Humanities desk
< October 28	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 30 >

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.

October 29

Treason question, based on last night's Battlestar Galactica

{{spoiler}} Spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen the newest episode yet, and pretty major spoilers for those who don't watch it (and you really should!) Wikilinks provided for ease of browsing, should that strike your fancy. Anyway, humanity has escaped from New Caprica and has begun trying and executing collaborators who worked with the Cylon government. Felix Gaeta anonymously fed government information to the Resistance but of course they don't know it was him, so he goes up on trial and is convicted, though he is exonerated at the last moment. My question is, how often has this happened historically? Have there been last-second or posthumous revelations of the truth, or do people falsely accused of collaboration generally go unexonerated? Are there any good sources about this phenomenon (if it has indeed happened in real life)? Thanks. Stilgar135 02:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last night in which country? Is this some re-re-rerun? DirkvdM 07:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was played in the US last night. This was its first showing. Stilgar135 23:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very first showing is on Friday on the Sci-Fi channel in the US [1]. We get it in Canada on Saturday night, and I'm sure other channels/countries probably do as well. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think last-second reprieves would happen, but less often for posthumous reprieves, at least while the war is still on, as the government would likely be more concerned with the negative propaganda and morale implications than justice, during the war. StuRat 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about collabators in particular but there have been conceited efforts (some successful) for pardons for various UK and Commonwealth soldiers exectured for cowardice/desertion during WWI. For example [2] and [3]. Although this is somewhat different, I think it will depend a lot on whether the truth is out there so to speak. Also, is there anyone to speak for the collaborators? If the government is aware, often it will be stored somewhere or other and will probably eventually be released so the only question is whether anyone ever notices. Nil Einne 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War I

approximately 6 million people died in the beginning of the 20th century in world war 1. i want to know how to calculate the effect on humanity of that loss. were these people the loosers in life [ i hate to say that ], the winners, or were they just a random sampeling of so the societies they represented ?

perhaps, looked at another way, i wonder what the demographics are for who fights our wars. i understand there isnt ' an answer' for this question, but perhaps there is a field of study i might be made aware of. thank you so much, david mcgrew Davismac 03:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a header to separate this from the question above. --Cam 04:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle casualties for the First World War were most heavily concentrated among young men aged between 17 and 25, ever after known as the 'Lost Generation'. This figure incidentally is calculated at around 9 million-see World War I casualties. You will find references to these losses in the period after the war, particularly in literature. The most obvious demographic effect was to create a disproportion in the population amongst the countries most heavily effected, basically those that had been at war since 1914. However, you should also bear in mind that the total number of wartime deaths-for both men and women-was greater than those actually killed in combat.Clio the Muse 04:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another effect of this was that millions and millions of women never got married. This was especially true in Germany as well as in the UK and the other Commonwealth countries, since they lost a greater proportion of men as compared to women. One of the reasons why the women's suffrage movement emerged so strongly in the postwar period is that there were millions of women who had to work because they didn't have a chance to marry, and who felt that if they had to pay taxes they should be able to vote for the people in power. It's also one reason why there were so many little old unmarried ladies around in the 60s and 70s. --Charlene 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they died, they were obviously losers. :) What do mean by the term? Are you talking about class distinction? Of course there were more lower class people among the dead, because there were more of them. Whether that was disproportionate, I don't know. But there were several rebellions and officers shot by their own men who were fed up with going over the top. WWI certainly had a great effect on class change, with the Russian revolutions of 1917 being the best known example. But also in the Netherlands, a neutral but not quite unaffected country, there was a revolution (well, almost); Troelstra#Proclamation_of_the_socialist_revolution (I wrote that :) ). DirkvdM 08:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that they meant to ask if those killed had worse genes, on average, than those who lived, thus leading to a genetic improvement in the human race. I would think deaths were largely random, as in who gets hit by an artillery barrage. However, some behavior, like smoking a cigarette in an area known for snipers, could cause those with poor genes (a lack of intelligence, in this case) to be killed selectively. Also, those suffering from "excessive bravery", and enlisting at the earliest opportunity, would also be killed in larger numbers. And those who were susceptible to disease were likely to have died as a result of conditions on the front lines. In summary, while there might have been some genetic improvement as a result, I would expect it to be rather slight. StuRat 01:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat: As paleolithic times are long gone, our success in live does not depend as much on our genes as it used to be. Seriously, don't you think the OP rather thought of "losers" and "winners" with respect to their economical situation? That is a question that makes sense. After all, in wars waged by standing armies, most dying soldiers are probably "losers" in the sense that poor chances in other jobs made them enlist in the army in the first place. I imagine (though I do not know) that the US soldiers currently dying in Iraq mainly come from poor families. Also, it would be not surprising if civil casualities are higher among the poor due to lack of access to shelters, of means to leave zones of war and of emergency medicine. On the other hand, WW1 was a total war, i.e. it might have been harder as usual for the rich people to escape draft into the armies. Still, maybe they managed to stay behind the front lines and the poor fellows dying in the trenches were economically poor before, as otherwise they might have managed to buy their way out of their fate. (Compare with the fact that rich US citizens managed to escape the draft to the Vietnam war e. g. by bravely serving in the Texas Air National Guard.) So, who knows about the influence of economic wealth onto people's chances to survive WW I? Simon A. 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that genetic "fitness to survive" is less important now than in the past. It's still not completely irrelevant, however. Also, was WW1 really a "total war" ? I don't associate that war with the unrestricted bombing of civilian targets, as in WW2. StuRat 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the main armies fighting in WWI were recruited by general conscription, including the British after 1916. More 'poor' people died for the simple reason that they formed a higher proportion of the general population than the 'rich'. I will say, though, that by 1917 casualty rates on the Western Front among British subalterns, mostly from middle and upper class backgrounds, was in in the region of 70%, giving them an average life expectancy in combat of some two weeks. This was considerably greater than relative casualty rates amongst other ranks. And there were no exemptions-no $100 dollar men or National Guard opt outs. The dead included the sons of Herbert Asquith, the Prime Minister, and Rudyard Kipling, the author. Clio the Muse 23:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of that fat US tv guy who seems to have made it his life's goal to unearth anything that is wrong with the US? I recently saw him visit the poor neighbourhood of his home town and concluding that it is especially the poor (blacks) who are sent to their deaths in Iraq. Can't remember if he used any more general statistics to back that up, though. DirkvdM 07:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moore. The point being made was about contemporary US army recruitment and the lack of alternative job opportunities. But I come back to my main point: the armies of the Great War were conscripted, not voluntary. Clio the Muse 08:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Is There Such a Thing as a Tribal Godfather?

With respect to my earlier entry at 12:29AM on October 28th - when I asked whether or not there is such a thing as a tribal godfather – I did not make myself clear. I am not interested in the parallels between the historical structure of the Mafia and the U.S. federal government, although I find those parallels very interesting. What I want to know is this: Are there any parallels between the historical structure of the Mafia and:

1. Various religious denominations within Islam – such as Sunni, Shi’a, Sufism, Salafis, Wahabi etc.

2. Other Islamic groups – such as Islamic fundementalists, Islamic extremists, Islamic terrorists etc.

3. Various tribes, especially those in the Middle East – such as the Bedouin tribes that are located throughout the desert belt in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.

Also worth noting: I define a tribe as "a group of people bound together by family bloodlines, a certain way of life, economic interest, or a common belief system".

By the way, I am not asking these questions because I think Muslims are gangsters, or anything else along these lines. My interest is much more secular and sociological in nature.

Moritz Hochschild (aka Don Mauricio)

Hey there :-) I am currently doing researches about Don'Mauricio for a friend, but the web is not very clear and I don't find many articles in English. Would it be possible to know more about him? I found the German Article if someone is able to translate. Thanks a lot :) --Adys 04:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and translated the German article for you, see Moritz Hochschild. The second to last paragraph doesn't really make sense to me though, I think I may have mistranslated something there. If someone with a stronger grasp of German could take a look (particularly at that and the closing paragraph) that would be helpful. Anyway, I hope it's of use to you. -Elmer Clark 10:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edited it a bit to make more sense, nice translating job thoughGraendal 06:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Penalty

Hi. I am wanting to know if the county attorney/district attorney, has to file certain paperwork in the beginning of a criminal case if he feels the case is a death penalty case. Or, can the county attorney just notify the defense attorney sometime during the case, that he is now seeking the death penalty instead of life imprisonment? Does the death penalty charge have to be decided on at the very beginning of the case? And if so, what particular information or documentation is needed? Please advise ASAP! Thank you, Dianne

That would depend entirely on your jurisdiction. In many US states, for instance, they would have to charge the accused with "First degree murder with special circumstances" in order for it to be a death penalty case. StuRat 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Wasatchaka

Who is Chief Wasatchaka? I cannot find a reference on him anywhere on the web that is not a copy of the Salt Lake City and County Building Wikipedia article. If he is important enough to have a ~~statue on~~ portrait in that building, it would seem like there should be some information on him somewhere. Is that article perhaps mistaken, or maybe is the name spelled differently? -- 70.59.241.153 07:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He may have just been a local chief in the area at the time it was settled, which might make him notable enough for a statue but not enough to have a Wikipedia article already written. However, hopefully we will have an article on him some day. StuRat 07:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says portraits. However, looking through google, the most mention I've found is that there are portraits of former mayors and some civil leaders. No mentions of any chiefs. The pages I found were the Utah City Guide and Utah's travel site. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they meant Washakie? --Cam 17:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems likely. StuRat 01:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative strategies not violating human rights

Alternative strategies not violating human rights 196.35.140.250 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See human rights. Do you have a question? -Elmer Clark 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is unclear. For example, do you mean stopping violations of human rights, as in Darfur ? StuRat 01:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Liberal party between 1906-14

Evaluate the problems that the British liberal government faced between 1906-14.(They were in the top in 1906 what happened after that especially?).

a-Suffragettes; b-Conservatives; c-Irish MPs; d-Labour E-Radical-Labour

(You may want to read our articles on the History of the United Kingdom, the governments of Henry Campbell-Bannerman and H.H. Asquith, Liberal Party (UK), Labour Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK) and Women's Suffrage. Or, you know, your notes from class.) --ByeByeBaby 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a huge question and you will really need to do the detailed work yourself. Try and get a hold of George Dangerfield's The Strange Death of Liberal England. It may be a bit dated now, but covers this whole area, and in my view anyway is one of the best history books ever written. To give you a general hint the areas you need to look at are Ireland, the legal status of trade unions and labour militancy in general, votes for women, taxation and parliamentary reform with particular reference to the People's Budget, the arms race and international relations up to 1914. Clio the Muse 23:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler, Goebbels, Joe Lou--Charlene 01:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)is, Max Schmeling, radio Broadcast 1938

Wikipedia's article on Max Schmeling contains the statement:

"Joseph Goebbels ordered that the broadcast of the fight to Germany be cut off."

However, German sports writer with the Associated Press, Roy Kammerer , based in Berlin: wrote in 2005 that "The fight was a huge event worldwide and left a lasting impression on his era of Germans, who followed blow-by-blow on radio."

And there is this letter to the New York Times:

July 3, 1988 No Knockout Of Broadcast LEAD: To the Sports Editor:

To the Sports Editor:

The Title Fight That Was Bigger Than Boxing (The Times, June 19) was of great interest to me. You write, Part of the postfight lore . . . is that the German broadcast of the bout was cut off before the fight ended. It was not.

As 13-year-old students at the Jewish boarding school Internat Hirsch at Coburg, Germany, and interested in heavyweight boxing, we asked to be awakened at 1 A.M. that day to hear the fight. Some of the kids missed it because it was over before they got to the radio.

I have never forgotten the German announcer's plea: Get up, get up Maxie, please get up - oh no, oh no - stay down - it's over! Weeks before, the German newspapers showed pictures of Louis's right thumb as being overly long as well as other statistics to imply unfair advantage over Schmeling.

We applauded Louis's victory as a ray of hope for us. We had grown up among Nazi pomp and muscle flexing, witnessing repeated accommodations of the West to Hitler and almost believing that they were unbeatable and that all others - including ourselves -were as inferior and weak as they wanted us to believe.

LUDWIG (LARRY) STEIN Chappaqua, N.Y.

I'm not quite sure what to do with the above information in regards to Wikipedia's entry. Talk page, discussion, edit?

Thanks, Mario Asbury Park, NJ

Hi Mario. Why not add what you just wrote to the article itself? Don't reprint the whole thing, of course, but you can say that the story of the radio feed getting cut off is a myth, then cite the sources you have. -- Mwalcoff 15:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mwalcoff, but I'm new and not quite sure what you mean. Do I edit the article itself? Or use the talk/discussion pages?

Yes, just edit the article itself. Don't worry if your edit isn't perfect; others can fix it later. The important thing is that the article reflect published sources... it sounds like it doesn't do that right now, and that you can help. Click on this link for an introduction to Wikipedia, and thanks for your interest in helping! --Allen 16:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Allen. I just made the changes.

I would also add the story to the talk page, as it may be removed from the main page because it's "original research". The talk page version is more likely to last. It's a good story that really shows the significance of the fight in Germany. StuRat 00:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also, StuRat. I added the information to the discussion / talk pagel

You know, the two paragraphs don't necessarily contradict each other. Goebbels may have had the radio program cut off in Germany, but if it was being broadcast in Austria (was this before the Anschluss?), France, Denmark, the UK, etc. virtually every German could have picked it up. Radio signals can carry far, especially at night. --Charlene 01:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and depending on how the signal was distributed to the various radio stations, it might not have been possible to cut them all off immediately. StuRat 03:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar

Why was akbar considered a great ruler?Please tell in detail--59.144.247.39 12:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Akbar. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. . --Shantavira 15:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once you have read the page on Akbar I would be happy to deal with any more specific questions you may have. Clio the Muse 23:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil marriage

I believe there was a long dispute between the Catholic church and various countries about the question of whether officials other than clergymen should be able to marry people which was still going on at the end of the 19th century. I would like to see information on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.155.106 (talk • contribs) .

Did you try Catholic marriage or marriage? You might have to be more specific, such as asking more specific questions, because what you want seems pretty broad. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that there is an dispute between the Catholic Church and varoious countries about this subject. this is because marriage is an institute of god and not man or law. the latter two embraced it though and started making it more of their own. Graendal 06:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Long before there was a Catholic Church, marriage was an institution of law. - Nunh-huh 06:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not exactly; there was no institution marriage, though something did exist as being a couple. personally I have read sources from the ancient greek time in which was spoken of a wife. after wondering the very same as you said before me nunh-huh I decided to check it out and it turns out that it is a common mistranslation and that it is actually companion/life companion and not an institutionalised marriage. - unsigned

No, there's no mistranslation involved. Marriage was a matter of law - civil law, not religious - centuries before the Catholic church existed. See [4] for an example of a marriage contract. - Nunh-huh 21:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure what you're talking about -- most Mediterranean cultures in ancient classical times had some kind of ceremony or formalized agreement between families, according to which a woman was thenceforth supposed to be exclusively sexually faithful to one man. This was very much true for the ancient Greeks. If the woman's children by the man are recognized as the man's full legitimate heirs (as was also often the case), then it seems to me that this quite adequately satisfies the definitions of marriage most commonly used in cross-cultural studies. AnonMoos 08:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my home country, Germany, it was until the end of the 19th century, that the churches (Catholic and Protestant ones) kept the civil registers that recorded births, deaths and marriages, and a marriage had to be performed by a clergyman in order to be valid. To move these duties to the state's responsibility was a major part of Chancellor Bismarck's moves to reduce the influence of the churches in Germany (see Kulturkampf for the story in short). Today, people have to marry at the Standesamt, the community authority for registering births, deaths, marriages and the like, but the majority chooses to then repeat the ceremony at a church (either because they are religious or because the church ceremony is so much more splendid than the state one). Bismarck's move is commonly called the introduction of the Zivilehe, i.e., the "civil marriage" ("civil" in the sense of "secular"). This brings me to my question: I have notices that in texts by US Americans, the term "civil marriage" seems to mean "living together as a couple without being formally married". Why do they call it that way? And isn't it customary in the US as well for a couple to live together for a few years to see if they fit together before they "marry for live"? If so, why do I always sense a certain undertone of unusuality in the term? Simon A. 14:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the term "civil marriage" really means too much in the United States, since religious ministers have always had the authority to marry people here, and there's no significant movement to take that power away from them. Some people do get married down at the local city-hall (the office which deals with marriage-licenses), but that's generally considered utilitarianly functional and hopelessly unromantic (done by those pressed for time and money), and I doubt whether too many of those who marry in this way would be familiar with the term "civil marriage". Maybe you're thinking of "Common-law marriage", which is quite a different thing... AnonMoos 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the 'grey area' about civil marriage is undoubtedly the recent use of the term to describe same sex marriage. It's also very close to 'civil ceremony' which is often used to describe a 'city hall' marriage as noted above. Anchoress 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Civil union" is the term most often used to refer to both homosexual and heterosexual relationships which fall short of the legal definition of marriage in a particular jurisdiction. We have "civil unions" and "civil ceremonies", but I don't think the phrase "civil marriage" is very often used... AnonMoos 15:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear it all the time in Vancouver, Canada. And if you google '"civil marriage" "same sex"' there are almost 300,000 hits, and the top ones are Canadian. Anchoress 15:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of the term "Civil Union" being used to describe any sort of heterosexual arrangement, yet, as I'll describe below, I suppose it's theoretically possible. The legal semantics are complicated and at times completely inconsistent. A "Civil Marriage" is indeed NOT a contradiction in terms. Rather, a "Civil Marriage" is used as a term to distinguish those marriages solemnized by secular authorities, as opposed to "Religious Marriages". On the other hand, a "Civil Union" is a term used to describe that relatively new and peculiar innovation, that "half-way house" of sorts, as exists in Vermont for example, to describe a legally sanctioned relationship between two individuals, somewhat short of a "Marriage" per se, yet with pretty much all the legal implications of one. I suppose a heterosexual couple could enter into a "Civil Union" rather than a "Marriage" (Civil or Religious), and in fact, I can't see how they could be forbidden, (after all, what jurisdiction in the world would actually forbid to heterosexual couples what it allows for homosexual ones?) In any case, in Canada at least, Homosexual Marriage is legal, be it Civil or even Religious (for those denominations that accept the concept). In that sense, the whole idea of a "Civil Union", be it heterosexual or homosexual, would seem to be somewhat unnecessary and redundant. Of course the state of the law here, as in the US as well as many other jurisdictions is quite fluid, so I wouldn't let go of that concept of a "Civil Union" just yet. Loomis 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanations about civil / common-law marriage. Seems that such matters are a bit more sophisticated in common law systems. Simon A. 20:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No No! :) I think you must have misunderstood me! Being from Montreal I'm actually familiar with both the Civilian and the Common-Law traditions. What I said had absolutely nothing to do with any distinctions between the two. The terms "Civil Marriage" and "Common Law Marriage" actually have absolutely nothing to do with the distinction between the Civil Law and the Common Law! I realize that the vocabulary is all screwed up. I'd love to clarify any questions you may have about the difference between the two systems, but once again, what I wrote above had NOTHING do do with that distinction! Sorry for all the exclamation points, it's not that I'm angry at all. I'm just disappointed in myself that I may have inadvertently misled you! :) Loomis 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I think I did get your point. My point was rather from lecture of the common-law marriage article. From it, I learned that in the US, you have three differet ways which all end up in making you legally married: going to a priest for marriage ceremony, going to the city hall to register a marriage, or just living together long enough telling everybody that you are huband and wife. This relaxed way of regulation seems quite unusual to me as a German, where for most legal acts there seems to be only one proper way. But, on second thought, you are right, that has nothing to do with the legal system. Even if civil law countries tend to codify everything much tighter, this distinction is not made in administrative law. Simon A. 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I take it that you're a lawyer in Germany? In that case you must be thoroughly famliar with the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. I'm not at all that familiar with it, but it would greatly surprise me if it didn't provide for what we call here "Common Law Marriage". I'd imagine that the BGB is similar enough to the Civil Code of Quebec (CCQ) to allow for what is called "prescription" of rights to movable property, or what they'd call in the Common Law "Adverse Possession", and what is known to both in the vernacular as "squatters' rights". Am I correct in assuming that Germanl Law, through the BGB, provides for what we call "prescription"? If so, the concept of "Common Law Marriage" wouldn't seem to be so difficult to imagine existing in Germany. Loomis 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics

It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that the value placed upon mathematics by Western culture has greatly decreased in recent centuries. Many of the founding fathers were mathematicians, the Declaration was inspired by Euclid's elements[5], and Garfield even came up with a proof of the Pythagorean theorem. But nowadays it seems that the definition of an "intellectual" excludes mathematical (or scientific, for that matter) pursuits, and would suggest more of a political commentator or philosopher. The article on Euclid's Elements states, "Not until the 20th century did it cease to be considered something all educated people had read." Why do you think the value placed on mathematics has so greatly declined, or do you not think this to be the case? --JianLi 22:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I perceive that intellectualism itself has seen its share price decline in the 20th and 21st centuries. How long has the epithet 'nerd' and its variants been around anyway? Was there ever any notion in antiquity that a person could be too interested in books, learning, and academia? -- Chris 23:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, about the use of "nerd": it seems to me that while the word "intellectual" is reserved for non-scientific/mathematical intellectual pursuits, "nerd" is applied to intellectual pursuits that are mathematical/scientific. So even if intellectualism is suffering a decline by being branded as "nerdy," mathematics and science are the fields disproportionately suffering.

The important point here is that Euclid was broadly within the comprehension of most educated people, not just mathematicians. By the twentieth century mathematics was pursuing a course impossible to follow for those who were not specialists in the subject. Clio the Muse 23:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, no. Actually what you're pointing to with Euclid is an altogether different phenomenon, which is the devaluation of the Western Canon. Which is the old idea that we should all learn ancient Greek and Latin and study Plato and Aristotle and company. That tradition was a holdover from medieval scholasticism, which had a negative impact on western culture. The fact that we don't think people should be required to know them is a healthy thing. It reflects the fact that we've reevaluated their contributions and no longer hold them in the unwarranted regard we once did. I think we teach just about exactly as much Euclid and Aristotle as we should nowadays. Euclid simply isn't very relevant anymore, since the algebraic approach to mathematical proofs has completely replaced geometric ones. Now, obviously it's still a good thing to read Euclid. And Aristotle, and Plato and so on. But the rote learning-of-them-for-the-sake-of-learning-them of previous centuries is not something I'd support going back to. --BluePlatypus 20:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the fact that you bring up Euclid bears witness itself to some of the exaggerated esteem he's been held in. I've read the Elementa, and don't really see what's in it that isn't already more or less covered in the high-school curriculum of a developed country. Math today is more relevant to society that it ever has been. And for that reason, more people today know more math than ever before. It's certainly true that math has lost some of its status. But that's what usually happens when something becomes more common. I think it's a small price to pay. --BluePlatypus 20:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I agree that it's no loss that we don't teach Euclid anymore because we can teach geometry just as well without using the Elements. I guess I was trying to use this as a metaphor for the devaluation of math itself. And even if general math education is increasing, the trend that I feel I'm seeing is that our leaders and others we hold in esteem are very well-educated in everything but the sciences. I think this view would be better-articulated by the following article from the NYT. --JianLi 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton University

Why is Princeton #1? It does not seem to be so special, compared to Harvard or Yale...or even Stanford. I really don't understand how it took over the top spot in US News' rankings. It seems incorrect. 207.200.116.12 23:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton is traditionally one of the "Big 3" Ivy League universities, along with H and Y. It is differentiated in having a substantially stronger focus on teaching (esp. undergrads) than H&Y plus a weaker focus on research and graduate education compared with H and Y (e.g. P doesn't have a business school or a law school - see Princeton Law School - but it has the highest per-student spend of any of the large US universities). Bwithh 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know why Princeton is #1, just look at the formula for the US News rankings. Princeton is number one because after the score is calculated, it edges out the other schools at the top by one or two points. These points are so close that Princeton and Harvard often tie for #1, as they did last year. Though the methods of score calculation are pretty straightforward, a lot of the criteria, in my opinion, are unreliable or irrelevant. For example, one is percentage of alumni who donate to the school, which supposedly gauges school spirit. This means that a school can score many points if every single one of its alumni donates a trivial amount, such as $0.01, to the school. But even if you were to agree with the criteria used and how much each is weighted compared to the other, the difference between a #1 or #5 school is only a few points. --JianLi 00:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you were to rank universities in terms of prestige, according to a recent study, Harvard would be #1, followed by Yale. The study calculated prestige based on school-versus-school yield (though I believe this is made slightly suspect due to selection bias). That is, for people who are accepted to both School A and School B, and who end up going to one of the two, which one do they choose? A Harvard-Princeton match-up, for example, would yield something like 73% choosing Harvard and 27% choosing Princeton. Then again, prestige is not necessarily a good indicator of school quality. --JianLi 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One often-overlooked criteria I find interesting is percent of graduates who win a Nobel Prize; according to Wikipedia's article, nearly 1 in 1000 graduates of Caltech go on to win one. Though this might be lower if one were to look only within the past few years, this ratio whups that of Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. --JianLi 00:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Princeton's social scene?

It's in New Jersey. -THB 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]