Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 24

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.

June 24

A young lady from ____?

I have in my head a little bit of a poem, but all I can remember are the following facts:

1. It seems "rather old" in my mind, so it's probably early twentieth century.
2. It sounds like something from Ogden Nash
3. It talks about a young woman from somewhere in England — I'm not sure where she's from (possibly Brighton), but the poem mentions by name the city of her origin
4. Its style is somewhat similar to Reginald Buller's famous poem on relativity, about the woman who travels in a relative way and returns on the previous night (his article quotes the poem)

Any idea what this could be? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a young lady named Bright

Who moved at the speed of light.

She went out one day

In a relative way

And came back the previous night. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the Buller poem to which I already referred; it's definitely not that. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to some sort of limerick (poetry)? If so, be advised that the most common form are limericks which start with "There was a {person} from {place}", or more generally, "There was a {person} {description}" - the distinguishing characteristics being more what happens in lines 2-5, rather than line one. -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of this one, told by Peter Sellers in some long-ago movie:

There was a young lay from Exeter

And all the young men threw their sex at 'er

Just to be rude

She lay in the nude

While her parrot, a pervert, took pecks at 'er.

There will be a slight delay to let the applause die down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a young lady from Ulva

Who kept a pet bee in her handbag

Her lover called Jock

Was stung on the arm

So to soothe it she bought him a box of the best Turkish Delight.

Aye thang yew! DuncanHill (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A very creative interpretation of the form! ;) --Tango (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Before this completely devolves into a bunch of random limericks... Nyttend, can you recall anything else about the piece. In your original question, you mentioned it was like the Buller limerick, but everything else you mentioned kind of pointed at it being... the Buller limerick. Do you recall what the "point" of the piece was or what kind of rhyming it might have had? Even random words? I'd like to help, but I think we're going to need more to go on, to be honest. Matt Deres (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, I can't give more...it might have been a limerick, but might not have been. I guess I'll have to keep wondering until I encounter it. I should say — I was unaware that most limericks are "There was a {person} from {place}", so I didn't know that my memory wouldn't be specific enough. Nyttend (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea what the answer is, but I'll just say that there is a bunch of these risque limericks in one of John Irving's books. (Can't remember which one.) Because those are very popular, there is a chance you read it there. 83.81.60.11 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You might have some luck getting a book of Edward Lear's nonsense verse (ideally, a complete set) and browsing for it: there've been loads of printings, so I'd imagine you could pick up a second-hand copy quite cheaply, or find a copy in your local library system. If it sounded fairly old, and fit the standard format, there's a good chance it was his. He wrote loads of them, and only you will know your verse when you see it. Plus, time spent with Lear is never wasted :) 86.164.66.4 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Adams? "Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Matter_transference_beams I teleported home last night with Ron and Sid and Meg. Ron stole Meggie's heart away while I got Sidney's leg." 70.24.114.119 (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not Adams or anything bawdy, because I know that I read it in something published for elementary or middle school students by Bob Jones University — the books I had were old enough that Adams had written after they were published, and they heavily bowlderised even "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" in a high-school literature textbook. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just realized, you can get Lear's nonsense verse online via Gutenberg: [1]. There are several verses featuring young ladies and young persons from various places in the UK, plus Norway, Sweden and Corsica... 70.24.114.119 (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Meaning of this joke ?

Can anyone tell me what the hell does this joke mean :

---

A businessman was in a great deal of trouble. His business was failing, he had put everything he had into the business, he owed everybody-- it was so bad he was even contemplating suicide. As a last resort he went to a priest and poured out his story of tears and woe.

When he had finished, the priest said, "Here's what I want you to do: Put a beach chair and your Bible in your car and drive down to the beach. Take the beach chair and the Bible to the water's edge, sit down in the beach chair, and put the Bible in your lap. Open the Bible; the wind will rifle the pages, but finally the open Bible will come to rest on a page. Look down at the page and read the first thing you see. That will be your answer, that will tell you what to do."

A year later the businessman went back to the priest and brought his wife and children with him. The man was in a new custom-tailored suit, his wife in a mink coat, the children shining. The businessman pulled an envelope stuffed with money out of his pocket, gave it to the priest as a donation in thanks for his advice.

The priest recognized the benefactor, and was curious. "You did as I suggested?" he asked.

"Absolutely," replied the businessman.

"You went to the beach?"

"Absolutely."

"You sat in a beach chair with the Bible in your lap?"

"Absolutely."

"You let the pages rifle until they stopped?"

"Absolutely."

"And what were the first words you saw?"

"Chapter 11."

---

 Jon Ascton  (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

See Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it also refers to the practice of Sortes Sanctorum and Bibliomancy. -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it refers to those things but that's not why it's funny. Dismas|^(talk) 04:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the joke relies on the perception that companies can use Chapter 11 bankruptcy to avoid creditors taking everything, and therefore allowing the unscrupulous business man the time to hide remaining assets by transferring them to relatives. Astronaut (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the priest was hoping (expecting?) the businessman to discover some divine message through a random phrase in the Bible, leading him to some sort of personal revelation. That the Bible instead "instructed" him to declare bankruptcy is the irony. — Michael J 15:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the way I read it; I didn't get anything of the Bible telling him to be unscrupulous, just that we obviously don't think of the Bible telling people to declare bankruptcy. The OP's userpage says that he's from India, BTW, so I assumed that he wasn't previously familiar with the idea of Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, Nyttend, that's it. I was'nt aware what the hell chapter 11 is. Now I have been told the bankruptcy connection, it clear as daylight. Thanks  Jon Ascton  (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in a way it is. One of the points behind Sortes Sanctorum is that the text being interpreted is a holy text, and God will be speaking to the practitioner through the holy word. From most interpretations of Sortes Sanctorum, one would ignore the table of contents, page headings, etc. in the book, because they are provided by man and are not the word of God. In the joke, it's not the holy word itself that is being interpreted, but the vulgar "window dressing". The joke is funny because it violates our expectation that the success of the Sortes Sanctorum would hinge on interpreting the holy word itself. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are not an American businessman/businesswoman, I don't think you could possible appreciate the joke, or see it, or even laugh. Maybe the priest did'nt get the joke, only the money. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Painting transfer

Goya painted his Black Paintings directly on the wall of his house. Our article states that they were subsequently transferred to canvas. How was this done? LANTZY^TALK 03:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted a pointer to an article mentioning its being mounted on canvas at Talk:Black Paintings#"transferred". Tempshill (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A Short Story that Franz Kafka May Have Written

I am trying to remember a short story I read in my creative writing class back in college. As far as I can remember, Franz Kafka may have written it, but I am not sure. Anyway, the story starts with a description of a man sitting on a chair and his head is seen from behind. I think he's reading a book. Finally, at the end of the story, the characters that he's reading about end up behind him, seeing his head behind the chair. So the story is kind of on loop and it's kind of enigmatic and creepy. Has anyone else read this and does anyone know the title of this story? It may have been Kafka but, again, I'm not sure. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.149.4 (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain you're talking about Continuity of Parks by Julio Cortázar -- Ferkelparade π 13:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Forms of trade other than barter or monetary

For a short story, I'm searching for economic systems where trade is not based on barter or regular money. These could be theoretical systems or systems that have been in use, but should be possible to use on a national scale. I'm especially interested in systems that are not based on supply and demand, or that otherwise seem novel or "odd" to someone who is used to money. 83.250.53.18 (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Classic semi-clichéd example is probably Yap#Stone_money, Rai stones. -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something in Category:Community currencies or Category:Private currencies. Time-based currency? In related categories we find Promissory note, which was in olden times played a major role in large scale international trade. Also, isn't plain old credit not "regular money" nor barter? Following the stone money idea, how about tea bricks? Perhaps something under Category:Economic systems? Another idea, gift economy was something that worked in the indigenous Pacific Northwest over a large region for a long time, and neither a barter or a market economy. Depending on how broadly you define "barter" and "regular money", there may be plenty of other options. Pfly (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There have of course been market-based trade systems that operated without "regular money". Historically, the most common media of exchange have been precious metals, especially silver and gold, but other media have been used, including shell money such as wampum. Sometimes little or no actual silver or gold changed hands in a transaction. Items were valued in terms of gold as a unit of account. At the end of an exchange, or sometimes at the end of a period such as a month or a year, accounts would be settled with a payment in precious metal from the person whose account was in debit. Marco polo (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Many of these examples are forms of commodity money, which may seem odd, but they're not that odd, since it's not a huge leap from gold to shells or stones or tea bricks. My favorite commodity money along those lines might be whiskey. —Kevin Myers 12:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You might like to check out (forgive me if you already know it) the short story "...And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell, if only to avoid any inadvertent possible resemblance. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It only works well in circumstances of abundance, but the gift economy is one possibility. --Carnildo (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Harry Harrison used a work-based credit system on a planet in The Stainless Steel Rat (more specifically, The Stainless Steel Rat Gets Drafted, as part of a pseudo-socialist-anarchist political-philosophical system called Individual Mutualism. Credit was gained through work-hours (shortened to wirrs) and could be exchanged for goods, but were unlike currency because they are non-transferrable. In theory, the number of wirrs things cost diminishes over time. 130.56.65.25 (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Film industry lucrative?

Why does the film industry looks lucrative? How did the movie Avatar made so much on gross revenue? How can movies make over $100 million in gross revenue? WJetChao (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gross revenue is just the amount of money the film takes in, without subtracting expenses. A film like Avatar has a high gross revenue because tens of millions of people bought tickets to see it, paying about $10 or more per ticket. Pretty simple, really. Net revenue (gross revenue minus expenses) is notoriously more difficult to determine in the film industry. Most films lose money, but the big hits make up for the losses, if all goes well. The film industry has seen better days, by the way. —Kevin Myers 12:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Most films lose money" is partly due to creative studio accounting. In Buchwald v. Paramount, Paramount apparently handed over a tidy sum to shield studio accounting practices from full legal scrutiny... AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words... The film industry is highly lucrative for a few people who have plenty of cash to hide how much they make. Most people do not make a lot of money. -- kainaw™ 12:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the opposite is also true: Hollywood accounting allows some Hollywood folks to appear to make more money than they actually do, for publicity purposes. Actors and directors don't always get the huge paychecks that get reported in the newspapers; they'll often work for less money, but their contracts allow them to claim that they're making a bundle. Planet Money recently did a story on this, for the curious. —Kevin Myers 13:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, creative accounting aside, I believe that it is literally true that "most films lose money", at least in the theaters. Most films do not make a profit during their theatrical run, because it is hugely expensive to make, promote, and exhibit a film. I don't know for sure if the statement "most films lose money" is true when video profits are factored into the final equation. —Kevin Myers 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This blog entry states that box office receipts represent only 15 percent of Hollywood's total revenue. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I watched a very interesting documentary once that claimed the major studios in Hollywood on average make a return on investment of about 5% a year. In other words, they'd be better off sticking their money in a term deposit and collecting the interest. The main thing that keeps the industry going is the fact that is a a seemingly endless line of people who are passionate and dedicated and willing to risk everything on a chance to make it in the movies. Vespine (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bankrupt in Venus, wealthy in Mars

I read a SF story where someone was bankrupt on one planet but wealthy on another planet. Could someone legally be bankrupt in one country but well-off in another? For example be bankrupt in the UK, but be wealthy in any other country, without breaking the law? Thanks 92.24.186.235 (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about personal bankruptcy, then I don't think that would be legal. A bankrupt's assets are managed by a trustee, and it is not legal to conceal resources. If there is enough money to cover the debts abroad, then the person will probably not even become bankrupt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.53.18 (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is conceivable that a person could be wealthy in a country that does not allow capital exports and insolvent or effectively bankrupt in another country. In an extreme case, a government could forbid transfers of money by individuals out of the country and even limit the amount of money individuals can carry out of the country. A person's wealth in that country could not meet their obligations in another country. I can't comment on how the law would deal with such a situation in the UK or anywhere else. Marco polo (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite possible theoretically, but practically questionable. It depends largely on where the bankruptcy is. UK bankruptcy is dramatically different than U.S. bankruptcy law (and both are quite different than the rest of the world). Shadowjams (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Charges against company accounts

Some years ago I worked for a seemingly profitable company. Every year, we would receive notification that the company made some profit and a link to the company's final accounts for that year. Every time I looked at those accounts there was some huge charge against them. One year it was something like $240 million for "reorganisation"; another year it was another vast sum for the costs associated with the closure/disposal of a business unit (an action it was claimed would make the company more profitable!); and another year some charge was made as a provision against future costs should the company lose a court case (it won!). Each time, these charges served to reduce the year's profit to a much smaller amount, and a couple of times pushed the company into a massive loss for the year. Are such charges genuine or are they just an acceptable way to reduce the year's tax bill? Astronaut (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It could be either. In fact, it's probably both. They will have genuinely done some expensive reorganisation, but they may have done it specifically with the intention of reducing (or maybe just deferring) their tax bill. --Tango (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot of the novel "Bunny Lake Is Missing"?

I understand the Otto Preminger's movie adaptation of "Bunny Lake Is Missing" differs significantly from the novel it is based on. What I can't seem to find is an outline of the plot that gives me an accurate idea of what happens in the novel. Can someone who has read the book give me a complete synopsis? Thanks! Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking someone in the eye

Why is it that in children's books and media they say someone can't look you in the eye and lie? I'm not really a good liar but I can look people in the eye and lie, and I'm surprised if they believe me. 76.230.214.130 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not that you can't lie while looking someone in the eye, it's that it's easier to spot a lie if you can see someone's eyes. (Or, at least, it is perceived to be - I believe that studies have shown that people are very bad at estimating their own ability to spot lies.) --Tango (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There is some folk wisdom that when people lie, they tend to not look the target in the eye. I'd post an example of this "wisdom" from ehow, but it's blacklisted; google lie "not look you in the eye" for a bunch of examples. This isn't precisely the claim that a liar is physically unable to meet your gaze, but it's close. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

now you know how people in China and other places where they can't talk freely feel. 85.181.144.197 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would depend more on whether or not you're in the right. Telling a white lie because people are getting all uppity and in your face is one thing. But telling them you didn't eat their lunch when you really did, that's another matter. Vranak (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That's a big problem with various studies on lying. If someone is lying because a man in a white coat with clipboard told them to, they aren't going to feel guilty about it so most of the usual signs that someone is lying won't be present. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I always thought it had to do with the shame. If I do something we know is bad and feel ashamed about it, I have a terrible time meeting someone else's eyes. So if a person isn't very sincere about their lying or has a very strong conscience, I can see why they wouldn't meet someone's eyes when they lie. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And all of this ignores the many cultures in which looking someone in the eye is impolite or a challenge or has some other significance.124.171.214.126 (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So are blind people better liars on average?

The origin of the hajduk

I am not satisfied with the article on hajduk as it really doesn't say where and when they originated. The article implies it was 17th century Hungary, but how did they appear in so many Slavic Balkan nations as well as Albania and Romania? The name sounds more Romanian than Magyar.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The article says it could be a borrowing from Hungarian via the Turkish language, which is IMO fairly likely the case. Languages on the Balkans have scores of borrowings from Turkish, courtesy of the long Ottoman presence. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes sense as the Turkish occupation is the only common denominator which can account for the word appearing in all the Balkan countries. I just didn't think it had a Hungarian origin. Thanks again for providing the answer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Lyndon Johnson

Did Lyndon B. Johnson have a son? I heard rumors about that? --91.89.179.60 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Madeleine Duncan Brown claimed that LBJ fathered her son. No reliable sources are included in that article, which I have tagged as a possible hoax. Edison (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Brown made a lot of fantastic claims. There's even a discussion on some of her allegations over at Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

predecessor of WAAC

Does anyone know the name of the predecessor of the WAAC? (Note, a better description of the WAAC is at [[WAVES]].) This predecessor was for women to volunteer their time doing non-military-type jobs for the military on weekends and evenings, and existed for a short time early in the second world war.—msh210℠ 19:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

old testament

Bold textafter the great flood the only humans on earth are noah and his family. then there are 4 generations followed upto joseph who is left for dead by his brothers and ends up in Egypt etc. HOW COULD EGYPT BE SO POPULATED WHEN ALLWHO COULD LIVE AND EXIST THERE MUST BE OTHER RELATIONS OF NOAH THAT THE BIBLE DID NOT FOLLOW. I GATHER THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE GRAT FLOOD WAS FOR GOD TO START OVER AGAIN AT REPOPULATING THE EARTH , ALLOWING ONLY NOAH TO LIVE AND HIS DIRECT FAMILY. WELL THIS TELLS ME THAT ALL WHO WAKK THE EARTH FROM THE FLOOD TILL NOW ARE RELATED TO NOAH AND THAT BACK IN THE DAYS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT WHEN JOSEPH WAS IN EGYPT, ALL WHO WALKED THE EARTH THEN WERE FROM DESCENDANTS OF NOAH SO HOW COULD EGYPT HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE A PHAROAH AND PYRAMIDS SO SOON AFTER THE FLOOD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.173.54.11 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you go through dates listed in Genesis, you'll find that the flood predated Joseph's arrival in Egypt by about 600 years or so. (I don't have any references front of me: that's a guesstimate.) Presumably countries can arise out of the descendants of a couple in 600 years. Note that the Bible says nothing about pyramids.—msh210℠ 20:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the genealogies in Genesis, there are 13 generations between Noah and Joseph. If every generation has three children, each of whom has three further children, and so on, then the total number of people in world in the thirteenth generation is 3¹³=1,594,323... AnonMoos (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

3 children might be on the low end too because have you seen fertility rates of 3rd world countries? Googlemeister (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember, you need to look at the number of children that survive to reproduce. It is common in the 3rd world to have a dozen children, but for only 3 or 4 to actually survive to adulthood. --Tango (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Although, if you look at the genealogies in the Bible, it seems that each family had more than 3 or 4 children that survived to adulthood--Jacob, for example, is listed as having 12 sons and an unspecified number of daughters, although I doubt that was typical (he had 4 wives, after all). Also, at least toward the beginning of the 600 or so years, people were living longer and evidently having children later. Not sure how big of a difference that could make, but over the 600 or so years, it would probably add up to a bit more.Fletch the Mighty (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Fertility rates are usually measured in terms of children per woman. 12 sons by 4 wives is 3 sons per woman, which is what we were guessing (assuming he had not daughters, which probably isn't true). --Tango (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good point. I was thinking in terms of whole families, but in light of how it's been discussed otherwise here, that would be a much more appropriate way to look at it. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Each couple might have 3 children that survive to adulthood, not each individual. That means if you start with 6 people (Noah, Noah's wife, Noah's two sons and their wives - that's from memory, so I might have the number wrong, but it's close) after 13 generations you would have 6*1.5¹³=1168 people. Any attempts to take the Bible literally end up with numerous problems like this. --Tango (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

8 people, Noah had three sons. And if each couple had more than 3 children who survived to adulthood (which seems probable, considering the large numbers of children some people were recorded as having), the number increases quite quickly. If each couple had just one more child on average, it shoots up to 62,000; if they had two more, it goes to 1.2 million; and so on. It all really depends on the average birth rate, which we have no way of knowing. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tango -- you're correct that my back-of-the-envelope calculation was extremely crude and rudimentary (and the exact number 1,594,323 would only apply in the case of asexual reproduction and constant life spans), but I was correct that an initial population of three men and three women can easily result in a population of over a million in 12 generations without assuming extreme fertility rates... AnonMoos (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't type in all caps; it is considered shouting on the Web. One answer to your question is, of course, that many people think that the Great Flood of the Old Testament didn't happen, and that it's just another Deluge myth like many cultures seem to have. Since there's no evidence that Noah's Great Flood ever occurred, we have to assume it didn't occur, if we're at all scientific. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If so many cultures have that "myth", maybe there's something to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. That article describes several theories about what there could be to it. Of course, none of them involve the population of the Earth being reduced to 8 people. --Tango (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A bigger plot hole is that there were any humans or land animals just a few generations later via all the incest from 2-8 per species and the problems from the lack of genetic diversity because of that. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-06-25t11:01z

If the original pair of animals had exactly 0 genetic defects, would that help? Googlemeister (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As Comet Tuttle says, there is virtually no evidence outside of the Bible to support the Bible's account of this period and a huge volume of evidence indicating that the Bible's account is not accurate. According to this source, using traditional biblical dating methods, Noah's flood would have occurred about 2304 BCE. All of the scientific evidence indicates that ancient Egypt was a thriving civilization at that time, and had been for nearly a thousand years. There is no evidence to suggest that Egypt was wiped out by a flood around 2300 BCE and a huge amount of evidence to indicate that civilization continued uninterrupted during this period, under the Sixth Dynasty. Now, if you reject all scientific evidence and accept the Bible as literally true, then the Egyptians were descended from Noah through Ham and Mizraim. Mizraim would presumably have married one or more of his cousins and had a dozen or more children, each of whom would have had a dozen or more children, and within a few generations, there would have been thousands of Egyptians. Marco polo (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Archaeological discoveries in parts of North Turkey have discovered the remains of the Arc, but were prevented in coming back the following year because of political situations in the area. (In fact they were stopped half-way). The names of the areas also confirm. Do remember the term; "the world" was understood very differently as we use it today. (Sorry for the late comment, only discovered your question now). MacOfJesus (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

is human murder part of natural selection

are humans a part of nature? if so, is human murder, a part of nature, a part of natural selection? if so, have genocided people been "selected against"? if so, were they in Darwin's sense less fit than survivors / genociders? what, in evolutionary terms, can be said about the six million Jewish victims of the holocaust, by the fact that they died, as compared with the perpetrators of the crimes? In general, does evolution "stop" when we get past trying to dip our tongues into ant colonies and so on, leading to longer tongues (ie primary traits that can be directly selected for by literal physical nourishment versus starving to death), or is intraspecies "sociology" a part of modern evolutionary biologists' understanding. If it is a part of modern evolutionary biologists' understanding, please explain why succesful genocide does not vindicate its premise that the genocided people are "inferior" -- doesn't evolutionary biology say that if they did not survive, they are inferior (less fit), if only because of you? 89.204.137.205 (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In the context of natural selection, yes, humans are part of nature. Fitness only effects survival on average. There are always going to be more fit or equally fit individuals that don't survive. If there is some genetic trait that makes someone less susceptible to murder then you would expect that trait to be selected for over several generations. When you're talking about a single generation, then evolution doesn't really come into it. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

didn't dinosaurs die directly of a disaster? that's one generation, so if you say "when you're talking about a single generation, then evolution doesn't really come into it", then it means evolutionarily, the dinosaurs aren't less fit than mammals? And, in some sense (due to their death in a single generation) might even be superior or better adapted? 89.204.137.233 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't know that the dinos died out in a single generation. Googlemeister (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, fitness is always relative to a particular environment. If the "all the dinosaurs died as a result of an asteroid impact" theory is correct, then what it tells us is that dinosaurs were less fit to survive in the environment that existed shortly after that impact. That says nothing about their fitness to survive in the current environment, or in the environment that existed immediately prior to the impact. However, that theory isn't true - dinosaurs didn't all die out. They are still around today; we call them birds. The large dinosaurs died out, but we don't really know why. Nevertheless, there is a big difference between a general disaster and a targeted attack. Evolution only effects inheritable qualities. Being the scapegoat for the current national leadership isn't determined by genetics. --Tango (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A similar question was asked on the Finnish Wikipedia at fi:Wikipedia:Kahvihuone (kysy vapaasti)#Luonnonvalinta. It was about high school massacre perpetrators claiming to support natural selection, and the answers were that they are mistaken, a single person deciding to kill people doesn't contribute to natural selection. I just can't help but feel that supporters of creationism will use this as a means to point out that "See? Evolution is evil because it leads to high school massacres!", which of course is a straw man argument, because evolution doesn't necessarily lead to massacres, it's just the killers that claim so. But the creationists don't know the difference. JIP | Talk 21:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that a strawman of your own, assuming that because some ignorant creationists believe it that all creationists do? It's the same thing as ignorant atheists arguing that because the Catholic Church supported the Crusades, Christianity is evil. :) Fletch the Mighty (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I should have said "some creationists". I don't really believe all creationists do that. JIP | Talk 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hitler talks about Darwin in Mein Kampf, as I recall. Wrad (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The theory of evolution really is most valid over a longer period of time. Some fast animals will meet an early demise, and some slow animals of the same species won't, but if being fast helps, the fast animals will meet slightly fewer early demises than the slow animals. That by no means means that if I'm slower than you, which hinders me from getting away from a predator, that I'll die. It means that five times out of ten (numbers made up), I'll survive, whereas you'll survive six times out of ten. Over time, that makes a big difference. In our generation, it really wouldn't. Perhaps over time, people will evolve to be wary of strangers behaving a certain way, perhaps not. Murder causes far fewer deaths than, for example, car accidents. On the flip side (just a thought), maybe people will evolve to not murder, as when murderers get caught, they tend to be removed from the gene pool for extended periods of time. I would surmise that human murder over time is part of natural selection, as some people die, and other people live, but I would not suspect that it would be a major factor, as it is (relatively) rare nowadays. Falconus^{p t c} 05:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

An article relating to the thoughts expressed in the question by the OP would be Social Darwinism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly it is. Although there is of course a great deal of leeway in what we consider 'natural'. I think in the most enlightened worldview, all things are natural. It's just a matter of seeing how things fit together and evolve and come into being. As well, if murder is 'natural', then so too is criminal prosecution, incarceration, and depending where you live, execution. Vranak (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A distinction between Socaial Darwinism and natural evolution is a matter of degree, but that is a huge degree. Social Darwinism was a political/social fad (much as many current social fads are) that had little basis in science, a vague correlation to a handful of generations, compared with genetic variation over thousands if not more generations. Shadowjams (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Natural selection means anything that makes an organism pass its genes on or not, no matter how distasteful the process is. That humans innately punish murder and other horrible crimes is not as much as a contradiction as it is a bare fact of existence. As far as I know all primates, and many other species, are known for intra-species-homicide, and all of the other basic crimes you can think of (drug crimes are probably excluded). That crime is inevitable doesn't make it desirable. A species desire to punish reduces that behavior (lots of social species punish social transgressions). There is ample literature that discusses the evolutionary basis of empathy, which is generally what we're talking about. There's an evolutionary basis for it, but the problem is that we're not that far from 200 person tribal primates and from an evolutionary perspective, our morals tend to mirror that. The problem is we often live in much greater communities. Shadowjams (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To the OP: No, if this were a pointer in natural selection then we would be left with the nastiest, filtiest, creature on the top. Which Philosopher said: Man is a becoming, he becomes like God, or like an animal, he/she decides? It is the biggest, filtiest rat wins the rat-race. If this were a criteria for natural selection then we would have pressed the self-destruction-button. However, some would say that that is what we have aleady, on the top! Maybe, I'm too much of an optamist. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Female vs. male body painting models

There was an article about the World Bodypainting Festival in the latest Kamera magazine (a Finnish photography magazine), about photographing body painting models. One bit that especially caught my interest was a mention that the majority of models are female, whereas the majority of photographers are male. The only explanation for the former provided was that skin hair tends to hinder painting. I don't especially believe that's anywhere near the major reason. As far as I can remember, women have skin hair too. Maybe some women shave their skin hair regularly but I don't think all women do. Is this right, or is there really such a difference with skin hair between men and women?

On the other hand, I believe the reason is more an aesthetic one than a biological one. Men are attracted to the female figure more than the male one by a greater margin than women are attracted to the male figure more than the female one. This presents a logical reason to favour female models, although by my experience, although female models are a significant majority, they're not an overwhelming one. But this doesn't explain why the majority of photographers would be men. I can only think of two explanations: Men are better at photography, or women don't like to photograph other women. But I very strongly doubt either is the case. So what could be the reason? JIP | Talk 20:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, "Maybe some women shave their skin hair regularly but I don't think all women do." I would say most women in the USA, UK and Australia probably shave under their arms and (at least when they intend to go swimming, wear clothes that show their lower legs, or hope to get lucky with some guy) their lower legs. I gather trimming and shaping of pubic hair is also pretty common, although that's harder to get a feel for without carrying out a proper survey. How far this applies to other countries, such as Finland, I don't know.

Secondly, women's skin hair tends to be qualitatively different to men's skin hair. Consider the arms and the chest, for example. I particularly recommend looking at the first picture in my last link (NSFW). 86.164.66.4 (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can accept the fact that men even biologically tend to have more skin hair than women. (Although pubic hair doesn't enter into it, as both women and men are required to cover up their genitals when painted.) But I still think skin hair is not the main reason why female models are so much more popular, I think the aesthetic reason is much more probable. JIP | Talk 22:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, pubic hair does enter into it. Look at the moderately coloured areas in the diagram: coarser hair extends further out than would generally be required to be covered. It's why women tend to shave around there if they intend to wear a swim suit. Is there a reason why you disbelieve the given, and plausible, explanation? I know I'd find it easier to paint the arms of most grown women I've known than the arms of most grown men I've known. And that's not even counting the chest and face, which tend to be important, high profile areas when painted. 86.164.66.4 (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and please note I said qualitatively not quantitatively. I don't know that I'd say men have more skin hair, but they have more of the coarser skin hair, which is the sort that could really muck up a paint job. 86.164.66.4 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I never said skin hair wasn't a reason, I just said it wasn't the main reason. I don't have personal experience in painting either women or other men, so I can't really know about the technical issues. However, it has been mentioned here below that visual appearance is a much more important factor for men than women when it comes to appreciating the human body. I think it supports my initial theory that men make a greater difference between female and male models than women do. JIP | Talk 22:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just a thought. If you want to get a feel for the technical issues, assuming you are a reasonably hairy man, maybe try painting a design on both the inside and outside of your forearm? Hopefully, you'll notice a difference in how easy it is, and in how it looks. I've only really done face painting before, but have found women and children much easier than men: can you imagine pulling a sponge over stubble? 86.164.66.4 (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "reasonably hairy", but I do have at least some hair on my skin though. Perhaps I'll try this. I need to buy some watercolours first. JIP | Talk 06:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

People say what Tango and you are saying a lot, but I'd be really interested in some studies that showed it. I've been in enough groups of women passing comment on the attractiveness of males to find this a little dubious. I mean, appreciating the human body is a different matter to entering into a relationship with someone: women certainly find visual appearance a pretty major factor in the former, and I've known plenty of women who didn't go out with someone they liked, who was interested in them, because they did not find this person physically attractive. So, like I say, I'd be interested in studies showing this. 86.164.66.4 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on physical attractiveness cites The Evolution of Desire in its lede. I cannot access the book, but there are some studies out there. See also this archived question. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting, although it specifically looked at mating behaviour. I'd still be interested if anyone knows of a study that looks at whether "visual appearance is a much more important factor for men than women when it comes to appreciating the human body", since that seems more relevant to body painting and photography. Unless, of course, most of the male photographers are expecting to be able to sleep with the models? 86.164.66.4 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is generally agreed that, on average, physical appearance is a significantly greater factor in determining how attractive men find women than in determining how attractive women find men. I guess this can be explained evolutionarily by men wanting fertile mates and women wanting mates that will be able to support their children effectively. This difference is a result of the different effort required to produce children by men and women (men require a couple of minutes of work, women require 9 months, plus however long they breastfeed for). Women care much more about making sure the children they have survive, whereas men can just have lots of children and rely on luck to make sure a few survive. --Tango (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate with parallels at Wikipedia: We have an article on female body shape, but not male body shape (though we do have one on human body shape). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the photographers, I think it is correct to say that photography in general and fashion photography in particular are still male-dominated industries. Of course things have been changing, but quick google glances seem to confirm what I have observed and read about myself. I have no statistics to back it up though. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(Oh, or were these amateur photographers? In that case my answer might still hold some truth, but the other reasons of attraction might factor in as well). You left out "men are more into photography (for whatever reason)" in your list of possible explanations, which is not the same thing as being better at it, not by a long shot. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see why anyone would want to look at painted men and I'd guess men are more interessted than women at looking at women. My being a man though might influence my perceptions ;-) Dmcq (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Even though I have absolutely no sexual interest in the male body, I would want to look at painted men. I prefer painted women (by a long shot) but that doesn't mean I downright refuse to look at painted men. With men, it's the actual art that I want to look at, while with women, it's both that and the models themselves. I guess that when it comes to women, women don't really care that much whether the models are men or women, although I'd guess they have a slight preference towards men. JIP | Talk 17:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Human Metropolis Found in Africa!?

Is this information credible?

http://viewzone2.com/adamscalendarx.html http://www.viewzone2.com/adamscalendar22.html http://www.viewzone2.com/adamscalendar33.html http://www.viewzone2.com/adamscalendar44.html

--Aodvapodn (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The big thing that jumps out at me is that he says it appears to be 200,000 years ago but doesn't give any indication of where that number comes from. Also, the guy that apparently did the research seems to be this guy: Michael Tellinger. He's a musician and seems to have absolutely no training or experience in archaeology. --Tango (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the 2nd link explains the dating. It's guesswork based on some assumptions about some standing stones having astronomical significance. --Tango (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)This appears to do with Michael Tellinger; take a gander at his website here. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooh ooh, and this too. It's super. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The more I read from the first link, the less plausible it sounded. It's all possible, I guess, but it reeks of implausibility to me. Okay, the idea that there is an ancient civilization there, the first point, is very plausible. We've discovered hitherto unknown ancient civilizations before, and we probably will again. I'll even buy the idea that they had a gold-mining industry. Gold seems to have been very popular in many ancient civilizations. The idea that the civilization is 200,000 years old is very difficult to swallow. I learned in an anthropology class that humans came into their modern form (as determined by skeletal remains, I presume) 40,000 years ago. This disagrees with the Wikipedia lineage, where it states that anatomically modern humans came to be 200,000 years ago. It seems hard to believe that humans 200,000 years ago, with, if I am not mistaken, smaller brains, would have been so advanced, though to be fair, we cannot possibly know that with certainty. Also, many comparatively modern structures are barely rubble after 2000 years of neglect. That there would be walls remaining after one-hundred times that doesn't seem logical to me either. Again, not impossible I suppose, especially being buried, but 200,000 years is one heck of a long period of time. I will admit that I was playing with the idea in my head of a 200,000 year old civilization built by a rather advanced early human, but then I got to the part where it started talking about how extraterrestrials created humans around that time period, by cloning a "god" of wisdom, mixing the gods blood with clay (and they had master gods and slave gods, as an interesting twist. Apparently the slave gods went on strike, causing this whole thing to transpire.). I keep a very open mind, and accept the possibility that it is as they say. However, that being said, I find it to be heavily in conflict will all scientific and archaeological evidence I have ever seen, and I, admittedly being still fairly uneducated in this field, have come to the conclusion that the evidence to support their claims just is not there, and I will dismiss the majority of these claims unless new more solid evidence comes to light. All that being said however, if we ignore the claims of the age and divine extraterrestrial cloning, I don't *think* they made the pictures up. If those are real, I certainly suspect that some people at some point had something fascinating going on. Beyond that, in the absence of further, reputable information, I am generally under the opinion that this is rather fanciful thinking. Kind of like my stance on the Bosnian pyramids and Atlantis. Falconus^{p t c} 06:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, as a note, if these claims were deemed to be credible by the mainstream archaeologists, it would truly be the headlines of this decade. Of all the scientific discoveries that could be made, I am hard-pressed to think of something that would be more newsworthy. It's probably a very big clue that this is not credible. Again, I could be wrong, but... Falconus^{p t c} 06:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Another observation I'd make is that the aerial photographs appear to show hut compounds that were typical of villages in many parts of Africa in very recent times (say up to about 1950). They could be somewhat older than that, if they are overgrown and locals don't know their origin. In that case, they probably date to the time before the Mfecane, or about 200 years ago. Marco polo (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The story of the article has a vaguely lovecraftian feeling to it. All that's missing is scores of nameless pre-human horrors to come pouring from dark unholy caves under the city :) TomorrowTime (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Demyanka River

Where is Demyanka River and how long it is? 95.86.226.195 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Curiously there is an article about this river in several Wikipedias, but not (that I can find; we may have it under a different transliteration of the name, which is Демьянка in Russian) in English (in German, in Spanish). Looking at those it's in Western Siberia and it's 1160km long. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The German article above says it's a tributary of the Irtysh River. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)