much less apple diversity in other places? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I focus on Americans, because I need to narrow down the scope arbitrarily. I find that being arbitrarily narrow in scope is better than being arbitrarily broad in scope. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking google? The Definitive Guide to Apples and their Uses is interesting and came up as the first result.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should buy a few different apples and taste-test them for comparison. Variety names distinguish them. It's like asking why automobiles have brand names and model names... or any product, for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are "over 2,000 varieties of apple" in the UK's National Fruit Collection. We like a choice too. Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the answer seems to be that apples store well. Those multiple varieties of apples sold in the supermarket under a bewildering assortment of names and unique characteristics may have last been attached to a tree many months ago. "Here in the U.S. apples generally ripen between August and September. They pick the apples when they’re slightly unripe, treat them with a chemical called 1-methylcyclopropene, wax them, box them, stack them on pallets, and keep them in cold storage warehouses for an average of 9-12 months." Other produce items may be much more fresh. "With many items, like spinach, the leaves may have been plucked no more than a few weeks ago. But with many others, like apples, the fruit probably sat in cold storage for a year before making its way to the supermarket." It is possible to entice the customer into buying more apples by presenting a wide variety of types. It might be possible to entice the customer into buying more of other sorts of produce by presenting a wide variety of types. But other sorts of produce may not lend themselves to long term storage. This may restrict suppliers of other sorts of produce to offering the public a much more limited (if fresher) selection. I'm deriving my information only from this source, at which I read that "the average supermarket apple is 14 months old." Bus stop (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken giblets[edit]

All the time, I see whole chickens without giblets. What's up with that? Is this a new trend? Where are the giblets, like the chicken gizzard and the heart? Who cuts up the meat - the butcher at the grocery store/supermarket or the slaughterhouse? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My local supermarket (Southern California) sells flats full of nothing but hearts and gizzards. If there are too many of them to sell that way, the pet food industry buys whatever surplus chicken parts (also beef tongues and brains, etc.) are cheap enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most meat packers have provided partially butchered chickens for as long as I can remember (which is a long damn time, certainly pre-internet), such as whole cut-up chickens and bone-in, skin-on breasts and boneless skinless breasts. This is not a new development, and in the U.S. (the OP has a U.S. based IP address) supermarkets have carried a variety of chicken products, from minimally processed whole chickens with innards inact, down to "seasoned in the bag" chicken products that can go straight to the grille/oven. That variety is not a "new trend". It's been standard since the supermarket has reached its modern form; at least since my childhood, which was decades ago. --Jayron 32 13:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there has been a general trend in increasing convenience for the end consumer, which often means that the poultry is in a more advanced stage of preparedness. As a child (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth), I never saw a cooked chicken in the grocery store and my mom always got giblets when purchasing a whole bird. Now the opposite is true: at my local grocer, I'd wager that more chicken meat is available in cooked form than uncooked and poultry giblets of any kind are at least sold separately (I'm sure that's part of the calculus) and perhaps only done via special order. Matt Deres (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. When I buy a whole chicken from a national distributor, its vacuum-sealed in a bag with the giblets (and often the neck) in a paper baggie shoved back in the body cavity. When I buy a whole chicken from the butcher's counter directly (like one sitting in the glass case) OR when I buy one a "store brand" vacuum-sealed whole chicken from the cooler case in the meat aisle, I get the giblets in their natural state. I've not ever bought a whole chicken (i.e. not cut up) that had no giblets that I can recall. The excess giblets you see for sale probably don't come mostly from removing them from whole chickens intended for purchase as whole chickens (which is an small portion of the chicken market) but rather from birds processed for other uses (individual portions, cooked and canned, frozen chicken pot pies, etc.) But I can't say that I've ever just bought "a chicken" (which I do often enough, probably once a month, or maybe once every other month) that didn't have the giblets included in some way. The stores near me all carry packages of giblets, some frozen, and some fresh in sealed plastic tubs like you can get oysters in.--Jayron 32 17:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to verify my personal experiences with sources Here is a whole chicken from one of the largest national brands in the U.S. Here is one from the OTHER major national brands. Purdue and Tyson are the Coke and Pepsi of the chicken market. Both of those chickens are sold avec abats. here is a generic "store brand" chicken. Here is another. I'm sure you can find whole chickens without giblets, and maybe its a regional thing, but every whole chicken I buy has some form of giblets present. --Jayron 32 18:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the UK, I rarely buy whole chicken, but when I do, there is not a sign of giblets or necks. Would be interesting to find out if this is a National difference. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chickens in the UK invariably had the giblets tucked inside in a plastic bag until about the early 2000s. My butcher said it was a new EU regulation. Perhaps it was, and perceived as more hygienic. Certainly I knew of cases where an inexperienced cook put the bird in to roast and melted the plastic bag inside. I bought a chicken to roast in France last week and it had a note on it specifying that there were no giblets. Not so long ago you could buy a chicken in a French market not even plucked or drawn. You could also buy a ready-roasted chicken in France in the 1960s. Itsmejudith (talk)

I suspect that your butcher was telling a pork pie: SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION 427.47 POULTRY MARKETING STANDARDS REGULATIONS (2003), Section II, Paragraph 1. "Poultry carcasses shall, in order to be marketed in accordance with this regulation, be presented for sale in one of the following forms: - partially eviscerated (‘effilé’, ‘roped’), - with giblets, - without giblets. The word 'eviscerated' may be added" (pp. 7-8).

However, it's plausible that the preparation required under modern hygiene regulations makes it not worth the hassle. Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He wouldn't tell me a porkie, but would pass on his understanding. He has had a lot of bother getting good supplies of free range and organic poultry. At one memorable time his main supplier sold out to a supermarket and was no longer allowed to supply independent butchers. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do UK butchers typically buy from wholesalers? I would imagine that independent butchers would buy animals from livestock farmers, since "butcher" to me means the place that does everything from killing to selling ready-to-cook foods; is there a hole in my understanding? Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology varies; though in the U.S. retail butchers generally don't do the killing and initial preparation of the carcasses. The killing, skinning, basic cleaning, removal of entrails, and often initial cutting is done at an abattoir. We have an article titled meat cutter which would be called a "butcher" in many parts of the U.S. --Jayron 32 01:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Average age of first funeral[edit]

Today, I heard someone speaking to a group of college students, and I was surprised to hear him describe a graveside service in really basic terms that would be necessary only if he expected his audience never to have experienced such a thing, e.g. "a tent over the grave, and people stand under or around the tent". For Americans, what's the average age upon attending a funeral for the first time? A search of Google found tons of interesting things that unfortunately failed to answer the question. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any resource will probably have the person living close to the deceased person. Anybody who lives too far away from a deceased person is unlikely to attend a funeral. I have never attended a funeral or a wedding in my life. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is a burial. There may not be a burial, in the case of cremation. Or, even if their is, many people will only attend the funeral or wake, and not the burial. I've attended funerals, but never burials. StuRat (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but the graveside, if held, is an integral part of the funeral, and anyway the burial is normally done later by the excavating crew; the traditional burial service, in which earth begins to be cast upon the coffin as the service continues, is something I've never heard of in today's America. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain it's an integral part? I don't know much about practices in the US, but at least here in NZ I don't think it's that uncommon that even when there is a burial/graveside, it may only be attended by close family whereas the memorial or religious service may be attended by broader family and friends. This may depend on the nature of the grave site. For example, if the memorial or religious service is held right next to the grave (e.g. a graveyard attached to the church), it would make more sense for the gravesite part to be included as part of the general service. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May be a regional thing. The only times in my experience where the funeral wasn't followed by a grave service was if the deceased's ashes weren't going to be buried. I even recall a few times where my family followed the funeral procession to the burial but waited in the distance during said service (usually in cases where we were friends with the family but didn't actually know the deceased). And a couple of instances in 40 °C (104 °F) summers where we decided "the hell with this, let's just go to Shoney's and call them later. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While only a single random example, see for example [1] which mentions "followed by a private burial for family". Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now in my mid-30s and I have never attended a burial since I was old enough to remember. I was apparently at my grandfather's funeral and burial when I was 2 or 3, but I have no recollection of that. (My parents tell me I was very excited because it was the first time I had ever seen snow.) Since then, only three family members and no close friends have died. One was cremated, so no graveside service, and the two others were impossible to attend for logistical reasons. I've been to a few wakes for family members of friends, but I didn't know the deceased well and I don't think there was any expectation of attending the actual funeral. I've probably been lucky not to have known more people who have died, but I don't think it is that unusual to live into your 20s without having attended a graveside service. Dragons flight (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen plenty of burials in South Carolina. Been to at least four since I was in at least middle school (one of which involved a cremation as the part of the remains we told the priest was all the remains was buried). My mother was the middle child by a stretch and was the last of her siblings to have kids, so my extended family was pretty old. I don't recall anyone casting earth on the grave, though. May be considered to grim (instead of cathartic) these days. I suspect the average age has some kind of inverse relationship with the population pyramid: the more old people you have, the lower the average age people first go to funerals. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that there are two related lines of enquiry here, if we unpack the question.

1) What is the median age at which a citizen of country X first loses someone close to them? If you have dozens of cousins and live in a country with high infant mortality, , e.g. Afghanistan, you are statistically likely to experience a death in your family while you are still a child. If on the other hand you have no cousins (as in much of China, with the one-child policy mentioned yesterday), the first death you experience might be one of your grandparents, when you yourself are well into adulthood. If you live in the midst of fighting gangs, e.g. "New York City’s most crime-plagued neighbourhoods" [2], you might well lose friends in high school.

2) Who is expected to attend the funeral service, burial or cremation, wake, reception, memorial, etc.? Highly culturally variable. FWIW I've never seen a tent at the graveside, and I'm in England, where it does occasionally rain. Umbrellas yes, tent no. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why other countries are relevant to For Americans, what's the average age upon attending a funeral for the first time? Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was extrapolating; apologies if I took matters off course. But I think the distinction that I was trying to make still holds. Afghanistan and China may be too much of a stretch, but given groups of American college students may be from wildly differing cultural backgrounds and home expectations (e.g. recent Central American immigrants, or rich kids from a long-established prosperous suburb). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to take into account the popularity of cremation. Here in Westerm Europe, more people get cremated than buried now. Fgf10 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're well aware of this, but the students need not have attended a burial personally as movies and TV shows routinely show this. In my estimation, showing the burial is disproportionately common in movies as it provides an area in which to make it clear that it's raining, while TV shows might eschew the burial because it would require filming on location rather than on-set. Matt Deres (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from the perspective of my own family in Greece, it typically depends on when your family thinks that you are old enough to handle the funeral service and burial. My paternal grandfather, paternal grandmother, and one paternal uncle died when I was less than 10-years-old and my family thought I was too young to attend the service. My favorite great-grandmother (who had helped raise me and who I used to see daily) died when I was 15-years-old and I was deemed old enough to attend, though I was depressed for months. (Partly because she died due to an accidental fall while walking. She never did take my advice to use a walking stick. )

I have since lost several other relatives, including quite close ones, and my family feels I am obligated to attend the funeral services. I do attend when the funeral takes place in my hometown, but mostly skip them if I have to travel to attend. Weather conditions can also disrupt funeral plans. My mother's funeral took place in winter, the graveyard had sub-zero temperatures, and the mourners were in a hurry to leave before freezing. Dimadick (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marae Mahaiatea[edit]

Can someone help me find the 18th century book in which this this image was first published? Google image brings up many other versions but provide little information on the original image which may not have captioned it with the actual name.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something seems wrong with the attribution on that image. The date says 1788, but it appears to be a photograph. Even worse, there's apparent motion in the photo, with no blurring. This was well beyond the rather basic photography possible then, if any. The book is dated 1904, which seems like a time when such photography was possible. StuRat (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To StuRat: it doesn't look like a photograph to me. To the OP: why do you assume that it was first published in the 18th century? To me it looks like a drawing of what the artist reckoned the building looked like in 1788. The image could first have been published anytime, e.g. the 1904 book shown. --Viennese Waltz 07:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1788 is in the 18th century?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even aside from the dating issue, I don't see why we must consider it a photo; the style of the trees in the background isn't particularly different from drawings such as File:Colonel Crawford Burn Site Monument drawing.jpg. In both, all the spots in the background are scanning artifacts, for what it's worth. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite different to me. Also, there's often some flaw in a drawing that makes it identifiable as such. In the case of your link, it's in the text on the monument. None of it looks quite right, but at least the lower portion is curved to match the stone, while the top portion doesn't appear to be. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a different scan of the same book, it is clearly a drawing not a photograph on Archive.org. DuncanHill (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OP's query, this page has the same drawing and gives a reference to the book in which it was first published, James Wilson's A Missionary Voyage, London, 1799. --Viennese Waltz 14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Style in the sense of having elements of being drawn, not photographed. You can tell that it's just not "right". Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But how, specifically ? (I gave a specific example in the case of the writing on the obelisk in the other illustration.) StuRat (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original drawing is in color (or so it seems).--TMCk (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The color version does look more like a (very realistic) painting. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an engraving, to be precise.--TMCk (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spree killers committing suicide in North America, but apparently less often elsewhere[edit]

I've noticed something about spree killers committing suicide at the "end" of their rampages; how come in North America, or at least the United States, it seems to be the norm for spree killers to kill themselves, but in Europe and many other regions, it seems to be more common for the suspect to escape? The question is not why spree killers in North America tend to kill themselves, but why this isn't the case at least in Europe. I'm asking this because in the European spree killings I've seen reported in the news, it appears that rarely does the perpetrator commit suicide (suicide bombings don't count) and instead they tend to flee the scene and escape. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a statistically significant number of spree killings in Europe? Do you have some examples? I give you Breivik, but public killing sprees seem to be rather rare outside the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you include in your list of spree killers. At List of rampage killers it gives a list of the first 15 for various areas of the world and there were 7 suicides amongst those in Europe and 6 in America - so actually more in Europe. But that list does not include school massacres, workplace killings, hate crimes or familicides and I did not bother looking at the full lists. It does not seem to be a big difference though. Dmcq (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One possible difference, the death penalty is still available in most US states and for Federal crimes, but not available in Europe. In a few European countries even the possibility of life imprisonment has been abolished (or become so rare as to be effectively abolished). Dragons flight (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they do that? Someone could be convicted of disembowelling babies and putting it on YouTube and tell the sentencer if you release me I'll do it again and still be given less than life? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the focus of the criminal justice system is on rehabilitation and prevention, not on punishment and revenge. In your example, the perpetrator is obviously either lying or mentally ill, so he primarily need psychiatric attention, not jail time. There is plenty of evidence that a "more lenient" system works better - Norway has prisons that others compare to holiday clubs [3][4], but has 10 times fewer prisoners than the US (per head of population) and a recidivism rate of about 20% (compared to the US at ~75%). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then they would very likely be found criminally insane, and life long 'treatment' (imprisonment) is still very much an option in many jurisdictions. Fgf10 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, ~~Liam~~ Ian Brady (UK), convicted in 1966 of killing several children in the Moors murders and still locked up today, aged 79. Alansplodge (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't his first name Ian, not Liam? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Alansplodge (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that is relevant. He was in fact given a life sentence, which is allowed in the UK, so it is not particularly surprising that he is still locked up (though I think it was "life with the possibility of eventual parole"). He was subsequently judged to also be mentally ill, but he wasn't being held just for being mentally ill, but rather because he was sentenced to life. Dragons flight (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This chart shows that, since 1982 in the U.S., there have been 634 deaths due to spree-style killings. According to Gun violence in the United States, there are an average of about 33,000 deaths due to guns in general in he U.S. per year. Thus, more people die in 1 week from gun related deaths of the "just one person getting killed in one incident" variety rather than the "crazy lunatic trying to kill as many people as possible" variety. From a public policy perspective, the issue of spree killers in ANY society (even in the United States, which as any non-American is glad to tell you, is simply terrible in so many ways) is just not a major issue from a public policy perpective that needs much resources devoted to "fixing". They can be dealt with on a sui generis basis mostly because they aren't common enough to create policy to "stop" ahead of time. --Jayron 32 14:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm verging on surprised they're allowed to record how many people are killed with guns each year given that they are forbidden to record how many guns are sold. Dmcq (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"One possible difference, the death penalty is still available in most US states and for Federal crimes, but not available in Europe. In a few European countries even the possibility of life imprisonment has been abolished (or become so rare as to be effectively abolished). "

It largely depends on the country in Europe. Though political agreements and demands by the European Union have sought a continent-wide abolition of the death penalty, there have been wide variations across the continent. According to the Capital punishment by country list:

Albania last executed someone in 1995. It abolished the penalty in 2007.
Andorra last executed someone in 1943. It abolished the penalty in 1990.
Armenia has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 1998.
Austria last executed someone in 1950. It abolished the penalty in 1968.
Azerbaijan last executed someone in 1993. It abolished the penalty in 1998.
Belarus has not abolished the death penalty, does not intend to do so, and actually has a long list of offenses that are considered worthy of death. Belarus last executed someone in 2016.
Belgium last executed someone in 1950. It abolished the penalty in 1996.
Bosnia and Herzegovina has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 1998, though one of its subdivisions has sought an exclusion from the act.
Bulgaria last executed someone in 1989. It abolished the penalty in 1998.
Cyprus last executed someone in 1962. It abolished the penalty in 2002.
Croatia has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 1991.
The Czech Republic has never executed anyone since its independence. The abolition of the penalty precedes its independence, taking place in 1990.
Denmark last executed someone in 1950. It abolished the penalty in 1978.
Estonia last executed someone in 1991. It abolished the penalty in 1998.
Finland last executed someone in 1944. It abolished the penalty in 1972.
France last executed someone in 1977. It abolished the penalty in 1981.
Georgia last executed someone in 1995. It abolished the penalty in 2006.
Germany has never executed anyone since reunification. West Germany abolished the penalty in 1949, and East Germany abolished it in 1987.
Greece last executed someone in 1972. It abolished the penalty in 2004.
Hungary last executed someone in 1988. It abolished the penalty in 1990.
Iceland has never executed anyone since its independence. The abolition of the penalty precedes its independence, taking place in 1928.
The Republic of Ireland last executed someone in 1954. It abolished the penalty in 1990.
Italy last executed someone in 1947. It abolished the penalty in 1948.
Latvia last executed someone in 1996. It abolished the penalty in 2012.
Liechtenstein last executed someone in 1785. It abolished the penalty in 1987.
Lithuania last executed someone in 1995. It abolished the penalty in 1998.
Luxembourg last executed someone in 1949. It abolished the penalty in 1979.
The Republic of Macedonia has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 1991.
Malta has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 2000.
Moldova has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 2005.
Monaco last executed someone in 1847. It abolished the penalty in 1962.
Montenegro has never executed anyone since its independence. The abolition of the penalty precedes its independence, taking place in 1995.
The Netherlands last executed someone in 1952. The European part of the Kingdom abolished the penalty in 1982, and the Netherlands Antilles abolished it in 2010.
Norway last executed someone in 1948. It abolished the penalty in 1979.
Poland last executed someone in 1988. It abolished the penalty in 1997. An attempt to re-introduce the penalty in 2004 failed.
Portugal last executed someone in 1846. It abolished the penalty in 1976.
Romania last executed someone in 1989. It abolished the penalty in 1990.
Russia last executed someone in 1999. It has yet to abolish the penalty, though there is a moratorium on executions since 2009.
San Marino last executed someone in 1468. It abolished the penalty in 1865.
Serbia has never executed anyone since its independence. The abolition of the penalty precedes its independence, taking place in 1995.
Slovakia has never executed anyone since its independence. The abolition of the penalty precedes its independence, taking place in 1990.
Slovenia has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 1991.
Spain last executed someone in 1975. It abolished the penalty in 1995.
Sweden last executed someone in 1910. It abolished the penalty in 1973.
Switzerland last executed someone in 1944. It abolished the penalty in 1992.
Turkey last executed someone in 1984. It abolished the penalty in 2004. Since 2016, the current President is trying to reintroduce the death penalty for political prisoners.
Ukraine last executed someone in 1997. It abolished the penalty in 2000.
The United Kingdom last executed someone in 1964. Its overseas territory of Bermuda last executed someone in 1977. Efforts of abolition of the penalty throughout the United Kingdom and its various dependencies started in 1965. The last of them, Jersey, abolished the penalty in 2006.
Vatican City has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 1969.

The current outliers are Belarus (which regularly executes people), Russia (which retains the right to restore the penalty at will), and Turkey (where there is an ongoing effort to restore it). Dimadick (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, many countries no longer have the death penalty, but there is still suicide by cop. 79.73.128.211 (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation is needed if there is no such effect as talked about by the original poster. And I haven't seen any figures giving even a halfway plausible demonstration. Dmcq (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget extrajudicial executions. Russia, for example, has a record of regularly executing dissidents abroad, not to mention during their many wars in former Soviet territories. StuRat (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

War-related killings are not unusual or banned. Most countries in Europe have been involved in several wars since the 1990s and have been accused of targeting civilian targets. With Russia, the matter is that they are killing dissidents within the borders, and that murders/assassinations of journalists have become commonplace. More than 200 deaths between 1993 and 2010. See the article on List of journalists killed in Russia.

Among the recent incidents, from 2017,:

March 17 "Journalist Yevgeny Khamaganov died of unexplained causes in Ulan-Ude. Khamaganov was known for writing articles that criticized the federal government and was allegedly beaten by unknown assailants on March 10."
April 19 "Journalist and former prisoner of conscience Nikolay Andrushchenko died in Saint Petersburg from wounds that he received from a severe beating by unknown assailants on March 9. Andrushchenko was the co-founder of the newspaper Novy Petersburg and was previously jailed in 2009 by a city court for "libel and extremism". "

Turkey also has a record of extrajudicial killings of prisoners, since at least the 1990s. Several hundreds of them. Though at least several of the deaths are attributed not to intentional murders, but to excessive torture by their guards.

The United Kingdom also has a poor record, due to to the Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland. The British Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the Special Air Service regularly killed suspects for terrorism without trying to arrest them. This occurred during The Troubles, and in particular the years 1982 to 1992. The killings have reportedly stopped since the 1990s.

There is an ambiguous case with Kosovo. In the Organ theft in Kosovo case, it was alleged that members of the Kosovo Liberation Army and other local authorities have been involved in the organ harvesting and killing of over 300 people, mostly Serbians. The investigation is ongoing for years, with few results, because the corpses of the disappeared have not been located. Dimadick (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

God may forgive you, but I never can[edit]

Resolved

What was it that Elizabeth I could not forgive Catherine Howard for? DuncanHill (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing of the quote in that article. Can you link to where you read it? --Jayron 32 13:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote. And it's pretty famous. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it, it was for her failure to return Essex's ring to the queen. See Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex#The Essex ring. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Hume: Of the treasonable attempt of the Earl of Essex, in 1601. Her affection for this gallant and unfortunate nobleman is well known; but later writers do not entirely credit the story of the rebuke given by the queen, in 1603, to the dying Countess of Nottingham, who confessed that she had not returned the ring given by Elizabeth to Essex with the intimation that if he ever forfeited her favor the sight of the ring would insure her forgiveness of him. The queen even shook the dying countess, exclaiming, “God may forgive you, but I never can. Wymspen (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, loads of people said it. It might be famous, but not because of Liz One :D — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a Google search shows that other quotations are much later in the 18th and 19th century, when just about every educated Briton would have read The History of England (there were numerous abridged editions for school use); from which we might conclude that it is famous because Hume said that Elizabeth said it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UK general election 1940 cancelled due to war[edit]

What legislation cancelled this election? Amisom (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a series of laws known as the "Prolongation of Parliament Bills", and they passed one each year to postpone the general election an additional year. Here is the 1940 version from Hansard. There are versions from other years as well. This power was granted by the Septennial Act 1716 and later amendments. That Wikipedia article lists the exact citations for the laws so issued during WWI and WWII. --Jayron 32 14:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Hansard does not give the text of the 1940 Act, which I have not been able to find online, but rather the debate on Second Reading. The Septennial Parliament Act did not "give the power" to extend Parliament, it set the length of a parliament to seven years, was amended in 1911 to give a length of 5 years, and the subsequent Acts prolonged the life of the parliament. DuncanHill (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some more context at The Electoral System in Britain by R. M. Blackburn (p. 48) and Public Law by Michael Doherty (pp. 188 & 202).

For a rather critical (and some might say preposterous) American view, see America the Great by Edward Hawkins Sisson (p. 1673). Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last general election was the United Kingdom general election, 1935 and the next was the United Kingdom general election, 1945. That Parliament lasted for 10 years. Or, according to the Duration of English, British and United Kingdom Parliaments from 1660, 9 years, 6 months, and 20 days.

Constantly postponing elections due to war conditions kept the MPs in power for too long. And by the way, they were better compensated than their predecessors. According to the article on Stanley Baldwin: "After the coronation of George VI, Baldwin announced on 27 May 1937 that he would resign the premiership the next day. His last act as Prime Minister was to raise the salaries of MPs from £400 a year to £600 and to give the Leader of the Opposition a salary. This was the first rise in MPs' wages since their introduction in 1911". Dimadick (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which did or does the Prime Minister have the power to do. The Leader of the Opposition was given a salary by the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937, I'm not sure what measure increased MPs pay. DuncanHill (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also looked (per Winston Churchill's biography) that they reshuffled the government in 1940, switching from a Labour-led government to a Conservative-led coalition, I guess with the same MP's as before but with the seats rearranged. I have no idea whether that made a new election seem more important, or less important. Any idea what public opinion was? I hadn't heard of that long gap between elections before. I remember Churchill describing his accession to the PM office in "The Gathering Storm" but (either forgot or wasn't reading closely) had thought it was because he had just been elected to it. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Churchill war ministry was preceded by the Chamberlain war ministry, which was Conservative dominated and had only a very few National Labour members, and no Labour Party members at all. DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9-day-old pease porridge[edit]

Did people really eat 9-day-old pease porridge? I get why some people like hot pease porridge and cold pease porridge, but why would anyone eat pease porridge that is 9 days old? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most people did. See Perpetual stew, a common cooking technique for many thousands of years. --Jayron 32 18:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. It's weird that I once thought about eating soup every day, because the soup pot would constantly replenish with whatever's in stock. I think that's a very efficient method to feed people. Because of the high efficiency, that's probably how soup kitchen gets its name. But modern pictures of soup kitchens seem to serve more solid food than wet food. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Some theories are: "Pease pudding is a hot dish made from dried peas - it can be re-heated as often as required (Pease pudding in the pot - nine days old)". [5]

Or a bit less plausibly: "One theory is that the rhyme is a doggerel... disparaging the pretensions of Lady Jane Grey, the “Nine Days Queen”, indicating that she was less than royal–pease pottage being a staple of lower class commoners". [6]

Note that the terms "pease pottage" or "pease porridge" is called "pease pudding" today, an unpleasant yellow sludge made from dried peas (75 p per can from Tesco).

My own view is that folk used to be much less wary of keeping food than we are in the hygiene-obsesed 21st century. My father, brought up in the 1920s recession, recalled that his mother would go to the butcher's just before closing time on Saturday to buy a discounted joint of beef or mutton for Sunday lunch. What wasn't eaten would be cold meat on Monday, meat pie on Tuesday, shepherd's pie on Wednesday, stew, soup and so on, until it was Saturday again. All this was without refrigeration. So if a family could eat 7 day-old meat in the 1920s, they could probably put up with 9 day-old peas in the 18th century if they were hungry enough. Alansplodge (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: I should add to my anecdote above that I asked my father if he had ever got food poisoning from eating week-old meat and he said that they often had "bilious attacks" which were commonplace in children at that time, so DON'T TRY THAT AT HOME. Alansplodge (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pease porridge is reputed to be of infinite deliciousness. Remember Esau? He sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Wiktionary explains more. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pottage is an umbrella term for something stewed in a pot. I doubt that Esau's was made from peas, but the Bible is silent on the issue. Alansplodge (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another related question[edit]

I may have asked this sometime before. My memory is dreadful.

After a tsunami or hurricane, and all water is dangerous unless boiled, people drink it anyway and get sick. Why don't they boil it in an old pot using all that debris lying around as firewood? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think firewood must be dry. If it has moisture, then it's not a good firewood. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We have plenty of typhoons here in Haikou. Within 24 hours of it ending, dry fuel is everywhere. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tools to start fires may not be readily available after a tsunami/hurricane in the numbers necessary. Starting a fire without tools isn't as easy as it sounds - the well known friction methods are difficult to achieve with humid wood (it'll still be less dry than necessary, especially with the high humidity in tropical areas). Alcherin (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alcherin. Disposable lighters are totally ubiquitous. In third world countries, there is usually a man with a pack of cigarettes and a lighter within five feet. The typhoon ends. The sun comes out. A day later, dry debris is everywhere and men are all sitting around smoking cigarettes. I've been watching that same thing for a decade. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, you asked this in October 2016: Cholera in Haiti. The main answer seems to have been a lack of education. Alansplodge (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha. Thanks, Alan. I told you my memory was dreadful. How do I know when the beans are cooked? The house is on fire. :) Dear, oh dear. What happens to one's memory? There's a lovely poem about memory written by...um...it's titled....errr....it goes....hmmmmmm...it was good, though. Spot on. I remember it was spot on. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, water that doesn't contain large amounts of debris is difficult to find in the wake of a disaster. People also simply don't remember to boil water, or aren't educated well enough about the dangers of unboiled water. This news article notes that people weren't following (made aware of?) official advice to boil water. Alcherin (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it were me, I would filter it through a shirt and boil it. But, you're right about people not knowing. Poor Philippines. Many, many typhoons that hit Vietnam, China, and Japan, first hit the Philippines. It is an inconveniently located place when it comes to weather --much like Poland is when it comes to war. Aside, a doctor friend here says that more than half the people in Haikou believe that flu (or that sort of thing) is caused by food, fans, weather, etc., and not by person-to-person. And, from personal experience, they cannot be convinced of the truth. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... so why mention it at all? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd argue that the Rhineland and Germany in general has had it much worse over the millenia than Poland, but that's a discussion for another time and place. Alcherin (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for wet firewood, if the typhoon hits during the monsoon season, it may be months before everything dries out. StuRat (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, maybe. I've only seen typhoons/hurricanes in Hainan and the Caribbean, and in every case, when the typhoon passes, the next several days are really clear. There's probably an explanation for that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the hurricane cools the water (due to evaporative cooling and blowing cold air over it sucked down from the stratosphere), so there's less evaporation after it passes, and hence less rain, until the water heats up again. However, if the wind direction changes, you might get warm, moist air from over water the hurricane didn't hit and cool. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear arms race[edit]

Why during the nuclear arms race the US and USSR wanted to have more missiles than the other's side, when just several tens of such missiles (around 50-100) would be enough to obliterate all major cities and incapacitate the country? Particularly, the article states that the mutual assured destruction was reached already by the 1950s. So why still bother to have more nuclear ICBMs beyond that point? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overkill and a margin of error. What if your amount of missiles that would guarantee destruction if launched were all taken out before launch. Better too many than too few. Really, this is very simple game theory. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A little on this at Overkill (term)#Nuclear weapons. -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably an element of pissing contest to this as well "any contest which is futile or purposeless especially ones pursued in a conspicuously aggressive manner" In my town we also called this a "dick measuring contest". --Jayron 32 13:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was also an American General ( maybe Curtis LeMay) who said something to the effect of "If there's two Americans left and one Russky, we win!" That's probably a terrible paraphrase, but maybe it can spark memory of who said it. There was a ref desk question about it a few weeks back. --Jayron 32 13:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lobbyists representing the Military–industrial complex undoubtedly had an influence as well. (In fact, as per that article, the Cold War was the time period where the phrase "Military-industrial complex" entered the lexicon.) Some people made a fortune on the production of these weapons. It stands to reason they would encourage their senator to keep authorizing more. ApLundell (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was the issue that nuclear weapons in deep bunkers could only be taken out by a direct hit from other nukes. Hence the need to have enough to take out the enemy's nukes before they could be launched at you. However, nuclear weapons on subs, and other mobile systems, made this strategy obsolete. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did apprenticeships work?[edit]

I think in the novel and film version of Great Expectations, Miss Havisham gave Pip some money to become an apprentice to Pip's brother-in-law, Joe Gargery. Now, I'm wondering how apprenticeships worked. If a skilled laborer, like a cobbler or tailor, has a child, then can't he just get his own children as apprentices? Or maybe the money is used to bribe the skilled person to teach another family's child how to make stuff? Can the skilled person refuse if he already has a child and intends that his child will succeed him in the trade? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Apprenticeship in England for the details. The parent paid a hefty premium in exchange for an indenture or contract that the child would be taught his trade for a specified number of years, usually seven, and the apprentice only had to be paid a wage in the last couple of years, if at all. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if the parent and skilled craftsman are the same person? Does the parent just pay to himself as he teaches his child the trade, or does he expect that his child will learn the trade and pay back to old papa when he takes over the business? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there would have been the need for an indenture in that case, but it would be useful if your children were grown up or dead or if you didn't have any. Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on relative ages too. A master craftsman might raise their own children and have them as apprentices, but there would be years both before and after this when their own children weren't of apprenticeable age. Many trades relied on apprentices as basic labourers and so a workshop always needed one or two around, it wasn't simply an optional addition to the core business. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Historically, the apprentice paid a fee to be accepted by a master craftsmen into the apprenticeship. In return, the master taught him the trade, and was responsible for room, board, and general oversight and support - in essence, the apprentice was temporarily adopted into his family. This used to be a very formal process, with clearly described rights and duties for both parties. After the apprenticeship had been successfully concluded (which typically took 5-7 years), the former apprentice became a journeyman, and could eventually apply to the proper guild to become a master craftsman and set up his own workshop. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the master had children, they might not be capable of learning the trade. Girls would not have been allowed in many trades, and a boy with a slight build probably wouldn't make a good blacksmith, etc. StuRat (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Girls weren't excluded from many trades, but did find it difficult (if not impossible) to gain apprenticeships. One way in which women did enter male-dominated trades was by being apprenticed to their fathers, although this was rare too. They also faced difficulties for being recognised as a master, thus able to set up their own business later. One way in which they could might be to move to an area outside the influence of their own misogynist guilds and somewhere recognising women as masters of workshops. This effect led to a number of trades spreading (particularly in the 17th century) from Eastern and Central Europe, where guilds opposed this, to the Netherlands, France and Britain where it was much less of a barrier. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating - any references for the relative willingness of British guilds to allow women as members? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Hester Bateman and its see also section for women in the British silversmithing industry, though I am not sure if it falls in the time period you are looking for (which time period are you looking at?) 174.88.10.107 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being apprenticed to the wrong trade (video) had comic consequences for Frederic. Blooteuth (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, the master-apprentice relationship did not work out. Andrew Johnson was placed as an apprentice to tailor James Selby when 10-years-old. He was legally bound to serve until becoming 21-years-old. Johnson did not like the working conditions and run away when 15-years-old. Selby placed a 10 dollar reward for the arrest and return of the runaway. Johnson had to flee North Carolina, lived briefly in South Carolina, and then fled further to Tennessee. Anything to escape apprehension by reward-seekers. Dimadick (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 April 20