Miscellaneous desk
< March 8	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 10 >

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.

March 9

When did Prince William start going bald?

He has a pretty good bald spot going at the crown of his head.76.27.175.80 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a notable amount of baldness in his family. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like typical male pattern baldness, and is a gradual process, with no obvious starting point - almost certainly genetic in origin, and probably only commonly influenced by a few alleles. It isn't unusual for brothers to show very different patterns of hair loss (much to my younger brother's disappointment :) ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a report from November 2007, but this is only when it was spotted by a tabloid paper, the balding process probably goes back further than that. Richard Avery (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depressingly, the question of when "baldness" can be said to start is actually discussed quite seriously in various academic philosophy circles, as a variation of the sorites paradox. I find it depressing, anyway. I consider academic philosophy to on the whole be a terrible waste of good minds... --Mr.98 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked at how disrespectful of His Highness these comments are. Any member of the Royale Family is above criticism of any kind. 92.28.241.148 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Royals may be above criticism, but the ones making those criticisms aren't. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Dreamt I Dwelt in Marble Halls

Can anyone shed some light on the reasoning behind why it is considered bad luck to sing or whistle this song in a theatre? I was once told it may have a connection with mauseleums being made of marble, but I've no idea if that's true. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a superstition, which likely doesn't have an actual 'reason'. Actors are a superstitious bunch as a rule, and there are half a gagillion things involving the theatre that you are or are not supposed to do for fear of bad luck. it could be the association between marble and graveyards, it could be that there was a string of random (and now forgotten) accidents for actresses who played that role, it could be that it was a catchy tune and too many people got socked on the nose for whistling it in inappropriate places - or maybe people just got sick of hearing it and so actors decided it would queer their chance of getting roles if used it in auditions. who knows? All I can suggest is that you test it out - find a theatre and stand in it whistling the tune until (1) something bad happens, or (2) you get bored. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to some people, it's bad luck to whistle at all indoors, and that would include inside a theatre. Not sure why there'd be a particular problem with a particular tune, if any tune was bad luck. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually (verifiably) true that actors are a superstitious bunch? I know it's often said, but I rather doubt that they are - or were - any more superstitious on average than many other groups. I also suspect that at least some of the superstitions around the theatre were deliberately invented at various times, to increase the actor's mystique, or to wow the shills, or to fool the novices. Incidentally, I've never heard of this particular superstition, though I have heard the one about whistling (anything) in a theatre. --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Shakespearean thespian will mention the name of The Scottish Play because that would invoke the curses of the 3 witches. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting coincidence that the same Shakepearean thespians don't like to say "Macbeth" either. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's what he meant. He didn't mean that they don't say "the Scottish play" – that's exactly what they do say instead of "Macbeth". --Viennese Waltz 13:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuddlyable: I challenge your claim on two grounds. First, the reason you give might be the justification for the superstition, but many other things might equally be. Secondly, I myself sometimes avoid saying "Macbeth" around theatre people - but not because I am superstitious, but when I think that others present might be distressed by it. (I am discussing it quite a lot at present, because I am playing him in June-July). --ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 Corinthians 8, innit? --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he might mean 1 Samuel 28. According to the Macbeth article Macbeth's return to the witches can be compared to Saul in 1 Samuel 28. Also mentioned is an author's attempt to draw comparisons between the murders of King Duncan and Christ, so I'm guessing it's one of these two things he has in mind. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of that song in my dictionary of superstitions although I see it is mentioned in other similar works. As for actors and actresses being a superstitious bunch, they do seen to have the largest possible section in the superstitions dictionary. It suggests whistling might be prohibited as scene changes were signaled with whistles in previous times. Miners believed whistling caused explosions and cave-ins and sailors believed you could "whistle up a storm" also women whistling was considered ill-omened, and probably a little un-lady like too. An old folk tale says that a woman looked on and whistled while christ was crucified which is one rationale for the superstition. meltBanana 14:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the explanation about signalling by whistling as well, but I'm far from convinced. It may be that whistling was used in this way, though I'm a little dubious, as I would have thought that would be remarkably audible to the audience. But even if it was, it sounds to me like one of those rationalisations that people are fond of making up to explain the unexplained. If whistling were used for signalling, it would surely be particular rhythms or contours of note, and a whistled tune would be unlikely to be confused with them. All this is surmise, of course: but my point is that the suggestions I'm countering are no more than surmise. --ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has TWO articles about this song: Marble Halls and I Dreamt I Dwelt in Marble Halls. Can a more experienced editor than me advise please? Alansplodge (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for it, you got it, Alan. Those 2 articles were ripe for merging, so I merged them. Marble Halls is now a redirect to I Dreamt I Dwelt in Marble Halls. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! Many thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highest paid person

Who has the highest salary for one year in the world (NOT net worth), exluding payout from stock options? On one page I saw that the highest paid person made $720,000,000 in one year, but this can't be the highest. --21:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Before anyone says Queen Elizabeth II of the U.K., she doesn't need any salary. She "owns" the United Kingdom, and as such she gets all the taxes collected in her name and is supported by the government financially. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look at how the Crown operates. She (QEII} gets an allowance from the government - but she does most certainly does not get the taxes! And the Crown does not "own" all the property either. In fact, her dad was quite impoverished when he became King George VI. Very few people have "salaries" per se over abut $50,000,000 -- I think J. K. Rowling gets substantial "royalties" in some years, but that is not a "salary." Collect (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly, the money she is given (under the "reverse Robin Hood" rule) comes from taxes. She also gets the benefit of lots of free things like free rents, free chopper rides, etc etc. The royal accounting has in my opinion been deliberately fudged so that you cannot tell how much of who's money they get. But ultimately it all comes from taxes over the generations, plus land-grabbing by might in the distant past. 92.28.254.54 (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't come to the Reference Desk and indulge in wild speculation. The Civil List is made up of income from the Crown Estate, not from taxation. Marnanel (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No "wild speculation" at all. The money can only come originally from either taxation (including customs duties) or historical land-grabbing. It may have been invested and shuffled around the royals by gifts or inheritance, but that is where it comes from. Its foolish to think of the money being "cleaned" by re-labelling it as the "Crown Estate". The "Crown Estate" used to have a different name: "...the land properties of the Sovereign were transferred to the management of the Commissioners of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues (now the Crown Estate Commissioners) by the Crown Lands Acts 1810 and 1829." 92.28.241.148 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Salary' is wages- someone else paying you. Most very wealthy people don't get wages from someone else; they get the profits of their own work more directly. Are you asking about the highest salary, or about the person who gains the most net worth in a year's time? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Milken made more than $550 million in 1987.[1] That may still be a record. Some hedge fund managers since have made more, but I think that was from their ownership of the hedge fund or its management company, not pure salary. John M Baker (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But even Milken's pay there was described as "compensation" rather than "salary". "Compensation" generally includes stock and bonuses. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that his "salary" per se was $1 in 1987. (I'm certainly not saying it was, just that it wouldn't be surprising.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These guys are probably contenders for highest base (!) pay. --Sean 14:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to Milken, it was indeed mostly bonus (but not stock options). The bonus was formulaic, rather than at the employer's discretion. I was assuming that the OP was including bonuses; was the intent to include only base salary? John M Baker (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems hard to separate way people gain money, Carlos Slim gained $20.5 billion in value this year. Some, I'm sure, in growth in asset worth, but almost certainly received more ready cash than most. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]