Miscellaneous desk
< June 10	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 12 >

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.

June 11

Life Expectancy In The Past

What was the life expectancy of Australia in 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000? What was the life expectancy of America in 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000?

Nineguy (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google is ur frend [1]

International Law

Can I get information on the international laws regarding extradition, ways to improve extradition in post conflict states and information on criminal justice reform in post conflict states from a russian viewpoint. Also can I get information regarding russian stance on extradition? Animeshjha01 (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read extradition? It may have information that you omitted to read in your textbook or take notes from class. 209.149.113.240 (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read Russian, you might also try the article on the topic in the Russian Wikipedia, particularly any external links to Russian government sources. Marco polo (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain

If someone release something already in public domain. Is it also in public domain? To be specific, there was this recording of Nepali Ramayan by music nepal. And, nepali ramayan is in public domain. What does it make? Is the recording also in public domain?

Learnerktm 14:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A specific example to answer your question... When the Beatles recorded "All You Need Is Love," they wanted to add a musical montage as an intro. They knew that "Greensleeves" was public domain, so they chose a recording of that. However, the recording they chose was not in public domain. So, they had to pay royalties for the specific recording they chose. Therefore, it is possible, at least in one country, for music to be public domain, but the specific recording to not be in public domain. In this case, the reason was that the recording had an intro that was not a part of the original song. That slight performance alteration removed the song from public domain. 209.149.113.240 (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transformative work and derivative work discuss some of these issues. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A smidgen of"Greensleeves" appears in the closing medley at about 3:18.[2] I don't hear anything in the intro except "The Marseillaise". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Fr Wikipedia article on the song (fr:All You Need Is Love), which is much more detailed than the English one, it was indeed the use of La Marseillaise (and a snippet of In the Mood) in the introduction that forced the Beatles to come to an arrangement with the rights holders of those two pieces; the tunes were both in the public domain, but not the particular recording of "La Marseillaise", or the specific arrangement of "In the Mood", both of which were copyrighted. --Xuxl (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I figured that I remembered that particular case well enough to not look it up. I should have known better. My old brain seems to lie to me more and more each year. 209.149.113.240 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you only think it does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to remember about sound recordings: there are multiple independent and separate copyrights to consider. One is for the actual music itself; the specific strings of notes which could be recorded on a musical score. That copyright would be held by the original publisher/writer of the music itself. Second to consider is the copyright on the performance itself. When a performer creates a specific performance, they create a new copyright for themselves for their performance. If the Beatles wanted to record a new version of "Greensleeves", they can do so anytime without any permission from anybody. If the Beatles wanted to use a sample of someone else's recording of "Greensleeves", they still need to secure the rights of the performer to do so; as the performance itself carries it's own copyright. The Geneva Phonograms Convention is one of the most important pieces of international copyright agreements (later amended by several other agreements), which encapsulates the basic principles I have outlined here and which lays out the distinctions, in international law, between copyright on music and copyright on sound recordings. --Jayron 32 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Body odour in antiquity?

With so much obsession with person hygiene in modern times, what did they do about it in antiquity. Was body stink acceptable back then or were the cultural norms so different that it was even seen as just fine or have we always been revolted yet lacked the means to deal with it.

I mean, imagine two Romans on a first date, both meowing of something terrible in the mid day sun! How could relationships even be possible. I'm surprised the human race hasn't died out (especially so sometimes on these desks)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it would be considered normal and fine. Only relatively recently have (some) modern humans been able to bathe everyday. Even today BO is culturally very different in different places. Not everyone thinks that a human should be scentless or smell like perfume/cologne. See Body_odor#Humans, Olfactophilia, Body_odor_and_subconscious_human_sexual_attraction. Another important thing is Olfactory_fatigue. If you go to a big city in a distant country, you may think people smell different or worse than at home. This could be due to many factors, including diet and human microbiome, but the people who live there just think everyone smells normal, or might not even detect much scent at all. I'm not so good at history/humanities, but hopefully someone can shed some light on Roman attitudes. They did love a good soak at the Thermae when they could get it, but that doesn't tell us much about the common Roman citizen's views on BO. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the cultural differences. There's one culture (in Turkey ?) where men would traditionally dance around with cloths under their armpits until they got good and smelly, then present them to the woman they were courting, to smell. Why would this work ? Well, it is a sign that they are mature. It's only in a culture where everyone is expected to wash regularly that not doing so is a sign that something is wrong. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, if true. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this study on women getting turned on by men's armpit sweat: [3]. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is an armpit rag with a 117 Alexa rating. That's all the evidence I need for people digging stink. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They made a lot more use of incense and similar substances, to mask bad smells. Consider that gold, frankincense, and myrrh were the supposed gifts from the wise men, and 2 of the 3 are for covering up stink. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aversion to body odor is cultural, not natural. (It may become internalized, but the aversion is nonetheless cultural in origin.) I have been in places where (most) people do not use deodorant or cologne, and I have gotten used to it. In fact, body odor contains pheromones that can be a basis for sexual attraction. Marco polo (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We normal humans ask our girl- and boyfriends to lend us their pillows and undergarments when they will be away. But I can't speak for the OP. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related: anatomists are still arguing over whether humans have a Vomeronasal organ, but many of them are pretty sure we do - Vomeronasal_organ#Humans. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't speak for me, either, you freak. I keep the typical jars of hair, nail clippings and urine to make sure they don't come back. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that was simply brilliant, I love it. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have a vomeronasal organ. I am somewhat shocked to hear others don't. I doubt I'd be bisexual otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize our article - Many scientists think that most adult humans have them. Some scientist think that only fetal humans have them. Some scientists think the current evidence is insufficient to be sure. It's not entirely clear without digging in to the primary research, but I think some scientists think that some adults have them and some don't, perhaps depending on developmental pathways and genetics. It gets fiddly looking at tiny holes in one's nose, and tiny bulbs of nerves. Heck, we only recently discovered a whole new part of the lymph system in the brain[4] [5]! Apparently everyone had been missing it, despite thousands and thousands of cadaver dissections... SemanticMantis (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. There's some evidence people who may not produce much under-arm odour still often use (under-arm) deodorant in places where it's the norm. See [6] or if the full paper is too much, the discussions and articles from the time the paper was published [7] [8] [9] Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published an article about bathing at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000579, discussing some practices of antiquity.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the OP shouldn't assume the ancient Romans, especially, did not bathe. They basically invented indoor plumbing and public baths and their personal hygiene was quite advanced. See Sanitation in ancient Rome. --Xuxl (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not exactly antiquity, but I remember an anecdote where a British clergyman complained about the Viking invader’s habit of washing (and changing their clothes) on a regular basis and the effects this had on the local women ;o) Regards ✦ _hugarheimur 12:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book Clean: A History of Personal Hygiene and Purity by Virginia Smith addresses this topic. ZMBrak (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the good points above about the frequency of bathing, body odour etc, you may want to read our articles Dating, Courtship, Engagement, Marriage and may be also Arranged marriage and Love marriage. As should be clear from these articles, marriages were often set up more like a business relationship then the modern idea of the result of a romantic relatioship between two people, particularly among the upper classes. Depending on the person, place, time and sex, the participants would have various degrees of influence or choice in the partner or partners, but at least if the marriage was at a young age their parents or others would usualy have a big, often bigger, degree of influence, in many societies particularly the case over the daughter/female partner. A lot of the time, the concept of a "first date" probably didn't exist or have any real comparison to the modern day Western practice. Dating, where you there was something remotely similar would often be more structured, controlled and limited. Even in the modern world, the Western concept doesn't necessarily hold that well in a lot of it, and some still have practices fairly similar to the older ones. From what I can tell from Marriage in ancient Rome, although they did have monogamy and a fair degree of divorce, their practices generally were far more comparable to many similar ancient practices then to the modern Western ones. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing something. Depending on where/when, it wasn't just the people that stank. Everything did. Especially in towns. There would have been manure everywhere, both animal and human, all kinds of rubbish piled up wherever was convenient, old rushes on the floor, along with other debris, clothes in many societies were very expensive and rarely changed. But as ever, the truth is proved by exceptions: I seem to recall that the native Americans (Aztecs etc) were repulsed by the smell of the Spaniards. Anyone got a RS? --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]