Humanities desk
< January 27	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 29 >

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.

January 28

Actress Lizabeth Scott's Mother's Maiden Name?

Can anyone direct us to the actress Lizabeth Scott's mother, Mary Matzo's, maiden name? According to our article, Scott was born Emma Matzo September 29, 1922 in Scranton, Pennsylvania, to John and Mary Matzo. This is in response to an inquiry at the actress's talk page. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is her family census records from 1940. Maybe that's a start for research? --Jayron32 03:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at ancestry.com and couldn't find anything except her married name. It's hard to find usable trees with Lizabeth Scott in them, as she's a living person. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If she's alive, why not have someone write to her and ask? -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For personal gratification, that'd probably be fine (i.e. if Medeis just wants to know just because she wants to know). For trying to potentially improve Wikipedia, "I asked them and they said so" is not a reliable source. --Jayron32 22:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly not. But if the postulated name were known, it could then be possible to find that name turning up in some reliable source, such as an immigration list. It appears that they met and married after they came to the USA. It's also possible that Matzo happened to be the surname of the both of them. But it would be nice to find out. I am inclined to think that writing to her is worth a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I watch the article, and recently a new editor has been doing some pretty good cleanup and research. I said I would look into the matter given there are conflict reports of her nationality. A letter is fine as a source in any normal scholarship as personal correspondence as long as you're willing to produce it on demand. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not normal scholarship; we rely on others to be the "normal scholarship" for us, and rely on other journalists and scholars to vet things like "personal correspondance". If and only if such researchers have published their "normal scholarship" do we cite them. We don't do normal scholarship here. --Jayron32 02:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A personal letter might not be a valid source, but it could be a lead to a valid source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It certainly has a lot of value. But one must be careful how one uses it. --Jayron32 04:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, the suggestion is that I write a letter asking a 90 year-old woman to provide me with a reliable source proving her mother's maiden name? :)

Were I to get such a personal letter, why shouldn't I just upload an image of it? Don't answer. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do what Bugs suggested, which is use the known name to find her on immigration or census records. --Jayron32 05:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a letter written by a still-living person could cause trouble, as it is technically a copyright violation. But if you are able to obtain such info, let me know and I'll see what I can find. Ancestry.com is a pay site, so I like to put it to use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that, but I was assuming I had her permission. Knowing the issue, if I were going to pester a 90 year old person for such purposes, I'd make sure she wasn't wasting her time by failing to give permission to reproduce and communicate the letter. That's basically why I said, "don't answer." μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't trust that Twitter account. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter? μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case someone (not a direct reply to Bugs) Googles it, rather than unpacking the pen and paper. Pretty obviously not her in the top result, but we never know when something that should go without saying doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suing for ill-gotten gains

Normally, a lawsuit is about getting the money one feels they're owed. But can they be used to take away the money someone earned through illegal (or the legal sort of unethical) means? Not into the plaintiff's own pocket, but just out of the defendant's? I know criminal court could fine them, but those fines rarely (if ever) match the profits.

Can John Doe prove ACME Sludge saved a billion dollars in shipping and storage by dumping expired sludge in the river, and force them to forfeit every penny back into the general economy? Or can he only hope to show the dump somehow cost him a billion in lost river assets/revenue?

Not asking for legal advice, I'm a fan of all things ACME and can't afford to sue anyone. Just a general interest question. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under UK law (and possibly US law, but I'm less familiar with it), a successful claimant can request an account of profits rather than damages. The effect of this (in laymans terms) is that the claimant is awarded the money that the defendant gained as a result of their actions, rather than the money the claimant lost as a result of the defendants actions. As an equitable remedy, it's entirely at the judge's discretion, and it's normally only pursued if damages are difficult to evaluate, or wholly inadequate (e.g. ACME infriges a patent granted to Joe Bloggs, Mr Bloggs is likely to be much better off seeking an account of ACME's profits on their sales, rather than damages for his own loss of sales).

See also unjust enrichment. I'm not aware of a way that something like an account of profits could be brought in a civil lawsuit to impose what is effectively a fine (with the money going into public funds). I think such action would have to be brought by the state itself, so the best way a person could cause such an action would be by campaigning. Private prosecution may be relevant here, but that's getting excessively far from my area of knowledge. MChesterMC (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In England and Wales, the applicable procedure is the civil recovery of the proceeds of criminal conduct under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This can only be sought by a relevant "enforcement authority" (the National Crime Agency, the Crown Prosecution Service or the Serious Fraud Office), not a private citizen. Proteus (Talk) 09:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In South Africa Asset_forfeiture is used. See http://www.npa.gov.za/ReadContent387.aspx Typically the assets are liquidated and the money goes to combating organized crime in that sector. For example, abalone poachers (see Abalone#South_Africa) may have their rubber ducks (inflatable boats) and SCUBA gear seized. These may simply just be used "as is" (maybe re-branded) to combat poaching. The confiscated poached abalone are transported to Cape Town and sold on auction. The proceeds go to the Fisheries Compliance Office. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great answers, thanks. A few smaller questions left (basically how these concepts work in Canada), but you've given me quite enough to answer myself. Definitely good to know how it works in the other countries. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read your original question I think standing may be relevant. That is, if your question was about recovering money when the party recovering was not directly harmed by the defendant. Shadowjams (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of relevant, thanks. Though that seems to be more about challenging laws themselves, rather than those who break them. And John Doe doesn't want a dime. He's just in a righteous Goofus and Gallant dilemma about all the dimes that should be in millions of pockets, rather than ACME's. He wants a judge to grab Goofus by the ankles and shake him thoroughly over a public coffer, not one who will impose a fine based on damages or maximum limits. When a billion dollar scam is punished by a $100,000 (or $999 million) ticket, crime totally pays. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The staff of Sun Wukong, the Monkey King

The Anthony Yu translation of Journey to the West translates the text on Sun Wukong's staff as "The Compliant Golden-Hooped Rod. Weight: thirteen thousand five hundred pounds" (Vol. 1, 104). However, the Chinese characters I found for it on line state that it ways 36,000 catties (如意金箍棒重三万六千斤). Is this correct? I've never read the original Chinese version. I realize there is a conversion factor, but it seems like 36,000 catties would equal more than 13,500 lbs. Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this can really be answered, because we're talking about a mythical object. From your linked article "When it is not in use, Sun Wukong shrinks it to the size of a sewing needle and keeps it behind his ear" -- I always suspected that the mass changed when the size changed, but maybe he keeps ~13k lbs behind his ear :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, for what it's worth, 36,000 catties at ~605g each would be 48,016.7 lbs, so at least your intuition on conversion is correct. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm just trying to find out what the original source material says. The fictional elements are not the point of my query. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several books on Google books cite "一万三千五百斤" (13,500 catties). I think maybe Anthony Yu, the translator, didn't bother to convert the difference between the ancient catty and the modern pound. I looked up weights during the Ming when the story was compiled; the catty was 590 grams, putting the staff's weight around the 18,000 lbs cited in the article. I guess it would have been nice if the statement was originally referenced in the first place. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've sorted it out then! If you're feeling generous, you could cite those google books in the articles you've linked above. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already started. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]