Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 28

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.

March 28

what does the bible actually say about pedophilia on part of priests?

what does the bible (or catholic dogma) actually say about pedophilia on part of priests - ie can someone quote scripture (or pappal bulls and the like) saying that it is wrong for priets to do that? Or could it be a thing where scripture/dogma is silent on the issue, so we have only just everyday morals and law, but no scripture/dogma for it. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.95 (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Church's celibacy doctrine for its clergy, combined with the Biblical proscription against homosexuality, would pretty well cover the bases. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It may have escaped your notice Bugs, but none of the priests accused of abusing girls are female. DuncanHill (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And what's it got to do with homosexuality? That's attraction between adults of the same sex. Pedophilia is pedophilia, regardless of the sex of the individuals involved. In terms of Catholic dogma, ALL sexual activity is sinful except between a man and a woman who are validly married to each other in the eyes of the Church. That includes masturbation; same-sex sex; adultery; pedophilia; incest; bestiality; sex with a new spouse after divorce and remarriage, and before the old spouse has died; sex with a surrogate where the spouse is unable to conceive; rape; prostitution; you name it. Go here and search for the word 'sexual'. Item 2389 is relevant. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Priesthood is not part of Biblical church organization in the New Testament. The only offices discussed in the New Testament with regards to church leadership are pastors ("overseers") and deacons. So it doesn't say anything specifically about priests. Some relevent passages regarding sexual relations and church leadership from the New Testament are:

• Acts 15:22-29 is a short letter written by early christian leaders to all churches, telling christians to avoid, among other things, "sexual immorality", again without defining it.
• 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 Paul asks all people to avoid "sexual immorality"; however he does not define it specifically.
• 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, Paul states that it is preferrable for people to not have sex at all; but if they MUST have sex then they should be married first.
• The two letters to Timothy are generally taken as instructions on how to be the spiritual leader of a church (pastor) and 2 Timothy 2:22 tells pastors to avoid "the evil desires of youth", which could be interpreted in many ways. 1 Timothy 1:3-13 says that, among other enumerated sins, "adulterers and perverts" aren't fit to be church leaders.
• The most important passage in this regard is 1 Timothy 3 which describes the qualifications of both "overseers" (pastors) and deacons. It states clearly that "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable..."

These were just the few that I was able to dig up, there are likely many more. There are dozens and dozens of biblical passages that state pretty clearly that having sex with little boys and girls is probably a bad idea for anyone. --Jayron32 01:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymological sidelight -- the English word "priest" historically derives from the Greek word presbyteros (you can see an intermediate stage in the name of Prester John), though it corresponds in meaning more to the Greek word hiereus... AnonMoos (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual means "same sex". Celibacy has to do with heterosexual or "other, i.e. opposite sex". As Jack says, the Church considers any kind of sexual activity outside of marital relations to be sinful. The purpose of sex is reproduction within a marriage framework. All that stuff Jack lists either cannot lead to reproduction or is outside of the approved rules for marriage, therefore it's sinful. P.S. That's the Catholic view, not necessarily mine. P.P.S. Celibacy is a Church doctrine, not a Biblical doctrine, and could be changed tomorrow if the Church decided to. That would have no impact on the items on Jack's list, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, you should have signed before your P.S., not after --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the original definition of celibacy has nothing to do with sex, heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise. The word celibacy is derived from the Latin caelibatus, a variant of caelebs, meaning "unmaried". That's what "celibate" means with respect to Catholic priests - simply that they should remain unmarried. As pointed out, this also implies that they aren't supposed to have sex, as the only "acceptable" way a Catholic is supposed to be sexually active is with their spouse, within an officially recognized (by the Church) marriage. -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The original poster can find some related information here. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

[The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of "Your Child Is in Danger!" indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/e/19931008a/article_01.htm. Today the official website is http://www.jw.org, but 1993 publications are not there at this time.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)]

I haven't followed all the links, but what I haven't seen in this thread is a cite giving a scriptural or other reference for pedophilia being any worse than other non-marital sex. I think the concept that a child is incapable of giving informed consent to sexual activity with an adult is common in legal systems today, thus making pedophilic sex the equivalent of rape (and hence the expression "statutory rape"). Is there any Biblical passage or doctrine to support a similar view, or at least saying that non-consensual non-marital sex is worse than consensual non-marital sex? --Anonymous, 02:32 UTC, March 28, 2010.

If you are asking if there is a passage that specifically says, "Is it wrong for a priest to have sex with a child," then, no. There isn't. As most people above have posted, it's covered by various proscriptions, but not one specific one. I can't give a citation because there isn't anything to cite. I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't split hairs here; there is no degree of bad/worse/worst. Aaronite (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To Anonymous: From a theological point of view, there are no rank order in sins; while secular authorities may assign various crimes different degrees of punishment; and while people may hold certain crimes to be personally more heinous than others, sin is a binomial state of affairs. According to Christian theology, God is perfect, and therefore cannot allow sin into his presence. All sins cause eternal seperation from God. Again, according to Christian theology, Jesus Christ is therefore the sacrifice that redeems or atones (makes up for) all of the sins of humanity. Since all sins cause seperation from God, and there is no sin that Jesus's death did not absolve Christians from, there is no point in ordering or ranking sins. From a theological standpoint, paedophilia isn't any worse than any other sin. This doesn't mean that the act is not heinous, and should not be met with the full force of secular law (the bible repeatedly tells Christians to submit to secular authorities); just that from the point of view of one's place in heaven, sins of a sexual nature, even rape and paedophila, aren't considered a greater or lesser impediment to eternal salvation than any other sin. Aaronite is correct here as to the bible not splitting hairs; the whole point of the New Testament is an end to the old Jewish system of lists of offenses and prescribed sacrifices to atone for them, and a new way of thinking about sin and one's relationship with God.--Jayron32 04:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I thought there were mortal sins and venial sins, sentences in purgatory of various lengths for sinners who don't quite merit eternal damnation, and (as of the time of Dante) nine concentric circles of hell for those who do merit damnation, according to just what they did. They may have had to add more circles in recent years, for spammers, internet trolls, and the like. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, for Protestants, not since the Reformation, and for Catholics, probably not since Vatican II, except for small groups of Traditionalist Catholic sects like Sedevacantism. Since Vatican II, concepts such as purgatory have continued to be part of official Catholic doctrine, but have been de-emphasized in favor of a more bible-centered view. Dei Verbum, the major Vatican II document regarding theology and doctrine, affirms the sacred nature of extra-biblical concepts like Purgatory, but also removes such concepts from a central position in Catholic doctrine and dogma. --Jayron32 06:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had Catholic religious instruction when I was a kid (long after Vatican II) and I'm quite sure I learned about cardinal sins then. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A more specific question might be whether the Bible has anything specific to distinguish rape as particularly undesirable (I think the evidence has been quite large that these were not exactly consensual relationships). Is there anything other than Sodom and Gommorrah that specifically discusses rape? --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a commandment to stone to death rape victims under certain circumstances. It's in one of the more obnoxious books of the OT, probably Leviticus or Deuteronomy. DuncanHill (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In ancient Israel, an engaged maiden who was raped was not punished if she screamed. (See http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/22-23.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/22-24.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/22-25.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/22-26.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/22-27.htm.) -- Wavelength (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> Please keep in mind the following:

1. the notion of 'pedophilia' is a modern, western idea. evan as late as as the 18th century, it was not at all uncommon to consider people as young as 12 and 13 to be marriageable (or at least sexually active - Benjamin Franklin reportedly cavorted with 13 year olds in France, and Mohatma Ghandi was married at 9, if I remember correctly, and began living with his wife at 12 or 13). That has become distasteful (and illegal in much of the modern world) mostly because of extended childhood and improved medicine. mandated high school, career orientations for both boys and girls, plummeting rates of mortality amongst infants and expectant mothers: These all have placed a pressure on families and children to stay out of the world of sex/marriage/family until late teens or early twenties. any mention of pedophilia int he bible would have had to refer to children under the age of 10, and anyone caught molesting a child under the age of 10 in the ancient world would have been quickly and quietly stoned to death by the other people in the community. No one would have thought to write it down as a rule.
2. God (should you believe he exists) is not an accountant, and is not 'tallying up' the number and severity of each sin. Breaking their vow of celibacy is sin enough to keep a priest out of salvation (which is assumedly their goal).
3. The Catholic Church is about forgiveness, and confession is strictly private. It was stupid of the Church not to encourage father-confessors to encourage priests who commit such sins to leave the priesthood and enter monastic life. but don't fault them for trying to save the souls of their priests. --Ludwigs2 13:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Matthew 18:6[1] hits the nail on the head (quoting Jesus) "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Alansplodge (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties may find the following passages from the CCC worthy of note:

§2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

§2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10), tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered"(CDF, Persona humana 8). They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

--Aryaman (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You get those sections from the link I provided above. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the CCC in print, which comes with a handy index. Sorry to have overlooked your link. --Aryaman (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers to my subsidiary question above. (Well, except for the sigh, but I forgive that.) --Anonymous, 02:55 UTC, March 29, 2010.

Ahh...I suppose I'm too late, then. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Prostitute tea

Do you think the marketing people who came up with the packaging for Arizona Diet Green Tea - With Ginseng realize they put a Japanese prostitute on the label? That's kind of odd since both Green tea and Ginseng are usually associated with China. Although I think the label is very pretty, you would think they could come up with something other than a prostitute. I would guess the picture was chosen because they probably thought it was a Geisha. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

They grow tea in Arizona? DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

--Tagishsimon (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Consider the average American consumer. If you were to ask most of them to name a country associated with tea, besides England, they'd likely name Japan. With ginseng tea, they wouldn't even think England first and go straight to Japan. Ask them to name something about Japan and there's a good chance they'd come up with geisha. Show them that picture and they'd say it's a picture of a geisha woman. Marketing isn't about truth. Dismas|^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

These kind of mistakes happen everywhore.

HA!!! --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The real question is: does it sell more tea? perhaps it was a marketing decision. --Ludwigs2 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you were to ask what the average American consumer would respond, are you willing to bet all of the tea in China Japan? (FWIW, India was the independent second choice of both me & my wife, after England.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In any case, Geishas were not really simply common prostitutes, and Ukiyo-e type artistic depictions have had a strong following among some in Western cultures since the 1870s... AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the picture is of a Japanese courtesan. They primarily served as prostitutes and only later learned refined skills such as singing and dancing later on (unless they were an apprentice, then they learned it earlier). Once the government cracked down on prostitution, the Geisha replaced the courtesan in popularity. But some Geisha eventually fell into the practice of sleeping with clients. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No Ghost I do not! I agree with your assessment entirely -- that it's pretty. When I see that picture, I think refined, classy, elegant, not a vulgar working woman. Vranak (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying that an American prostitute; in hot pants, fish net stockings, stiletto heels, and with more make-up than Tammy Faye Bakker, is not as "refined, classy, and elegant" ? StuRat (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You said it, not me! Vranak (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

More like "crassy". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hand car"--means of transport

I found the following image: http://www.harappa.com/magic/7.html, taken in 19th century British India. I've never see or heard of such a "hand car" before (where the passengers, sitting in which is essentially a very small, bare-bones railroad car, are pushed by manual labor on a track)...were these in common use in India or elsewhere? Did the passengers and laborers travel on actual railway tracks or special tracks exclusive to that purpose? Seems dangerous and/or impractical, depending....Thanks! If this is the wrong Ref. Desk, please let me know. --达伟 (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And while you're answering the above question, if you could also tell me what the handle is for, I'd appreciate that. Is it a brake in case the people pushing can't keep it going slow enough on a downhill slope? Dismas|^(talk) 13:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Our articles hand car and draisine may enlighten you. DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As the article says, "Handcars are a recurring plot device of twentieth century film comedy" (especially the kind where two people stand on either side of a "see-saw" type handle and alternately move it up and down). If you've watched 4 or 5 Hollywood movies set in the American West in the second half of the 19th century, then there's a good chance you've seen a scene with a hand-car... AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

For example, Blazing Saddles has a handcar scene early on. (I see the handcar article already mentions that.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And, more recently, O Brother, Where Art Thou?. However, note that this type, where the occupants propel themselves, is fundamentally different from the type posed in this Q, where one person or group pushes the cart containing another person or group. This type is more like a rickshaw, and implies a great disparity in wealth and social status. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I tried to cover my bases by doing a Google search that turned up little...don't know how I neglected to look on WP first!--达伟 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that in the illustration, no crossties (sleepers) are visible. In most early railway construction, the crossties extended quite a ways above the gravel or "ballast." In that case, it would be slow and impractical for four men to stumble along hitting or missing the ties as they step smartly along. It would take a lot of expense to completely cover the cross ties just to provide level footing for the four pushers. A puzzle, all in all. The ties did not just rest on dirt because in a climate where the temperature dropped below freezing and there was some precipitation, the frozen dirt would heave and displace the ties. Gravel ballast provided drainage [2]. The 2 man pumped handle handcar could go faster than the 4 pushers could push . A handcar sold for $25 in the early 20th century, and a handcar could carry 3 to 10 men, so the two officials could have been passengers. A handcar might weigh 800 pounds and be capable of 12 to 20 miles per hour[3]. Edison (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

First, we aren't talking about early railways -- the date given on the web site is 1895, and the works of engineering visible in photos 6 and 13 and the size of the station in photo 15 confirm that that date makes sense. But in fact, most early railways did not lay the ties, or sleepers as they say in Britain, on top of the ground. That was mostly an American practice, where the railways were built as cheaply as possible. In the 1994 book "Early Railways" by Rodney Dale (Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-521007-7) you will see that many of the illustrations show no visible ties -- they're completely buried in the ballast -- and the others practically all show just the tops visible, as is usual today. In fact the practice of burying the ties lasted at least into the late 19th century in Britain (I'm not sure whether the idea was more for appearance or because they thought it helped protect them from the weather or something) and I don't think it's surprising to see it being done in British India.

Here are some examples (three British, two other countries):

1. This photo, found on this page, has no date, but judging by the engine, must be 1830-1850.
2. This photo, found on this page, has no date, but the railway closed in 1935.
3. This photo is dated 1905 on this page
4. This photo, found on this page, shows an Australian example. According to Wikipedia the train began running in 1921, so the photo must be no earlier than that.
5. This still, found on this page, is from one of the first pieces of movie film ever publicly exhibited, in 1896. The location is in France.

--Anonymous, 04:14 UTC, March 29, 2010.

The book cited above, page 175 from 1915} shows that it was not U.S. practice to place the ties on the ground, but instead on a base of ballast. For whatever reason, it was not common to completely cover the ties with ballast. It is incorrect to claim that U.S. railways were built "as cheaply as possible." Temporary lines, such as timber harvesting or Civil War supply lines, or the initial pioneer installation of a line through the wilderness might be built without all the ballast of normal operation. Each railroad had a "standard plan" for the cross section of the roadbed, which had to be complied with. Edison (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In your previous comment you were talking about early railways, and my remark about "as cheaply as possible" was in that context, or as you say this time, "initial pioneer installations". As you see yourself (you're now citiing a 1915 book), practices changed later. --Anonymous, 19:32 UTC, March 29, 2010.

Correlation between the Sharpeville Massacre and Cato Manor Massacre

Having done some research prior to the celebration of Human Rights Day here in South Africa (21 March) which commemorates the Sharpeville Massacre in which 69 people were killed by a group of policeman manning the station at Sharpeville on that day in 1960, I was surprised to note that there is no cross reference to the incident two months earlier at the Cato Manor police station some 550 km from Durban.

According to your Cato Manor article “On The 23 January 1960 an angry mob attacked 4 white and 5 black policemen at the Cato Manor Police station; they butchered the men and mutilated the bodies. The mutilated bodies, with genitals stuffed in their mouths, were then dragged through the streets by the mob.”

I think that the cross referencing of these two articles is imperitive in order to give a balanced view of the Sharpeville incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.208.52 (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This belongs on the article talk page, not here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note that you can add those links yourself. StuRat (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

History of writing out currency amounts on checks

I had a hard time explaining to a young friend how to fill out a personal check. Besides the cardinal number for the amount, one much also spell out the amount using English words. I've seen these for cashier's cheques, money orders -- any certificate that has monetary value. What's the origin of this? And why do we still do it? --68.103.143.23 (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason for it is because it's easier to change "$50" to "$500" by inserting a strategic zero than it is to fraudulently change the written word "fifty" to "five hundred"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure, but it probably has to do with avoiding ambiguity. Much like a legal contract would state (for example), "the term of this lease is for twelve (12) months" -- which has the amount spelled out both in numerals and in words. I believe that I saw somewhere that it is the written word that is the legally controlling amount ... despite what the numerals indicate. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

After reading AnonMoos's post above, my comment (above) makes even more sense. That is probably why the written word controls over the numerical symbols ... to avoid forgery and alteration of the amount. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

I don't think either the amount in words or the amount in figures have any precedence over the other, because if there were any discrepancy between them, the whole cheque would be void as no bank would honour it. If anyone knows differently, I'd love to see a cite.-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

When writing prescriptions for narcotics, it is recommended to include the number of tablets in both numeral and word form to avoid fraud -- I'd say it's the same here. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been phoned by my bank about a cheque I wrote where the numerals did not match the words. (I am in a small town and the bank manager knows me.) I just confirmed the words and the bank then honoured the cheque. I don't know what would have happened differently, if anything, if I had confirmed the numerals rather than the words. Bielle (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I clearly remember studying a "famous" legal case, where this was the exact issue at hand. And the legal principle held by the court was that the written words printed legally controlled over the numerical amount printed. I will have to look for the actual case citation. But, I definitely remember studying the case. (This was a case in USA case law, by the way.) It has stuck in my memory after all these years because, at the time, I remember thinking to myself, "wow, I never knew that". Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

There are checks in the Cairo Genizah dating to the Middle Ages that are quite similiar to ours -- they have the amount written out in both numerals and words. So this is not a new idea. See [4]. -- 76.190.138.251 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The sum expressed in words does not have precedence over the sum expressed in numerals, but the bank is (generally in Commonwealth jurisdictions) required by law to pay the lesser sum if various sums written on the cheque differ from each other. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, the written word legally prevails over the numerals. Here is a source that I found ... although this is not the legal case for which I was originally looking (and referenced in my post above). It states: "The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been adopted by all of the states with some variations, but the following is pretty universal. UCC Article 3 on negotiable instruments, which includes checks, covers your situation. § 3-114. Contradictory Terms of Instrument. If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers." The source is Amount Discrepancy in Check Between Number and Words. That link also contains other pertinent links. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

How odd. Why do we bother with the numerals then? Could I just use that space to sketch out a tiny version of my favorite cartoon character? APL (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In some sense, for the same reason you have to type a new password twice - to make you check your work, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But the computer cheques the passwords match and will make you fix them if they are different. Apparently US banks don't make you fix errors, so it doesn't serve any purpose. Very odd... --Tango (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but remember that the above UCC Code Section only applies when the two amount formats (numerals versus words) contradict each other. If one -- or the other -- is left blank, then there is no contradiction, and that given amount will dictate (regardless if it is a numeral or the numerical counterpart in words). Of course, leaving one section blank on a check may be an invitation to tempt a fraudulent entry in that blank spot. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

By the way, Chinese has a special set of "financial number" characters to make changing values harder (fraud would be much easier using the ordinary number characters, where one horizontal stroke is "1", two horizontal strokes is 2, three horizontal strokes is "3", and two crossed strokes is "10"). See Chinese numerals... AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember being told in a History of Mathematics course at university is that one of the reasons that Indo-Arabic numerals were slow to displace Roman numerals was partly because merchants feared the new numerals were more vulnerable to fraud. It was apparently common practice to write a final Roman i, as a j to make alterations harder - and of course in ROman numerals you couldn't simply increase a value by a factor of ten. David Underdown (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

damaged aircraft auction

It's understood Flight 1549 was up for auction. The auction ended just recently. How much money was brought in?24.90.204.234 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Source of quotation, probably from W.B. Yeats

I would like to use the following quotation in a talk I'm about to give and would like to cite it correctly:

"All rising to a great place is by a winding stair."

I believe the quotation is from William Butler Yeats, but have not been able to find it in his Collected Poems. I know that Sister Corita used this quotation in at least one, if not two images she created prior to 1973, but I have not been able to find these images either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankellen (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Google consensus is Francis Bacon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In Bacon's essay Of Great Place to be precise. Yeats did have a volume of poems called The Winding Stair and Other Poems with the winding stair motif in the poem A Dialogue of Self and Soul. meltBanana 22:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical scenario

What would happen if unemployment in the United Kingdom were to reach 100% what would happen. I know the country would go bankrupt but in reality what does this mean, the country's just left to rot or do we get bailed out by the IMF. . . ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.195.77 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That would mean there are no businesses operating at all. It might be useful to see what conditions were like during the Great Depression, when unemployment was quite high, and extrapolate from there. It's also possible someone has written about such a scenario, which you might be able to find via Google. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how that could ever occur. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at present, no, as the economy would collapse long before then. However, one can imagine a future time when automation has improved to the point where human workers are obsolete. Then, it could happen. This would mean capitalism would no longer function, as only owners of the means of production would have any income at all. Something more like pure socialism would result, with everyone sharing in the wealth created by the machines. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

For which see The Soul of Man under Socialism, By Oscar Wilde. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If nobody's working, then nobody's got money, and nobody's buying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Under capitalism, yes, hence the problem. StuRat (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Apart from StuRat's automated world (which requires some really impressive AI), the only way I could see that happening would be if everyone reverted to subsistence farming. While they would be working, they wouldn't be contributing to the larger economy (of which there would be none). If nobody was working, they would just die, obviously. If the UK has got to that stage, we have to assume it is a global super-crisis and the IMF wouldn't be any help. --Tango (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

When the XIX century bringed the Industrial Revolution, it came with a number of philosophers that proposed new economic ideas. In the same way, if humanity ever reaches a state where automated work is so perfect that human workers are not needed anymore, such a revolution should force us to design a new economic system, different from capitalism, in order to take the most advantage of the new posibilities. MBelgrano (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And we will likely be forced to change long before we reach 100% unemployment. Even 30% might be enough. StuRat (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As with the Great Depression, which is why we have a measure of socialism already, i.e. a "safety net". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth looking at the economy of Nauru article; Nauru has an estimated 90% unemployment rate. Warofdreams talk 01:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Social care and "safety nets" are provisional measures, they still work with the idea of unemployment being a temporary problem that may be fixed soon. The hypothetic scenario of full automated work would mean that unemployment would be permanent, so it would be needed a radical change of paradigm MBelgrano (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would actually happen, though. I expect there will always be jobs that humans do better than computers/robots, those jobs may just be different ones than people are doing now. If we don't need people doing all the now-automated jobs that will free them up to do other jobs. Perhaps, for example, teaching won't be fully automated and lots of people that have been replaced by computers will become teachers and every child will get 1-on-1 tuition. Perhaps having people working for you, instead of robots, will become a status symbol and lots of people will go into domestic service and we'll have Great housees again (if the number of available jobs reduces, wages will go down and employing servants will become affordable for many again). The rich that are employing the servants would either be those that own capital (as they used to be) or those that have skills that computers can't (yet) match. Or perhaps half of jobs will replaced by robots and people will share the other half, since prices will have gone down and everyone can afford to work part-time, although I'm not sure about that: while people could afford not to work full-time, many would probably prefer to anyway and thus be twice as rich. But anyway, however it happens, I doubt we'll ever end up with total unemployment. There will be changes in what jobs people do and maybe how much they work, but people will always have jobs. --Tango (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We are already living in an age of automation, machines, and computers, if not many robots yet. If you required everything to be done by hand-crafting, then I imagine the workforce would need to increase by many times to achieve the same output. Many people (at least in the UK) already have a proportion of their income, sometimes all of their income, from "free" money given them by the state.

So if trends continue, in the future there will be a few innovatory business people with fantastically high incomes who live in great luxury, but who pay a lot of tax. This tax will be shared out as "benefits" among the proles, who with increasing population densities live in the equivalent of council flats. Reminds me of ancient Rome, but instead of bread and circuses its benefits and telly. Update: as noted below, more and more people would be students for longer and longer. At least even someone on the dole in the UK has a higher standard of living than a King of a thousand or more years ago. 84.13.173.45 (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the unemployment figure is counting those in the workforce who do not have jobs. There are large groups of people who are never included as part of the workforce: students, housewives, farmers (in many countries), royalty, & nobility. (Unless there is some provision for out-of-work peers somewhere.) If automation replaced large numbers of jobs, but those people did not need to work to earn a living, then they would not be counted as part of the workforce. Thus the employment rate would not rise to high rates in this scenario.

Again, consider the OP's scenario: due to a crashed economy, everyone is out of a job. I remember reading anecdotes (as well as hearing tales from that generation) of the Great Depression in the US where commerce came to a halt -- for all intents & purposes -- because there was no hard currency to facilitate exchange. (In those days, they did not have credit or debit cards, & checks were often processed by the bank exchanging the actual check with cash.) In that instance of a crashed economy, people fell back to barter to get the things they needed. So one person would offer to chop wood for another in exchange for a hot meal; should that first person actually be counted as being employed? (That is a question which all governments consider, & many come up with some interesting ways to define "employed", not all of which the average economist would agree with.)

That example leads me to state that 100% unemployment would be impossible: there is always someone who has enough of something of value to hire others to do work for her/him. Even in places like Nauru (mentioned by Warofdreams above) or Zimbabwe (with reportedly 80% unemployment) or numerous US Indian Reservations (reportedly 75% unemployment), there are people with income. And what happens in those situations is that the folks with incomes are providing food & shelter to many of those without incomes -- usually family members, but sometimes friends. (Of course, in those situations shelter becomes free because the landlords & banks are unable to collect rent or mortgage payments, so what the dependents are getting is food.) And since they have some money, they have to pay someone for food, other goods, & services. But because that supply of money is limited, the quality of these things deteriorate; people who are good at providing them leave & those behind find a lot of the infrastructure which allows them to provide these things is broken or missing. So while it is hypothetically possible for the UK to hit 75+% unemployment, that would mean much of the country would experience a colder & less violent version of life in many parts of Africa. And probably without many of the exotic animals, too. -- llywrch (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why less violent? Masses of people who are starving to death can get pretty violent regardless of how they behave when everything is going well enough. Googlemeister (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How are nurses who kill caught?

I mean, there are a lot of examples of nurses who've killed patients, I mean, how are they caught?, what's the evidence?. I am not sure if I can exaplain what I mean. A serial killer who uses knife, rape, etc. can be caught by his/her DNA. So, what's the evidence in the cases of nurses who kill? --190.178.150.51 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Start with the page Angel of Death and go from there. In the first case listed, there were suspicions about a high quantity of similar deaths happening while a particular nurse was the only one on duty. That observation can start the snowball rolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In the developed world, anyone that dies without there being an obvious cause will be given an autopsy. That will usually establish the cause of death. If it is something like a drugs overdose while they were in hospital then someone will look at the patient's notes and try and work out what happened. There is a lot of paperwork done in hospitals and one of the reasons for it is to enable them to work out what happened in the event that someone dies that shouldn't have done. --Tango (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are that careful with autopsies. At least in the US, anyone who is old and/or sick when they die seems to bypass the autopsy table, which would be most of the people a nurse might kill. StuRat (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, anyone that hasn't been seen by a doctor in the last 2 weeks is automatically autopsied. With anyone else, it depends on whether a doctor is confident stating their cause of death on a death certificate and signing it, I think. If the nurse killed someone that could easily have died anyway, then they might get away with it fairly easily. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But Tango, in the case of Colin Norris, he gave overdoses of insuline to his patients (four women) and was caught just because his colleagues reported him because of his ironic comments. So, there weren't autopsies to those women. --190.178.150.51 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article doesn't go into details about how he was caught, but it does say none of the women was terminally ill, so there would almost certainly have been autopsies. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I also think that the law of probability works against all serial killers, whether they are nurses or the "regular" Jeffrey Dahmer type of killer. That is, after several murders, they get over-confident, they make mistakes, they get sloppy, more evidence piles up, the "coincidences" start to make the authorities suspicious of the suspect, etc. This would be the case for anyone who engages in serial killings. So, having a nurse/patient relationship is not particularly germane when considering that the probability of getting caught increases as the body count (number of victims) also increases. So, yes, it may be pretty easy for a nurse to escape detection after 1, 2, or 3 suspicious deaths ... but less so after 20, 25, or 30 suspicious deaths on their watch. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Hospitals are paranoid, so they keep very careful records of deaths and compare their in-house statistics against local and national averages. If a hospital is showing a death rate that is statistically different than the national average - particularly if a particular type of death is greater than the other averages - they start looking for the cause. usually they'll start with things like equipment overhauls, disinfection and other forms of disease control, and etc, but the will eventually get around to examining personnel to see if any particular is associated with the rise in deaths. sadly, things like that are usually interpreted as malpractice, and the person involved will be quietly dismissed without any hint of scandal. It may take three or four different jobs before someone starts to put 2 and 2 together. --Ludwigs2 00:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You could just as easily be describing how molesting priests get moved around until their activities finally catch up to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Right ... or nurses who kill ... or employees who steal ... or accountants who are incompetent ... or auto mechanics who overcharge ... or any such variation. This is sometimes referred to as "the dance of the lemons". Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Aha, hadn't heard that one before. "Dance of the lemons" is all over Google. One of the early entries says that a less delicate way of putting it is "passing the trash". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Do note however there's an obvious difference between a nurse being fired and the organisation who fire them never, ever wanting them to work in their organisation again, and priests being moved around within the Catholic church (which can be considered one organisation). A more relevant example would be if the priest is defrocked from the Catholic church and goes and joins the Anglican church. There is greater similarity between the Catholic church and teachers who are apparently sometimes moved around but within the same district or whatever when it becomes apparent to parents in the school they're at that they're incompetent. However in the cases of teachers we're primarily discussing incompetence, which at worse may lose them their registration and is different from the cases of nurses and priests were we're discussing criminal conduct. However even in the nurse case, it's my understanding the reason the hospital didn't do anything is because they thought the nurse was simply incompetent which in some cases could amount to criminal conduct in itself and perhaps they weren't interested in investigating further, it's a resonable explaination. However if a priest is accused of sexual abusing children, they're generally either guilty of criminal conduct or the accusers are lying, there's little possibility the priest is simply incompetent. Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. The "dance of the lemons" generally refers to the first organization not wanting to be "bothered with" pursuing any allegations or suspicions against the "offender". This can be for many reasons: too expensive; takes too much time; takes too much effort; the case may be hard to prove; the chance of a successful conviction may be slim; it may be hard to prove the allegations / suspicions; etc. Thus, it is easier for the first organization to simply get rid of the offender and pass him off onto the second unsuspecting organization. Then, this cycle continues as the second organization engages in this sort of dance with a third organization, etc. And, so, we have the dance of the lemons. Usually because assuring a successful conviction or proven allegation is just too hard, and it is much easier to sweep the problem under someone else's rug. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

I swear if I ever start a band (it's highly unlikely that I will anyway), I will name it "The Dance Of The Lemons". Sounds pretty bad-ass, huh? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Harold Shipman, he was caught after altering the will of one of his victims so that he benefited. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, but the case of Susan Nelles was an extremely famous one in Ontario in the 1980s. --Xuxl (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(Business Valuation) Sales / Headcount -- a meaningful statistic?

I just got back from a campus recruiting trip for my joint venture, and at this particular presentation I unveiled a chart comparing sales per person growth (350%) (SPP from here) to headcount growth (150%) over the past 5 years. My point was to show that the company was not just expanding its numbers, but also dramatically expanding its market-share & that value creation per employee was way up. It served its purpose, making a strong impact on all the impressionable college seniors. At the same time, I had this nagging thought in the back of my head that this particular comparison was rather limited in its validity. For example, our foreign parent company's SPP is roughly 200% ours, while our domestic parent company's is roughly 25% ours -- nevertheless, both are widely praised as successful companies in their industry. This is a huge discrepancy! Furthermore, I suspect SPP to be biased towards tech companies who can create more value with less workers... I haven't checked but I'm guessing McDonald's would not fare well in this comparison because it employs so many thousands of people.

So, my question: is this comparison useful? is it a standard business valuation metric? should I abandon it entirely? It does seem useful if you're only looking at one company's history... Thank you for your time! 61.189.63.151 (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly not useful for comparing companies in different industries. I think you are right that it is most useful for comparing one company at different times. It is a similar idea to looking at "like-for-like sales growth". That is where you only count sales in stores that existed at both times you are interested it (so you don't count stores that have closed or ones that have opened in the intervening time). That is very commonly used, since sales increasing just because you have opened new stores isn't very interesting. --Tango (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

See our recent discussion here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_March_19#sales_revenue_and_employees. StuRat (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tango's summary, but this or something like it could be useful for comparing two or more similar establishments in the same company or industry. For example, if two Fleshburger™ outlets in different US states had markedly different sales-per-employee ratios, it might be a clue to relative inefficiencies in one, though there could be other/additional factors in play such as different regional tastes, suggesting a change of product (to, say, Flesh-kebabs™). Similarly, an international manufacturing industry with overcapacity among several plants might consider it, most likely combined with other factors such as different local wage levels, in deciding which one(s) to close. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Headcount is a highly unreliable metric. When the board sets tight headcount constraints, managers downstream play games with "outsourcing" or "contracting", dividing labor into two castes... Oh yes, we cut headcount by two and then hired seven part-time slaves... Dig deeper and retrieve actual work hours data which may be suprisingly inconsistent with politically-motivated headcount numbers. Professional in-depth industry studies also attempt to add estimated work hours spent by subcontractors (businesses, not quasi-employees), it's a laudable effort but the error margin and uncertainty may bee too high even when comparing apples to apples. Say, an oil refinery to an oil refinery. Comparing, as in your case, a subsidiary with its holding company is comparing apples with ... apple crates. NVO (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)