Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 April 27

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 27

Would this count as a primary or secondary source? (anthropology master's thesis)

When reading an anthropology master's thesis, I found it described how each of the chapters was written:

"Chapter 4 describes by means of demographic, economic, and social perspectives, the trend of the community after World War II. Chapter 5 focuses on the social interaction of the community members and on the underlying values and structures. These two chapters are based mainly on the data collected by participant observation techniques, on structured and unstructured interviews, and are supplemented by recent Japanese publications on Mexico, community newspapers, pamphlets, and newsletters." - I know the author has cited the school's enrollment figures and an "(Idaka 1977:38)."

Based on this text (I know it is footnoted) would you say it is a primary source or a secondary source? (If anyone wants to see the documents, including the pages of Chapter 5 I am talking about, I can e-mail you them)

• The University of Alabama libraries section on sourcing for anthropology states here: "Primary sources are original works created by a person who witnessed or participated in an event. Examples include diaries, memoirs, letters, newspaper and magazine articles, photographs, and manuscripts. Government materials are sometimes considered primary sources, too." and "Secondary sources discuss information originally presented elsewhere. They include scholarly journal articles, books, conference proceedings, dissertations, and class lectures."
• Nova Southeastern University states here: "Primary sources refer to information collected firsthand from such sources as historical documents, literary texts, artistic works, experiments, surveys, and interviews. Thus, articles where the author is describing their own experiments would be considered a primary source." while "Secondary sources refer to another person's second-hand account of something such as in a literature review. Thus, an experiment that is described by someone other than the researcher(s) would be considered a secondary source. Accounts found in newspapers, radio, and television about research findings would be considered secondary sources."

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If chapter 4 describes the "trend of the community", it would have to be secondary I would think. Describing a trend is a synthetic creation, not a presentation of oral histories, etc. Same for chapter 5, not least because it says these two chapters are based on participant observation and interviews (rather than primarily consisting of them). Further, the chapter is supplemented by other publications, as listed. I think it can only be secondary. IBE (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

When I read chapter 5 it was a narrative form with an occasional quote from an individual instead of a list of recordings of the participants being presented verbatim. The author of the thesis wrote the chapter using various sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I find IBE's description totally incompatible from how sources are treated in the natural sciences. Perhaps the definitions vary by academic culture.

In my world, if the author conducted the research, then it is a primary source. Even if the author used previously published data, presumably a master's thesis has a requirement that it contain original research or synthesis, similar to what we don't allow here, WP:OR. Generally speaking, theses and dissertations are almost always considered primary sources. People write them to prove to their academy that they can perform useful original research. If a work uses historical documents to present new research, then it is a primary source. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that different academic departments define the terms "Primary" and "Secondary" differently. Also note that sources don't always fit neatly into these narrow definitions... Very often, sources are actually a mix of both primary and secondary material. Where the author is discussing specific data, that data itself is best treated as primary material... when the author shifts to comparing and analyzing the data, that comparison and analysis is secondary material. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in me e-mailing a link to the relevant pages? Seeing the pages themselves may help with the determination of what is primary and what is secondary. (They are the pages that talk about the Liceo Mexicano Japones)

• I have posted some of the text from the thesis here: es:Wikipedia_discusión:Consultas_de_borrado/Liceo_Mexicano_Japonés#Chizuko Watanabe thesis content (if you want I can post the text content until page 154, and also produce whatever footnotes are in that section)

An author of a book citing the thesis, Masterson, stated in p. 214-215 that in the pages she draws conclusions about the Liceo Mexicano Japones based on her field research: "Fieldwork by Chizuko Watanabe concludes that Japanese parents sent their children to the school to "maintain their ethnic identity and pride, implant a spiritual heritage that they claim is the basis for success, and to establish close ties with Nikkei-jin children who live in distant areas." -- He is referring to this:

• p. 151: "The school's educational goal, as stated in its brochure, is to bring up capable individuals to be equipped with a sense of internationalism who will contribute to their nation and to world peace by promoting intercultural understanding and the exchanging of education and cultural activities between Mexico and Japan (Nihon Mekishiko Gakuin no Gaiyo 1981:1). Whatever the long-term objectives may be, in actuality it functions according to design. The Nikkei parents send their children here to maintain their ethnic identity and pride, to implant a spiritual heritage that they claim is the basis for success, and to establish close ties with other Nikkei children who live in distant areas." (the text of the copy of Watanabe's thesis seems to slightly differ from the quote Masterson used)

It may help to clarify the matter if I present the preface's description of how each chapter is sourced: es:Wikipedia_discusión:Consultas_de_borrado/Liceo_Mexicano_Japonés#Table of contents and sourcing

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

SemanticMantis, you are in maths, which is characteristically different anyway. When I did maths, the terms "primary" and "secondary" source were not used. Original research means doing some original equations, or an original synthesis/ application of some existing equations. That does not use any primary "data", because, strictly speaking, in maths there is no primary data, just abstract equations. I did honours in maths, and can't imagine why anyone would need to classify my thesis as primary or secondary. I can accept that context is important, especially when one is using a particular source in a particular way, such as on Wikipedia, but normally this can only be secondary. IBE (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually I just checked out the article Primary source. You should have a look at it, especially the bit that says primary sources are created "during the time period being studied". This might make the thesis a primary source, since it depends on participant observation. I was thinking by analogy from history, where the researcher (typically) cannot have been present at the events, so primary sources are not things the researcher has written. IBE (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's true I have a background in math, but I was speaking in terms of the "hard" sciences (and yes, math is quite different, it's not even a science ;). It seems that's not really the appropriate perspective here, after reading the updates below. I also don't think that primary source is most appropriate, as that seems to have a very historical/sociological/journalistic perspective. For the OP's purposes of a WP project, WP:PRIMARY seems to be the guide to follow. First, I note there is no ban on primary sources, just that secondary is often preferred for purposed of notability. Also, my brief look at the thesis seems to indicate that it does have plenty of synthesis and discussion of materials that have been presented in other, prior works, so those bits are clearly "secondary" in the eyes of WP. My current understanding is that the thesis is probably not the best source for establishing notability, unless WTM wants to cite a specific part that says something like "[topic] has been discussed by many authors in recent decades, e.g. Jones (1980), Xu (1992), and Carlo (2005)." But this seems to be more a question of WP policy and guidelines than general reference, so I'll bow out now. SemanticMantis (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The thesis talks about the history of the school and events that happened before the thesis was researched and written.

• p. ix states: "This study is a result of my twenty-two week stay in Mexico. An eleven-week field program in the northeastern region sponsored by the California State University, Los Angeles, allowed the establishment of initial contacts with four Japanese families during the period from March to June, 1978. Two two-week trips to the same area followed in March and September, 1979. An additional two-week survey trip to Mexico City allowed the collection of most of the written Japanese sources during September, 1980. Finally I spent five weeks in Mexico City in October and November, 1981, which afforded me the opportunity to stay with three different Japanese families, to conduct intensive interviews, and to attend community events."

The thesis discusses the general antagonism prior to the construction of the school and threats of violence against a 1967 meeting, which is sourced to an "Idaka 1977:38".

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In light of above, there isn't any single "correct" and universally agreed upon answer to this question. OP, it also might help us give you better answers if you can answer this question: "who cares if this thesis is classified as a 'primary source' or a 'secondary source'? I don't mean to be rude, the best answer for the occasion will be context specific. E.g. is someone telling you "only primary sources count", and if so, who? Is this for a WP or school project, or professional research purposes, or something else? Do you have a desire that it be classified as one or the other? Either position is probably defensible, so might be able to just defend your claim. SemanticMantis (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm on the AFD in the Spanish Wikipedia (es:Wikipedia_discusión:Consultas_de_borrado/Liceo_Mexicano_Japonés) and another editor is saying that this source shouldn't count towards notability of the subject because it is a "primary" source while I was arguing it was a "secondary" source because it uses anthropology field research and other sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, if you're citing a specific section that reports on trends in a wider community of research, then that section at least would seem to qualify as a secondary source per WP:PRIMARY. SemanticMantis (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Canadian version of national crime victimization survey?

In the US, the Bureau of Justice Statistics administers a national survey known as the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is used to determine the prevalence of different categories of crimes. Does Canada administer a similar survey? 65.92.5.76 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not completely sure, but I think that Canada's General Social Survey on Victimization is a bit similar, link here. Hope this helps, cheers ~Helicopter Llama~ 15:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Helped a lot, thanks. 65.92.5.76 (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Political direction of national socialism

Isn't national socialism also just another leftist political ideology? If you take many facets into account, then aren't the similarities between the programs and shows of the Nazi party and those of the communist party of the Soviet Union rather very similar, thus Nazis can be more labelled as "leftists"? I mean state control, eugenics, role of party are quite similar in both. Both say everything must be equal. Both rather were hostile to religion. 112.198.79.49 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is probably a troll question, but dumb ol' me has been wondering the same thing and I'm actually interested in seeing what reliable sources have to say. Let's pretend I asked it. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think of political ideology as a circle, rather than a line. Thus democracy is on one side of the circle, while fascism and "communism" (of the brand practiced by Stalin and Mao) are next to each other. A key difference would be that while the "communists" spoke publicly about the goal of everybody being economically equal (although they often did the opposite in private), the Nazi's didn't set that as a goal. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's accurate. Early Nazi propaganda utilized both the swastika and the hammer and sickle (a friend of mine owns a 1930s-era Nazi lapel pin that has both). Isn't that at least an implicit agreement with Marx's idea of class struggle? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Might have been a ploy to attract followers of Marx, even if they didn't believe in him themselves. They did a lot of such things, like generally treating Kaiser Wilhelm II well, even though they opposed restoration of the monarchy, to avoid offending monarchists. StuRat (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Note that during the Night of the Long Knives, the Strasserist (left-wing) faction of the Nazi Party was wiped out. Until then, they were tolerated, as Hitler wasn't powerful enough to oppose all his enemies at once prior to that. Similarly, he tolerated the homosexual leader of the SA, until that night. Both communists and homosexuals were later targets for extermination. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The claim that mainstream Nazi ideology (as opposed to Strasserism, which is a more complex issue) was left-wing is unsupported by most relevant academic commentary: it seems to be an argument largely confined to sections of the right, often seemingly more interested in point-scoring than accurate historical analysis. It should be noted that the Nazis came to power as a result of support from conservative elements amongst the German political establishment, who saw them as a bastion against the left. Like many other populist movements, the Nazis used rhetoric that drew from leftist tropes on occasion, but little of their practice once gaining power was even remotely 'leftist' in intent, and it shouldn't be forgotten that their first targets when gaining power were Communists, Socialists, Trade Unionists and the like - their systematic onslaught on the Jews came later. Much of the recent attempts to characterise them as 'left-wing' draws on political concepts (particularly from right-wing libertarianism) that are entirely anachronistic, and of little relevance to actual ideological differences between left and right at the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This notion of "left" and "right" that you're using may have some value in terms of describing the groups of people to whom various approaches were attractive, but it's useless as a description of the underlying philosophies. The central question of normative political theory is, always has been, and always will be, what is the relationship of the individual to the collective, and to what extent is the collective justified in forcing the individual to conform to its goals? To that question, the Nazis and the Soviets gave virtually the identical answer. Whether that makes them both left, both right, or simply demonstrates that "left" and "right" are not very interesting concepts, I really don't care. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. Not even close. The 'collective' for Nazis meant a very different thing than it did for Soviets - and you are presupposing that 'Soviets' were the sole representatives of the left. They weren't. Simplistic analogies tell us next to nothing about the position on Nazism within the political spectrum of the era. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"The political spectrum of the era" is not important. Who runs the collective is not as important as the relationship of the individual to it. These, of course, are value judgments rather than descriptive statements. But they're ones I happen to be right about. --Trovatore (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If you take many facets into account, then aren't the similarities between the programs and shows of the Nazi party and those of the communist party of the Soviet Union rather very similar, thus Nazis can be more labelled as "leftists"?

Only if you think the Soviets can be labelled "right-wingers"--after all, it follows from your own argument!

I mean state control, eugenics, role of party are quite similar in both.

There was no eugenics in the Soviet Union. In fact, all research relating to genetics was brutally suppressed, with scientists sent to the gulag. See lysenkoism.

Both say everything must be equal.

Since when did the Nazis say anybody was equal to them?

Both rather were hostile to religion.

Yes, and both were friendly to the idea that the sky is blue. Sharing one belief does not make Hitler a leftist or Stalin a rightist. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, why were communists and socialists persecuted alongside Gypsies, Jews, and homosexuals? Or perhaps, why was the invasion of the USSR justified as a defence against the spread of Bolshevism? If they really were socialist, is there an explanation for countless posters?

Perhaps they were fighting over which version of socialism was the best one, you could say. It is true that the left is notorious for political infighting, so from here we must look at the real phenomena of fascism and socialism.

All of the movements that called themselves "fascist" rose in their strongest forms as reactions to left-wing proletarian movements. Fascism in power exhibits several characteristics: its extreme anti-labour practices; second of all is its ideological emphasis on national unity, class collaboration, etc., as a reaction to the class struggle emphasized by the proletariat; scapegoating as a means of unifying "the nation"; broad state autonomy and authoritarianism as a mechanism of forcibly suppressing class struggle.

Socialism has a longer history. At its most basic form, socialism is democratic control of the means of production by the working class. That's about the only thing all forms of socialism have in common, though. However, this is enough for us to answer our question, "is Naziism a leftist ideology"?

Hitler once declared in 1933 that "The government will not protect the economic interests of the German people by the circuitous method of an economic bureaucracy to be organised by the state, but by the utmost furtherance of private initiative and by the recognition of the rights of property". By declaring that the purpose of the state is to protect private property, Hitler abandons the most basic tenet of socialism.

As further reading, Fascism: What it is and how to fight it and What is national socialism, both by Trotsky. →Σσς. (Sigma) 09:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want a proper answer to your question, you will, unfortunately, have to work it out for yourself because the answer is subjective, not objective. An excellent book is Michael Burleigh's The Third Reich: A New History. However, serendipitously, I read the following blog-post today, which also addresses your question: http://annaraccoon.com/2014/04/27/blair-russia-and-islam/ 86.144.112.196 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Communism was a progressivist modernist ideology, Nazism a backward-looking pastoral-romanticist ideology rooted in Germans' resentment over losing WW1 and the chaos of the Weimar period. I can sorta see how a case can be made for Nazism being leftist (citizen vs state and all), yet this is a misuse of the term leftist. Also note that this fixation on the individual-vs-state dimension of any given political ideology is an American thing. Asmrulz (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so Hayek, for example, was American, huh? No, it's not "an American thing". It's the right thing. --Trovatore (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Left-wing means popular, right-wing means elitist. I don't know how right-wing came to mean lean government, economic liberties and whatnot. Soviet totalitarianism was a right-wing aberration within Communism. And yes, trying to lump Communism together with Nazism based on superficial similarities (or, rather, one single similarity - the exaggerated role of the state) is an American thing. This whole stuff is not as simple as the Nolan chart Asmrulz (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly as complicated as you want it to be, but no, it's not an American thing. That's flat wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The left/right scale is arbitrary, and what is seen as typically 'left' or 'right' has been given very different definitions in different countries and epochs. There are no 'true' or 'absolute' definitions of 'left' and 'right', so in the end these excerises are completly useless. What can be said is that 1) Nazists themselves always stayed aloof from being categorized in left-right dichotomy, claiming to represent broader national interests, transcending class conflicts and 2) as Nazism emerged as a fringe group in the 1920s (self-identified) right-wing nationalist milieu, it is typically labelled as 'far-right' in contemporary politics. --Soman (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The "direction" of both Nazism and Communism was totalitarianism. Assigning "left" or "right" to either extreme is an exercise in futility. Consider that the old guard in the USSR was described as "conservative". That's right wing, in normal usage. Not a trait you would necessarily equate to communism, but it can make sense in a given context. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom a federalistic state?

Isn't the United Kingdom a quasi federal state like, let me say Malaysia? The 4 parts of the UK are already called countries, not just regions. Scots and Northern Irelad have own parliaments which corresponds to state parliaments in the US. 112.198.79.49 (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, but the question is already quite vague. 'Quasi federal' can mean almost everything in-between a very centralist state (like France) and a federation. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (but not England) have different degrees of autonomy, but constitutionally speaking it is not a federal state. --Soman (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the UK is a unitary state which has devolved some government administration to local areas. That doesn't make it a federation. --Jayron32 19:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The Westminster Parliament is still sovereign, and can pass any laws it wishes, up to and including abolishing the other legislatures. Rojomoke (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, 1972-1998, but yes. The UK could abolish the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland legislatures whether they liked it or not. A federal government and its states just have to live with each other.--81.145.165.2 (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In theory perhaps, but I don't think they would be able to do so in reality, as the disenfranchised nationalities would just declare independence and set up their own parliaments. In the good old days of Empire they could prevent this by force of arms, but that approach doesn't work in the modern world, unless you're Putin. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not condoning any of his excesses, but why single out only the most recent barbarian? He comes from a long line of such people, and war is the rule rather than the exception, historically speaking, unfortunately. (Apropos of nothing, I see that that great humanitarian Robert Mugabe added his saintly lustre to the double papal canonisation in Rome last night.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The Westminister Parliament did do what Rojomoke said from 1972-2007 in Northern Ireland - Direct rule. Continuing apropos nothing, but it is unclear to me why Putin or Mugabe should (frequently) be singled out over far more barbaric barbarians like any recent US president.John Z (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Can a true barbarian be as exquisitely hypocritical as our revered Presidents? —Tamfang (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Which recent US president has used force of arms against a declaration of independence from the US? Putin was presumably singled out here for the Second Chechen War, or possibly for regions of countries declaring independence from the Soviet Union. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, 1972-1998, but yes. The UK could abolish the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland legislatures whether they liked it or not. A federal government and its states just have to live with each other.--81.145.165.2 (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Compare the fate of the Historic counties of England, modified and abolished as actual administrative areas by various acts of Parliament, and the neutering of the House of Lords. The house in the US could not disempower the Senate, and the congress could not abolish the states without either a huge supermajority in favor, or what would effectively be a civil war. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the US Congress could not abolish the states legally under any circumstances, as it does not have that power under the Constitution. It could introduce a constitutional amendment abolishing them by a 2/3 majority, but it would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. That is, 3/4 of the states would have to vote themselves out of existence. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this map accurate?

I want to learn more about the ethnic groups (such as Hausa, Afar, Zulu etc.) and their distribution across Africa. Unfortunately, the article on this topic does not have the complete list of all the thousand of ethnic groups living there and the map only shows the large language groups. So, I looked up the Internet and found this: http://www.globalhumandynamics.com/africahr.jpg

This map by George Peter Murdock divides Africa into territorial boundaries of different tribes (ethnic groups). Do you think this map is factually accurate? I ask this because this map also divides Arab population of North Africa into different peoples such as Tripolitanians or Tunisians instead of keeping them together as a single ethnic group. Also, the ethnic division in Madagascar seems to differ from the image on Demographics of Madagascar. If it is accurate, could it be used on Wikipedia? 75.80.145.53 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert in the subject, particularly with the ethnic group issue you brought up, but I do know now that this map was published in 1959, so it might not represent the current territorial divisions. It is important to note that the regions listed there may have shifted due to various conflicts, etc., notably the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 which is what first came to mind for me. ~Helicopter Llama~ 20:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The map cannot be truly representative, as it fails to indicate areas where ethnicities are intermingled - and in any case, 'ethnicity' is a fluid concept, frequently redefined depending on context etc. As for the 'Arab population', many North African people aren't considered ethnically Arab, though they may speak Arabic. And of course, North Africa is just as ethnically diverse as elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

75.80.145.53 -- I have the book from which this map was taken (Africa: Its Peoples and their Culture History'), and I can tell you that many of the maps in that book are quasi-normalized to ca. 1500 AD (notice "Guanche" in the Canary Islands at top left), and that considering all Arabs from Morocco to Oman as a single undifferentiated grouping is based on a kind of homogenizing macro-nationalism which he wasn't concerned with. (If they spoke their mother-tongue vernaculars, without attempting to assimilate them to quasi-artificial "standard" Arabic, a Moroccan and an Omani could not effectively communicate with each other...) Consult Map 11 on page 112 for "Areas of Berber Speech". I don't think that Map 17 was originally intended to be an up-to-date map of non-overlapping ethnolinguistic distributions as of 1959, and even if it were, it would not of course be accurate to 2014. It's also probably copyrighted... AnonMoos (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with AnonMoos's point that such maps are normally meant to give relative positions, not fully accurate ranges showing overlap, and often pick some date in the past prior to European colonization. A really accurate map would have to be on the village level, and would be quite impossible to reconstruct. Note the presence of the Zulu on the eastern south coast. They were not present as a separate entity 500 years ago. They were originally an undifferentiated part of the Nguni people who originated in approximately the Ndebele area marked somewhat further to the north on the detailed map.

This situation can be compared to linguistic maps of "pre-columbian" North America that show a large swath of speakers of Siouxan languages up and down the great plains. These groups are known to have expanded into Algonquian speaking areas post-Columbian contact by horseback conquest. (Another flaw of this map is that it shows Na-Dene and Algonquian speaking areas as monolithic, as opposed to the very high diversity of California. This is simply an artifact of the state of classification, as there are dozens of non-mutually intelligible Algonquian and Na-Dene languages, yet specialists prefer to treat small groups in California discretely, even though they are often known to be classifiable in wider groupings like Hokan and Penutian.) There will be a blank area in maps of the Ohio Valley sometimes called the empty quarter. The land wasn't empty before columbus, but the civilization(s) there collapsed, almost certainly due to European diseases, so fully that their languages are not attested.

There's simply no way to get a high-resolution synchronic snapshot in such maps. They should be taken to show the most recently known general range of indigenous people beffore recent European influence. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

music similar to Miserere mei, Deus

If I was interested in finding music similar to Miserere mei, Deus how should I go about finding it? Thanks. --78.148.106.196 (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You can explore composers who were writing polyphonic choral music in the same era. Being British, I'd start with Thomas Tallis, whose Spem in Alium is simply stunning if you haven't heard it before, also his chum William Byrd. On the European front, Italian Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina is perhaps the top man, also Dutchman Orlande de Lassus and the Spanish Tomás Luis de Victoria. Moving on a few years, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi and Antonio Vivaldi wrote some fantastic choral stuff in the later Baroque style. I can listen to Vivaldi's Gloria RV 589 over and over. I'm into William Croft at the moment, but that may be an acquired taste. May I suggest that you go to a well known video sharing site, type in the name of a composer and see what grabs you. Sometimes you need to listen to pieces a few times before it grows on you. However, Allegri's Miserere is a towering achievement and it may take you a while to find something which compares. Alansplodge (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)