Humanities desk
< June 2	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 4 >

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 3[edit]

Personal income in the United States[edit]

Is the income figure is based on one month or annual? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those figures appear to be annual. StuRat (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

early humans[edit]

Did early humans and dinosaurs ever come into contract? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.116.25.10 (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you mean by "dinosaurs". Birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs, and they've certainly come into contact with humans. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they didn't. Coming into contact with descendants of dinosaurs is not the same as coming into contact with dinosaurs, any more than meeting an Italian is coming into contact with an ancient Roman. Paul B (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were separated by more than 60 million years. --ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first public exposure to dinosaurs can be dated to the exhibition in 1852 of the Crystal Palace Dinosaurs which, being sculptures, were both tangible and dead. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, I imagine early humans did occasionally find dinosaur fossils, although they wouldn't have known what to make of them. When humans started mining, they might have discovered more fossils, as fossils often can be found with certain mined resources, such as coal (although, in the case of coal, I believe they tend to be plant fossils). StuRat (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is currently no scientific evidence to suggest this, however, there are many Christians who believe that the earth is far younger than scientists contend and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. See the young earth creationism article. The creation museum in Kentucky has exhibits of dinosaurs and humans hanging out together (there is a pic in the article). Again, no scientific evidence for this, but the belief in dinosaurs and humans coexisting is common enough to be relevant to this discussion. Bali88 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I again raise the issue of definition. I mentioned birds above, but that was waved away. Well, look at our very own article Dinosaur, from which I quote: Dinosaurs are a varied group of animals from taxonomic, morphological and ecological standpoints. Birds, at over 10,000 living species, are the most diverse group of vertebrates besides perciform fish. Using fossil evidence, paleontologists have identified over 500 distinct genera and more than 1,000 different species of non-avian dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are represented on every continent by both extant species and fossil remains.
I assume that any extant species of dinosaur did not come into existence only after the arrival of early humans. So, before we can really answer this question, we need to know whether the "dinosaurs" you have in your head are restricted to stereotypical monsters like T. Rex, Brontosaurus etc, or extend to what scientists call "dinosaurs", which include birds and many other living creatures. If this had been raised on the Science desk, I'm sure these points would have been covered by respondents. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defining the word "Dinosaur" to mean any member of clade "Dinosauria" is a very new definition, unheard any more than two decades ago, that has not really entered the public understanding of the word yet. Outside of academia, that definition is mostly used by people trying to nitpick starting with the phrase "...well, technically". It is absolutely not some time-honored definition that uneducated people insist on getting wrong. It's a new definition that hasn't been widely adopted yet.

For example, Merriam Webster and American Heritage Dictionary do not include that definition at all. Even Wiktionary, home of science-minded nitpickers, hedges by saying "especially those which existed during the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods".

I appreciate the point of trying to teach (and preach) evolution using language, but it's a bit tiresome when it's done in such a condescending manner, since technically it's not only 100% correct to use "Dinosaur" to refer to only to the extinct mesozoic creatures, it's the most common usage, and was completely unambiguously the definition being used in the question! APL (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with almost every word of your post, APL.

The very first response was from me, seeking to get some clarity about the OP's meaning. The OP has not come back, so we have nothing from the horse's mouth about this. Given that uncertainty, how can you claim the defn in the OP's mind was "completely unambiguous"? Answer: You can't. If what you say about the most common usage of the word "dinosaur" being the one that refers only to extinct mesozoic creatures, why is that mentioned nowhere in our highly detailed article?

I am not a scientist, and my response proceeded from that article, not from what I assume must have been what the OP was thinking. More to the point, even though I am a layman on science matters, I have been reading about the relationship between birds and big lizards since the late 1970s (I remember exactly where I first came across it, in an early issue of Omni magazine), so from my uneducated/lay perspective I assume this is now pretty widely known. It's certainly been canvassed on many very popular TV natural world programs hosted by David Attenborough and similar, over the past 35-odd years. Check the Ref Desk Archives and you'll find squillions of mentions of the bird-dinosaur story (and not only in one direction, either), and that is further evidence of its common knowledge. I'd say close to 100% of those hits are from the Science desk, and that is why I mentioned that desk as the natural home of a question like this. There was no element of preachitude.

I'm sorry if you felt my post was condescending; that certainly was not in MY mind (and I challenge you to know better), so I must learn to express myself without allowing such impressions to arise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP won't be back for at least 3 months, at least not under that IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early humans have far too much contact with annoying purple ones IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Song name/artist[edit]

I heard a song on Youtube a while back with the lyrics 'Olivia/the world is better with you in it'

It was kind of a rock song with a black and white music video, I've searched for it a large number of times since and can't find it! Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Somerlyn - Official Better With You Lyric Video. Do you know that YouTube has a search engine that finds this sort of thing? 84.209.89.214 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it sometimes gives the wrong answer. The correct answer is :"Olivia" by Stand. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the Vikings set up a colony in America?[edit]

What was the purpose of the Norse colonization of the Americas? It seems an awfully long way to go for raw materials at a time when raw materials were in abundance in Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.116.25.10 (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were looking for more places to live and farm, rather than to harvest raw materials to take back east. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements in continental North America aimed to exploit natural resources such as furs and in particular lumber, which was in short supply in Greenland. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense - Greenland being much nearer to Vinland, and much shorter of resources. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exact end of presidential terms before 1937[edit]

Before 1937, U.S. presidents were inaugurated on March 4 instead of January 20. When exactly expired the term of the old president? At 12 o'clock on March 4 or on March 3? Some information claim the old term ends on March 3. Rutherford Hayes for example took the oath on March 3, 1877. How could he take the oath with President Grant still in office for 24 hours? I read the transcript of the original constitution, but it said nothing about the inauguartion date of the chief executive. Thanks in advance. --85.179.53.133 (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congress enacted in 1792 that "the term of four years for which a President and Vice President shall be elected shall in all cases commence on the fourth day of March". Since it didn't specify a time, that means the presidency changed hands at 12 midnight on the night of March 3–4 (otherwise known as 00:00 on March 4 or 24:00 on March 3). Back then, of course, it wasn't considered a problem for the new president to wait until daytime to take his oath of office; he wasn't going to be responding to a nuclear attack or something overnight. (Famously, some presidents waited until March 5 if March 4 was a Sunday.) --69.158.92.137 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution merely says that before assuming his duties, the new president must take the oath of office. It doesn't say when he must take the oath. In theory, he could take the oath the day after the election, or the day the electoral ballots are counted... or the day before the official turnover of the presidency. That way, when midnight rolled around, he might be asleep, but having already taken the oath, he could wake up in the middle of the night and do something presidential if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Article II requires the president to take the oath. When Hayes took the oath on March 3, that meant Grant; Hayes was still the president-elect. (Well, officially, anyway.) That was one of the points the original poster made, and I think it's reasonable to say that that oath didn't count. Fortunately Hayes took the oath again on March 5 and that one certainly counts. --69.158.92.137 (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term ended at 12 o'clock at noon on March 4: Andrew Johnson signed legislation on the morning of March 4, 1869 [1]. He couldn't have done this without being (still) president. --92.226.199.15 (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life time appointments of judges in higher courts only in the US[edit]

Is it only in the US that the justices in the higher court (at least) are appointed for life or are there other countries, who have such generous ruling? 112.198.79.190 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom are appointed for life. --Jayron32 16:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're subject to mandatory retirement, like all British judges. The article you linked to includes their mandatory retirement dates. Proteus (Talk) 13:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about being "generous", it's about trying to dissuade political pressure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, without that, you could be sure that Supreme Court Justices would rule in favor if some large corporation or lobbing group, just in time to retire and take a high paying job at that corporation or lobby, as our Congressmen and regulatory agency execs do now. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" doesn't place any restrictions on retirement or on their post-retirement employment. If anything legal restricts that kind of thing, it's statute law. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but since they can, they usually hold the job until they die or are too old to hold another job, hence there's little chance to work elsewhere. StuRat (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right; but you could get the same kind of political and financial independence by having a fixed retirement date and giving retired justices a generous life pension (as is done e.g. for all German non-Supreme Court justices, or in Australia as mentioned below). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can try, but considering that they can get millions of dollars each when they take a job with some company who they "helped out", while in office, you'd need to give them more than that and also have a way to take that money back if they do take such a job. So, it would be both expensive and require enforcement actions. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judges of the High Court of Australia were appointed for life, from its inception in 1903 until 1977. That year, a referendum was passed to amend the Constitution of Australia to require HC judges appointed after that time to retire at age 70. I'd have to do some research for info about judges of lower federal courts and the state/territory supreme courts. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagline/slogan without a trademark[edit]

If a tagline/slogan does not have a trademark, what happens to the tagline/slogan once it goes global? Since there is no trademark, should the tagline/slogan stay in English or can it be translated into all target markets/languages? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dora florian (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what context? --Jayron32 16:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume there is a slogan like "It’s your world. Go with it!" developed for the US market, and there is no trademark. The product goes international. Since there is no trademark, should the slogan stay in English? or can it be freely translated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dora florian (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every country's laws about copyright and trademarks are likely to be different. Start with trademark and it may take you to some international links. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the # character[edit]

I recently saw a picture on Facebook showing that someone had found a telephone from the 1990s with the # character, and wondered how it was even possible, because Twitter was only invented in the 21st century. We all know that the # character predates Twitter. In fact, it predates the Internet, and even predates computers. But how far back does its history go? Does it even predate print? JIP | Talk 19:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Number sign may have some clues. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.shadycharacters.co.uk/2011/05/the-octothorpe-part-1-of-2/.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also octothorpe, so-named by an engineer because it had 8 terminal points, and the engineer was a fan of Jim Thorpe. this 1960s usage is probably on the earlier side of technical usage of the symbol. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comment in the number sign article, "...in the United States the term pound sign is catching on", is pretty funny. As I recall, it's been called the pound sign for about as long as it's been on touchtone phones, i.e. decades. It's with twitter that "hash", formerly a Britishism, has been catching on in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the "Britishism". The sign for "number" in the UK has always been "No." or "N°" which is short for "Numero". [2] I remember as a child seeing #1 in American comics and having no idea what it meant. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not the common way to indicate a number in the UK, the OED entry for hash sign actually points out that the usage of the sign is typically North American ("the symbol #, esp. used before a numeral (as in N. America) to indicate a following number"). I don't recall the # ever appearing on British typewriters (though I may recall wrongly) but once it started turning up on British computer keyboards and (possibly later) on British telephone number pads, it was always referred to in my recollection as a hash or a hash sign. The OED's oldest example is from Which Micro? (a British publication [3]) from 1984 with a further example from The Guardian in 1986. This Notes & Queries from, coincidentally the Guardian offers some more info including Professor Larry Trask's etymology, in line with the OED's suggested etymology that it's an alteration of "hatch" (as in crosshatching). Valiantis (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) That's my experience, too, Alansplodge. When these signs first appeared on touch phones here, we all had to ask someone what they were called, and from Day 1 it was "hash". Then, when I first started hearing or reading North Americans talk about "pound" signs, I assumed they were talking about £, and that really confused me till I worked it out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great-great-grandparents?[edit]

I have only one living grandparent left any more, my father's mother, who is well over 90 years old now. Her eldest great-grandchild is now over 18 years old. I figure that if my grandmother lives for another decade or so (which I find highly unlikely), she will become a great-great-grandmother. How common is it these days for people to live long enough to become great-great-grandparents? JIP | Talk 20:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the age which people attain is only half the equation; how quickly they start to breed at each generation is just as important. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The older most people are, the younger they tended to marry and have kids (though the shorter they tend to live). But, conversely, the younger people are, the older they tend to be before getting married. Still, since one could easily become a parent between the ages 18 to 26 for most of the 20th century (maybe starting at 18 and going up 2 years every generation), the real issue becomes life expectancy (since one could become a great-grand at at least 72, probably at least 84). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several examples recently of girls having babies at 15, just like their mothers, who are obviously grandmothers at 30. Do the maths. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Abbott must be proud. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not crazy unusual. I can list half a dozen off the top of my head. My kids had a great-great grandmother until she passed last year. I'm not sure how old the ggg was when she became a mother, but my husband's grandmother was 16 when she gave birth and that child went on to give birth at 18. That child (my husband) had a child at 24. I also have a friend who became a grandmother at the age of 31. Her kids have a great great grandmother and I'd say she stands a chance herself. Bali88 (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stu has a good point, age of mother at first birth varies widely across cultures and time periods (as do life expectancies). One of the biggest factors controlling great-great-grandparenthood is the fact that age of woman at first birth is strongly correlated with years of education she has received. Thus, as more women get more education, they tend to have children older, and generally decrease the likelihood of surviving to nth-grandparenthood. The correlation is well known. This (freely accessible) paper gives plenty of references for the correlation, and discusses the possibility of a causal relationship [4]. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That view is complicated by the fact that the 15 year olds I spoke of above had their education effectively terminated through becoming pregnant. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's just a general trend, and we can expect exceptions. Some 15 year olds might choose to adopt, or abort the pregnancy, or have family members able to care for the the infant. Certainly not all young mothers must quit stop their education upon pregnancy (if we're trading anecdotes, my sister started and completed her MS degree as a rather young single mother - albeit with lots of family support). Also consider that in many parts of the world (and times in the past), the ~10 years of formal education that your 15 year-old acquaintance got is on the high end for girls/women. It really is a well-supported correlation, though, with lots of evidence from different places and times. I haven't yet fully read the paper I linked claiming a causal connection, but of course that is a much stronger claim. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any statistics, but it's common enough to often be reported in newspapers - which is of course also means it's rare enough to be of interest to newspapers. Here is a sample story with a great-great-great-grandmother. The record is apparently seven living generations at once. 142.150.38.155 (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see the statistics for having four living generations in a family now versus in the past. I Googled "frequency of great grandparents" but oddly it mostly offered up information of grandparents' visitation rights with their grandchildren. This is anecdotal, but a quick look at my family tree shows that someone having one or more living greatgrandparents has been an occurrence many times in the past 200 years, and not just in modern times. Some hardy people lived to 90 or 100, even if born in the 18th century or early 19th century. In olden times a farm family would have perhaps ten children per generation starting when the wife was old enough to bear children, so there were enough survivals among the descendants for such overlap, so long as an ancestor lived to a ripe old age . There were many overlaps of a child and a great grandparent. In the present time, it is not that uncommon to see a "five generation photograph" such as the collection seen at Google: [5]. You can also Google "five generations under one roof" and learn of families with that living arrangement. From the mid-20th century, Americans at least seem to have married later an had fewer children, which works against the occurrence of 4 generation overlaps, despite supposedly better medical care for the elderly these days. Edison (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, MY great grandfather was born in 1826 and died in 1910, 48 years before I was born. No idea when my great-great-grandparents died, but Queen Victoria must have had a good few years left in her. Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]