Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 January 23

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

January 23

Add ability to post articles on facebook-twitter etc...

I use your website a lot to educate people about very important topics-I would like to see if you can add the ability to be able to share links to the pages & info to places used as educational forums such as facebook-Thank You-Ginger VassyGinger Vassy (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

AddThis will do what you want as an add in to Firefox and/or Chrome. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Or just copy and paste the link into to Facebook - it automatically allocates a thumbnail when you post a link to that site... gazhiley 10:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

On most desktop browsers, pressing Alt-D, Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C will move the cursor to the URL bar, select the full URL, and then copy it to the clip board. The Ctrl-A may be optional. LongHairedFop (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Things like AddThis seem to be more helpful for copying things to many sites at once. Keep in mind that AddThis is a notorious data aggregator first and a friend second. If you don't want them following you around, copying and pasting is better. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ginger Vassy. This has been suggested many times, and consensus has been that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. See the summary at WP:PERENNIAL#Share pages on Facebook, Twitter etc. and the many individual discussions linked from there. --ColinFine (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you have an account, you can also add User:TheDJ/Sharebox. Dismas|^(talk) 13:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Do humans have a mating season?

I can't help but notice that most people tend to be born around december certainly where I am based in the northern hemisphere. Why is this.

Given that human gestation is around 9 months, that would mean most breeding occurs around early spring.

Who else has noticed this and is there some sort of explanation. Maybe Feb and march are the horny months for women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.100.51 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy reading. People will be along shortly to banter with you about horny months for women. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(EC) An alternative hypothesis would be that human female (or possibly male, or both) levels of fertility exhibit an annual periodicity. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This page (open "Characteristics of Birth 2, England and Wales, 2013", and select the tab "Table 2b") has a table numbers of live births in England and Wales between 1992 and 2003. As far as I can see the numbers areas fairly consistent across the years, and don't vary much between months, taking into account the different numbers of days in the months. The only exception is December, which tends to have rather low numbers. The questioner's IP geolocates also to the UK, so he/she may be experiencing confirmation bias. Remember that most people in developed countries can to some extent decide when to conceive a child: maybe they tend to aim at months other than December to avoid clashing with Christmas. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The lull in December births is two-fold in cause. No one plans to have a child on Christmas. And weddings shouldn't be scheduled during lousy Smarch weather. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That would imply that children born of wedding night (and honeymoon) nookie represent a statistically significant number of births, compared to children born from nookie at other times of the year. People fuck in March whether or not they are married. They may not plan to have children in December, and so may choose to not go off whatever form of birth control they are using at the time, but it has nothing really to do with weddings. --Jayron32 20:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your answer seems oddly hostile, Jayron. The difference is rather small, so the two OR factors I mentioned could be at play. I was conceived on my parents' honeymoon, and my younger sister was conceived on my parents' anniversary, so I do think weddings dates are relevant. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My Mom was born exactly 9 months after the repeal of Prohibition. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

WHAAOE. Even your mom... - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 08:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32's response seemed fine to me. The anecdotes weren't mentioned before, your answer seemed to imply this was definitely the case, rather than just one possibility your were suggesting which you now say. Anyway, more to the point, better OR suggests your second claim in still highly misleading as presented, anecdotes aside.

The earlier discussion concerned the England & Wales, so I'm going to ignore the US (feel free to research it yourself and present it here, I'm just saying this is related to the earlier stats). These stats [1] show the month which the least marriages was January. Even if these were mostly late January (there may be some bias, but it seems likely there would still be a fair few early in the month), it's fairly unlikely many chilren conceived during the honeymoon or anniversary of a January wedding are going to be born in December. In fact, the rate is fairly low from November to March.

February is the next lowest after January, it's possible some February honeymoon (and a smaller number of anniversary) conceptions will be born in December. Notably if [2] is to believe, it looks like more births are after the due date than before, although that would include due dates calculated from estimated time of conception which may not always be that reliable I suspect and I think may be more biased in terms of a later estimated conception than reality.

Anyway I would suggest we'd still expect more in November and taken with the other stats, the wedding factor would seem to bias births towards being low in August to December, with the peak low probably in the October-November period (and lowest in October probably being a fair bit lower than December).

Ultimately none of these actual statistics (instead of random new anecdotes) suggest wedding dates are in itself a reason for there to be a lower rate in December than in other dates. Of course, wedding dates could contribute along with other factors to a lower rate in December. And similar the rates aren't as low in October or November etc as would be expected because the other factors are far more significant. But none of this was properly explained in your first post.

It's worth remembering that stress in either partner is also likely a factor against successful conception, so it may not be just planning (although I'm not sure anyone was intending to suggest it was only planning). AFAIK, there's decent evidence that the pre Christmas time can be quite stressful for people. (Wasn't thinking straight, this would explain lower conceptions, not lower birth. Ultimately coming up with 2 random factors and saying "this is the reason" is always going to be very poorly thoughtof on the RD or anywhere else which expect decent sourcing or at least reasoning.

I would also note that things have likely changed significantly from either conception you mentioned which I'm guessing may be at least 30+ years ago. Probably even more so in modern day E&W when compared to the situation in the US those 30+ years ago. While it's difficult to get good stats because of the sensitivity of the issue, it does appear that the rates of pre-marital or non-marital sex, including among those engaged have gone up. Definitely the rates of living together before marriage is far higher. Similarly, there's far less controversy over a conception before or without marriage and likewise far more children born to unmarried parents. (In fact, while an unexpected pregnancy may have very often been in the past a reason to bring a wedding forward, which can still be the case, nowadays seems it's not also uncommon for it to instead be a reason to postpone.) It also appears there's greater thought given to family planning than in the past (and more availability and possibily knowledge of different options). All these factors and more suggest that even if in the US wedding dates were a significant factor 30+ years ago, which 2 anecdotes doesn't establish anyway, they are not necessarily so nowadays in England & Wales.

Of course, we do have to consider the influence of those who are more "traditional" (for lack of a better word), who may be more likely to have kids even if they're a smaller percentage of the population in modern day E&W than the past US. Incidentally since we're discussing anecdotes. While you mentioned both honeymoons and anniversarys rather than wedding nights, I can think of at least 2 cases when I'm not sure there even was sex on the wedding night. Too much else going on. That said, in neither of these was kids a realistic possibility.

Ultimately I get back 2 my first point. Jayron32 had a good reason to challenge your statement presenting these 2 factors as the definite answer, despite you presenting little to actually support it. While we can't rule out wedding dates being a factor, the evidence doesn't suggest it's a big factor.

Edit: Note the stats for above live births are from the period 1992-2013 as you may guess from the title, not 1992-2003 which I think was a typo. I had quick look at the data and it appears to me that November is a bit lower on average too. So is February, but I think this may be because it of fewer days. I don't think there's a clear lower rate in October or August-October though, but there may be in April. I do agree that there doesn't appear to be a clear difference in trend over the years. In other words, the social changes mentioned earlier, while may not be that much from 1992-2013 and just within E&W, don't appear to have have had a clear cut change. How much of this is because wedding dates was never a big factor, I can't say. I may do a more careful analysis later.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

For quick analysis here's a spreadsheet with births per day in the month (starting from AF) derived from the above data. [3]. I've removed everything else exept the new and original data (to make checking my work easy) for copyright reasons. So you'd need to check the above original data if there's anything unclear. I've added an overall total, as well as a total over 5 year period to try and make determing trends easy. Graphing would probably be useful, but may be another time. The dip around December seems definite and consistent but it isn't always the lowest. In fact in recent years, it seems January - March tends to be lower. November which I suggested above is less clear or consistent although it is seemingly always lower than October. September also seems to be a consistent peak. Interesting that August seems consistently lower than July and oviously September (or alternatively you could say there is a mini peak around July time although it's less clear). You could probably also say there's an overall lower rate in the October-May or even June (whether to include October or even November is perhaps also questionable) period which is similar to the wedding data above (perhaps a bit later) which doesn't seem consistent with the idea conceptions may often happen soon after the wedding unless a lot of people are having a ~12 month pregnancy. Perhaps instead, the factors which result in fewer weddings in those months also result in fewer planned birth in these months and/or the conceptions happen ~4 months or so after the wedding and/or other factors are at play. (Although in any case, the actual difference in births is far lower than in weddings, not even 10%.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This phenomenon has been noticed for centuries: nearly 200 years ago Tennyson wrote "In the Spring a young man's fancy/Lightly turns to thoughts of love" (Locksley Hall, 1835 pub 1842).--TammyMoet (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Humans actually have four mating seasons: summer, fall, winter, spring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not much good if you live a country that doesn't have four seasons. Hack (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Scientifically, the only thing I can think of other than the calendar is that lactating women don't tend to menstruate while they are breast feeding. μηδείς (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Suicide by bridge jumping

I fail to understand how jumping off a bridge into water would kill someone. You can fall through water, like we see when people dive into pools and such. How does jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge (for example) kill people? --Callimpolosī (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You can jump into a swimming pool because the water basically gets out of your way as you go through the surface. When you add height, you add speed. When the speed is high enough, the water becomes more and more like solid ground. So it's like falling onto concrete. I'm sure someone will be able to point you to the appropriate articles here. Dismas|^(talk) 21:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This Quora discussion spells it out in clear, if grisly detail. Marco polo (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the most relevant Wikipedia article is Equations for a falling body. Marco polo (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that there have been a few survivors, who happened to hit feet-first. The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook has a theory on optimizing your chance for survival. I don't know if the text is available online. When Nik Wallenda walked across the Chicago River a few months ago, a writeup I saw said that at some 50 or 60 stories up, a fall into the water would be fatal - no chance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if you managed to survive striking the water, you would be seriously injured and unconscious, so would drown immediately, unless someone just happened to be right there to fish you out. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I recall seeing one of those news programs like 20/20 a few years ago, in which a couple of survivors of jumps off the Golden Gate told of their experiences. I don't recall the extent of their injuries, but I do recall the most important thing: As soon as they let go, they wished they hadn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly thinking of The Bridge (2006 documentary film). ―Mandruss ☎ 23:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

[Anecdote alert] In a BBC documentary about the Metropolitan Police Marine Policing Unit in London, an officer said that you can always tell when somebody is going to jump off a bridge, because they always take their shoes off first. Strange but true, apparently. Alansplodge (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Update - they do the same thing in America and Japan according to Barefoot To The End. Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting! I would never have thought of that. Is it so they can swim ashore if they don't die instantly? μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mythbusters did an episode exactly about this, and they used their crash test dummy to see what would happen if they dropped it from the Golden Gate Bridge. Two of its limbs came off. As said above, from certain heights (i.e. when at terminal velocity) hitting the water without breaking the surface tension beforehand with perfect timing will be like hitting concrete. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 00:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Few bridges in London are high enough to cause serious impact injury; I think people probably hope that they're going to drown fairly fast. In Victorian times, Waterloo Bridge had an attached first aid hut manned by a doctor, who would attempt to resuscitate suicides who were pulled from the river. Tower Bridge, then the furthest downstream, had a mortuary built into one of the piers for any corpses that came floating by. Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Or, jumping from a low bridge could be like slitting your wrists just a little. A cry for help, no actual desire to die. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss. Never dismiss someone's suicide as a 'cry for help', as that is humiliating. People do it for reasons, and very often such attempts are genuine. Simply dismissing a failed attempt as 'a cry for help' is not ever going to help their mental state in any way. I would appreciate it if you struck out that remark. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 20:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to strike because it's not worth a fight, but no, I'll fight. I believe the community of mental health professionals recognizes the concept as legitimate. People are free to disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the concept does indeed exist, but it does not apply to every case. Nobody puts a gun in their mouth, a knife in their stomach, or takes thousands of paracetomol and whiskey if they are not serious - esepecially not in private - this is not a call for help. A 'call for help' is when you stand on a high building expecting people to talk you down. I have worked as a mental health proffessional. Even when it may be classed as a 'call for help', you should never say that, as, like I said, it is humiliating for the individual in question. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 23:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say it applies to every case? When someone starts putting words in my mouth, that's generally when I decide I have better things to do. The mental health professionals in my experience have recognized that people sometimes make a halfhearted attempt at suicide with no real intention to die. Other mental health professionals may disagree, as there is a lot of disagreement among mental health professionals about a lot of things. Show me academic consensus on your view and I'll shut up. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Does this satisfy your needs? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 23:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hardly. For starters, an article by one professional does not constitute academic consensus. But it gets better, as the writer says in her very first paragraph:

Sometimes, it is true that a person who made what appeared to be a suicide attempt did not really want to die. One large study found that of 286 people who reported that they had attempted suicide, almost half (41.8%) nevertheless endorsed the following survey item about their intentions: "My attempt was a cry for help. I did not intend to die."

I don't know what you're reading into my words, but I said nothing more than that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In any case, 'almost half' does not represent a majority, and even still, saying to the minority 'it was a cry for help' is going to make them feel a hell of a lot better, right? No, of course it isn't. Psychiatric help involves knowing how to talk to people, and talk them through their difficulties. Not humiliating them with phrases like that. In any case, I think we are getting off topic, as the OP's question was about jumping into water from a high place. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 23:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you're arguing against. Nobody is saying any of the things you're upset about. He just said that it can be a cry for help. He didn't say it always was. He didn't say that is was the "majority" of times. He didn't say it to the face of one of the hypothetical victims. He didn't claim that classifying it that way would somehow help anybody. He didn't say that such things should be dismissed or not taken seriously.

APL (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought about this a bit more later on and have a bit of an example for the OP.

Fill up a bathtub or sink. Any sufficiently large container of water will do. And you may want to have a towel handy. Now, take your hand and with the fingers flat like you're going to do a pushup, slowly put your hand into the water. It goes in nice and easy, yeah? No pain? Good. Now take your hand and do the same thing but slap the water as hard as possible. You'll probably notice two things. First, your hand will sting a little. Especially if you don't have calluses from manual labor or something. Second, you will notice that the water felt more solid. It was a little harder to break the surface.

That's why jumping from a bridge from a sufficient height kills. The force of hitting the water is so much greater from those heights that you do quite a bit of trauma to your body. Dismas|^(talk) 05:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If you jump from Prague's suicide bridge, you can land in someone's bathtub or sink, depending on the resiliency of their roof and your desire to get over the fence. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)