Humanities desk
< May 18	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 20 >

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.

May 19

Bastards

What percent of all children born since 2000 are bastards (in the literal sense)?

Also, is a child technically a bastard if their parents were unmarried at the time of conception, but married at the time of birth, or vice versa (married at the time of conception, bt unmarried at the time of birth?

And if an unmarried woman gives birth to a daughter through human parthenogenesis or human cloning, is the daughter technically a bastard? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What percent? Just the percent that went into politics. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that's a simple question up until your final paragraph. All the definitions I just looked up talk about being born to parents who are not married. Time of conception doesn't come into it. I think we can safely say that parthenogenesis is simply not covered by the traditional definition. Some would no doubt say that the mother should be in a stable heterosexual marriage. I wouldn't. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?pagewanted=all Some statistics from the USA. "Among mothers of all ages, a majority — 59 percent in 2009 — are married when they have children." It may not be easy to calculate for children born over a 13-year period, as you request, but following the links in that article might get you started. Obviously this is going to vary widely by country, so if your interest is not in the USA you should say to help the volunteers. 184.147.132.77 (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A 2009 figure for the UK is 46%. Again, finding figures for the whole period is going to be a challenge. Alansplodge (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the complicated and varying definitions of legitimacy (e.g. acknowledged children, marriage soon after birth, varying definitions of marriage), I question whether it's possible to answer the question unless the OP provides a definition of legitimacy. In fact, social attitude and tehnical advances changes also affect how you count legitimacy. In the past, if a couple married some time before or not long after the child was born, I'm guessing it was common to list the husband as the father of the child on the birth certificate even if both parties and more knew it to be untrue, and the child would generally be considered legitimate. Nowadays, I think more likely the real biological father will be listed (or it kept unknown if it isn't) with the husband at most adopting the child. Potentially the couple may be held up for fraud if they tried to claim the biological father is the husband when they know it isn't. And Non-paternity events were generally impossible to detect, nowadays it's easy if the question ever arises. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per Legitimacy (law), I think legitimacy when defined in law in Western countries tended to be based on status at time of birth although was often biased in favour of a child becoming legitimased if possible. Our article mentions how in some cases it was possible for a child to become legitimate if the parents were married sometime soon after birth. (This wasn't originally possible in the UK, but changed after the Legitimacy Act 1926. According to Bastard (Law of England and Wales), in medievel Wales wedlock didn't matter, simple whether the child was acknowledged by the father.) Occasionally conception came in to it, in that if the parents were divorced but the child was likely conceived before the divorce the child was also considered legitimate. As our article mentions, there are also other complicating matters. E.g. marriages often weren't so formalised in the past and even nowadays some jurisdictions recognise a common law marriage.

However in Islamic law, I believe legitimacy often does depend on marital status at the perceived time of conception [1] www.bukisa .com/articles/478401_legitimacy-of-child-explained-in-islam [2], although as with most things in Islam, this will likely depend on the school of thought. (The normal rule seems to be the child should be born 6 months after marriage, although interesting enough, even 2 or 4 years according to the Islamic calender after divorce may also be enough. However there are also avenues to for a father to avow of disavow legitimacy although I'm not sure how far these go, one of the sources mention a child may be legitimate if the parents were married even if the father had no access to the mother, but I'm not sure if e.g. it would normally be possible for a father to claim a child was conceived in wedlock even if the mother gave birth a day after the marriage.) In other religious traditions, e.g. many Christian ones, sex outside marriage was a sin therefore the child would have been conceived in sin (of course all children are technically conceived in sin) and a later marriage probably wouldn't have changed that although not everyone would agree it affects the child [3]. (In modern times, the Catholic church apparently does not want people to get married too soon after they conceive a child out of wedlock to ensure they really want to get married [4].) However even nowadays, some Christians still do label children conceived out of wedlock as a bastard or similar [5] [6].

[7] mentions that in the Philippines a child conceived via artificial insemination (of either the father's of a donors) is legitimate provided the parents were married and consented. And generally speaking in modern times, legitimacy in law where it still exists at most tends to primarily affect child support and also confer the right to take on the father's surname and affect inheritance (intestate) from the father. It doesn't tend to affect inheritance from the mother or the right to take the mother's surname. (Although I'm not sure about Malaysia [8].) And increasingly even those are disappearing, e.g. according to the earlier source and [9], in the Philippines, acknowledged illegitimate children can inherit from their father. (And as our article mentions, it's largely disappeared from US law.) So considering human cloning has AFAWK never been achieved, and we have no idea of what the laws will be when or if it is, I don't think the question of how they would be treated is meaningful.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7-Eleven in the UK in the nineties?

I'm watching Trainspotting and Renton comes back to his flat with some stuff in 7-Eleven bags. It was filmed in the mid nineties and while at the time I would have been quite young I don't remember 7-11s in the UK then (I remember them in Hong Kong though), they're certainly not in the UK now, and there's nowt about them on the 7-11 article either. So do we think this is Product Placement, or something else? Egg Centri c 04:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there were 55 7-Elevens in the UK in 1997, when they were bought out by Budgens. FiggyBee (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Egg Centri c 18:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depression and unhappiness

Are depression and unhappiness voluntary or involuntary either directly or indirectly. I.e. is being unhappy a choice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.0.41 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depression is an illness, not a choice. Are you asking whether you can choose your mood? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would distinguish depression from unhappiness. I don't think either are voluntary, but how you respond to them is. Unhappiness is the emotional equivalent of pain, a response to unpleasant stimulus. Chronic depression, which I have, is the emotional equivalent of having a disability that means you have to work just a little bit harder to cope with all the demands of life, sometimes getting exhausted by the cumulative effect of the extra effort - and that exhaustion feels a lot like unhappiness. Unhappiness will pass if you let it, but that's not as easy as it sounds. Whole religions and philosophies, Buddhism and Stoicism in particular, are, it seems to me, devoted to training you to let go of unhappiness. Depression, on the other hand, needs to be managed by being careful not to make more demands of yourself than you can cope with, taking time out when necessary, and keeping an eye out for warning signs that you're not coping. That's my subjective opinion anyway. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're wandering into the medical advice arena here. Depression can be treated by drugs. Which kind of drug, if any, will fix or help lessen depression, is a converation that must be had with a medical professional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depression is usually successfully treated with a combination of drugs and therapy, as decided by a medical professional. For example, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is supposed to have achieved reproducible, measurable, statistically significant improvements in clinical depression, when used with anti-depressants. CBT does indeed seek to change the way you think about things, as well as help you spot when you're falling into unhelpful patterns, but that's not the same as "choosing" to be happy. 86.161.213.137 (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the environment can also help some patients. This includes the colors and light level (particularly for people with seasonal affective disorder), sounds, scents (aromatherapy), temperature, humidity, etc. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's a bit of both, voluntary and involuntary. Think of it like breathing. Just as you breath without thinking about it, your mood changes in the same way. However, just as you can change your breathing patterns, at least for a while, you can do the same with your mood, at least for a while. StuRat (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology is a hot topic. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biharis of Bangladesh

Is Dhaka city the only one that has refugee camps of Biharis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.97 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Bihari people#Pakistan and Bangladesh it states that An estimated 600,000 Biharis live in 66 camps in 13 regions across Bangladesh. So no, it would appear that Dhaka is not the only city with Biharis living in refugee camps. -- role^player 17:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main article Stranded Pakistanis... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jar with multiple spouts

I'm looking for more background on the history, and maybe significance, of the jar with four spouts that appears in the woodcut to the right. So far I've only found examples of jars with a central opening: Vase with a lotus finial and four spouts from Japan ; and a document about a Palestian jar with multiple spouts: [10]; or jars with two spouts such as here. A Google Image search finds a few similar images (for example: 13th century Persian vase with side spouts, jar with four side spouts) but nothing that really matches. 84user (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the image depicts Pluto, I wonder if the jug is really supposed to have five mouths (one obscured by the figure's right leg) and the jug represents the source of the five rivers of his underworld realm. Deor (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A vessel with multiple spouts doesn't seem very practical, although an "air hole" on the opposite end of the spout makes sense, to prevent the "glug-glug" effect as a vacuum builds up inside. I suppose you could have different sized spouts, and open whichever one you want, depending on the desired flow rate. I've seen this on modern vessels containing spices and such, but not with liquids. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A shame there's no answer. I'm curious too. One thing you might try - the iconography section in the Pluto (mythology) article is very-well sourced. There must be an expert around. You might try posting on the talk page of that article or looking through the history to find the active contributors. 184.147.132.77 (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to make a container with multiple spouts, each delivering a different content. An example of such is the oil/vinegar container found in some Italian restaurants [11] It has two separate spouts, each leading to a separate room inside it, one containing oil, the other vinegar. While I'm not sure how it would work with regards to the laws of physics, I imagine that it would be possible to make such a container for more than one liquid, and that it would work, so long as each spout is kept firmly closed.

As for the symbolism of this specific jar, it seems Deor's assumption is right: Art Gallerry of News South Wales says the jar is the source of the five rivers, while British Museum says it's the source of four rivers. V85 (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could do that, but multiple jars would be easier to make, fill, refill, lift and clean. So, it still doesn't seem like a practical idea. StuRat (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it does look very pretty, and isn't that also very important? ;-) V85 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such a jar is made for artistic reasons, not practical ones. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the universe, really. I've never seen the slightest practical use for it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need the universe. Without it, we'd all be stuffed so tightly into a singularity that we would envy sardines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been a bit of an outsider. I prefer to live in splendid extra-universal isolation, where I get to watch what's going on but without getting my precious hands dirty with yucky sardine-smelling oil. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, I never thought to search the various museums. I have now uploaded the better scan from the Art Gallery of New South Wales at Commons:File:Hendrick Goltzius Pluto.jpg. Searching the British Museum gave me several errors, but I eventually obtained a working URL. The urn definitely shows four and not five spouts, and I noticed the British Museum lists four rivers, omitting the Lethe. Interestingly, this page claims the Lethe could not be placed inside a jar: http://www.dl.ket.org/latin/mythology/1deities/underworld/rivers.htm - but other sources state otherwise. -84user (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another curious thing is that the spout on the right seems farther from the other 3 than those 3 are to each other. Were 3 of those rivers supposed to be closer together ? StuRat (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were any cities completely destroyed by a natural disaster

I was just reading about Sodom and Gomorrah and it said that although these cities were never found, they might have been destroyed by earthquake or volcano. It got me thinking that I actually can't think of a single city that was completely wiped out by natural disaster. Are there any real examples of this? ScienceApe (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catania was pretty much wiped out in the 1693 Sicily earthquake. Just the 13th century castle and a few other edifices remained standing....everything else was destroyed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Mount Pelée. And a quote from another article: "On May 8, 1902, a blast from the volcano Mont Pelée destroyed the town of St. Pierre, killing almost all of its 29,000 inhabitants. The only survivors were a shoemaker and a prisoner who was saved by his position in a jail dungeon with only a single window. ... The town had to be completely rebuilt and lost its status as the commercial capital, a title which shifted to Fort-de-France." -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pompeii, Herculaneum, Stabiae and Oplontis were destroyed by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, an earthquake seems less likely to kill 100% of the population, since anyone outside and away from buildings and other falling objects at the time of the quake would be likely to survive. StuRat (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there have also been cases where a dam has burst, killing everyone in whatever towns were in the path of the resulting torrent. Although, I suppose the definition of "natural disaster" might not include the failure of a man-made dam. There are also natural dams, though, such as those formed by sediment, landslides, or glaciers. The Black Sea deluge hypothesis proposes an ancient flood which may have wiped out several towns.StuRat (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know the OP specified cities but I think Krakatoa should be mentioned in this context seeing as the whole island was wiped off the map when the volcano erupted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe several nearby cities were destroyed as well. Paul (Stansifer) 15:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding dam bursts, the most famous example would be the Johnstown Flood, which also essentially destroyed the city of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Though, as was demonstrated in the excellent book on the flood by David McCullough, it was hardly a "natural" disaster. --Jayron32 23:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth, Montserrat. 92.80.36.91 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other natural disasters that can wipe out a town are tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, landslides/mudslides, avalanches, a giant sinkhole, and, if extremely unlucky, a meteor. StuRat (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a smaller city destroyed by a storm tide is Rungholt. --::Slomox:: >< 21:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on that, while Atlantis is fictional, it may be based on an island in the Mediterranean which was destroyed by a volcano. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For more on that see Minoan eruption. Pfly (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best modern example is Armero in Colombia, a city of 29,000 that was destroyed in 1985 by a lahar from the volcano Nevado del Ruiz and is now a ghost town. Looie496 (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the OP is from, but if we follow the US definition of a city which, amazingly to me, includes places like Soldier, Kansas, population 136, I would add the several Australian towns which have been destroyed by bushfires over the years. These include Noojee, Powelltown, Woods Point and Narbethong. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single US definition of a city. Each state defines places differently; for example, Sebring, Ohio at 4900+ people is still too small to be a city. Nyttend (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on what the OP means by "completly destroyed", but one of the worst disasters in recorded history was the 1976 Tangshan earthquake, which essentially leveled the population center of the city, a major urban area. The city was rebuilt, and is today a fairly vibrant, major city, but the death toll and destruction was unfathomable. --Jayron32 22:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searching has found two cites with more than 10,000 residents completely destroyed by flooding: Vanport City, Oregon and Coringa, Andhra Pradesh, although in this second case, a small village was rebuilt. Knossos was abandoned after some unclear sort of disaster, generally thought to be a fire, but possibly a tsunami. Warofdreams talk 23:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 1900 Galveston hurricane pretty much destroyed that city. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least the portion built on the sandbar. StuRat (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Pierre, Martinique. 109.97.161.112 (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same event as the Mount Pelée mentioned above. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Dust storm article, "The Chinese Silk-Road city-state of Niya was abandoned rapidly, perhaps because of a sandstorm, as local legend would suggest." Our article Lost cities may also contain material of interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.211 (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't destroy an entire city but the Boston Molasses Disaster deserves a mention just because of how unusual it is. Dismas|^(talk) 13:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, to sum up... there have indeed been several instances of a city or town being completely destroyed by natural disasters. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth mentioning (if anyone's still reading this) is the 1755 Lisbon earthquake:

"Eighty-five percent of Lisbon's buildings were destroyed, including famous palaces and libraries, as well as most examples of Portugal's distinctive 16th-century Manueline architecture. Several buildings that had suffered little earthquake damage were destroyed by the subsequent fire." (from WP article)

...which prompted responses ranging from Candide to (arguably) the beginnings of modern seismology. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 16:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]