Talk:Marilyn vos Savant

Vos

What is "vos" supposed to mean, anyway? I've never seen it in any other name. Did she just choose it because it sounds better than "von Savant," or what? ~ CZeke 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Her mother is Mary vos Savant. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll bite. So why was her mother named "vos Savant"? This name is unusual enough that it warrants some explanation in the article. Robert K S 09:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Vos is a Dutch surname. There are many people in the Netherlands named Vos.Lestrade 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

A surname, or a habitational prepositional prefix indicating nobility? If the former, it should be capitalized, right? Robert K S 20:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Surnames are capitalized. Nobility prefixes can be uncapitalized. Maybe the family was ahead of its time. The trend today is to have fabricated, made-up names such as Dantay, Andruw, Laktisha, Halle, Luscious, Jarmayn, Gloribee, Schakita, Marquice, Kiesha, Jesslyn, Ulyesses, and Keyonna, etc.Lestrade 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

That's the trend in the Netherlands? It's also a trend in the US - DavidWBrooks 01:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Her parents were Mary vos Savant and Joseph Mach, and her grandparents were Mary Savant and Joseph vos Savant, and Anna Moravec and Anton Mach. So both "Savant" and "vos Savant" appear in her family. "In the Kingdom of the Brain" says her mother and grandmother were Italian. I don't know anything about "vos", though. According to a 1992 Chicago Sun-Times article, she's the granddaughter on both sides of coal miners, so I don't know if it's a nobility prefix. Anyone? Tim Smith 02:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Vos" is indeed a Dutch surname (meaning "Fox"), but why is it not capitalized in this case? And why would she have a Dutch surname? Känsterle 15:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So she could be full of it just taking the name as a publicity stunt?--Energman 11:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

<< Vos Savant >> then begins to make sense transliterated into something like a Nederlands version of 'Wily Fox'. Lycurgus 11:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is not only ignorant, but also shows laziness and facetiousness of the original poster. It is something he can easily find out for himself for that matter. Last but not least, it is hardly academic. Rock8591 (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"uppity bitch", able-ism?

The last paragraph under Biography currently reads as follows:

... although her steadfast refusal to acknowledge American Sign Language as a language - or to learn it herself - has earned the ire of millions of deaf. Declared "an uppity bitch" by the American Society for the Deaf spokesperson, Emily Moin, Vos Savant was almost stripped of her honorary degree following accusations of "able-ism."

This sounds like something that would definitely need a reference/source to be allowed to stand under current rules.

I can't find a single reference anywhere on the internet. unless this can sourced i think needs to go.

--Xorkl000 11:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That was vandalism; thank you for removing it. Tim Smith 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say (pardon my candor), for vandalism, that was pretty damn funny. Uppity bitch is a great name to sling at someone.Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder what the ASL for "uppity bitch" is... FiggyBee (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, people who lack knowledge on a subject matter should stop trolling incessantly by adding things that are untrue, and/or without a reference. Rock8591 (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Worries/Anti-HiQ Bias?

Perhaps if HiQ folks would distance themselves from crackpot/Nazi/Fascist/Eugenicist organisations such as Pioneer Fund, the "inferiors" would not be so quick to attack. I'm HiQ myself, and I repudiate the race purifiers that have contributed to the attacks on "brains" such as myself. "Miscegenation" contributes to genetic health, not the loony policies of a Pioneer Fund or the likes of the race-monger Walter Plecker . Prometheus brought the sunshine/lightning, NOT the tools for a few elitists to smugly proclaim themselves superior! JBDay (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a place for editorializing. -- 98.108.201.42 (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This also isn't the place for anonymous IPs to post and expect to be taken seriously. Rock8591 (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Many would say the same about editors with redlinked user pages. Judge editors on the contents of their contributions, not by the status of their accounts. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, wrong again.

"If we could shake a pair of puppies out of a cup the way we do dice, there are four ways they could land", in three of which at least one is male, but in only one of which both are male.

Uh, there are three ways they could land. 1. They're both male. 2. They're both female. 3. They're different genders.

Learning that one is male eliminates the possibility that they're both female. Saying that "they're different genders" actually represents two possibilities (BG vs GB) is a distinction without a difference, and additionally violates Ockham's Razor. Puppies are commutative unless there's a reason for them not to be. No such reason exists in the question. The answer is 50%, Mary. --70.131.121.96 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, mr IP address, why don't your write and tell that? I'm sure she'll be happy to explain why you're wrong. Here's a clue: 1. They're the same gender. 2. They're different genders. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

By saying that "they are male, both female, different genders", you fail to account for EACH AND EVERY DISTINCT SCENARIO, because "they're different genders" is a group that encompasses several scenario, not a single one. Just like it would be nonsensical for me to say that "I have 50% chance of winning the lottery; I'll either WIN or WON'T." Rock8591 (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)