Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 January 21

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 21

Impromptu speaking

Hey all. I'm pretty good with public speaking when I have something written down or when I have beforehand preparation. However if I'm asked to speak impromptu, as in give a speech about something without organizing my ideas first, I'm worse than King George VI in the King's Speech (which was a very good film, I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it ;). How can I improve my impromptu speaking? THanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Practice. A Google search for impromptu speaking yields dozens of relevant hits (and, of course, our article on the topic. There are few things that don't improve with repeated practice. Matt Deres (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

One trick is to have a three sentence prepared speech with which you respond to every situation where an impromptu speech is required. Classically it can refer to your fear of making impromptu speeches. Get that out of the way, and your mind will have had time to get into speaking mode and subconsciously prepare for the actual topic. (Obviously it doesn't have to be exactly three sentences, but I'm sure you get my drift.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Public speaking includes "Toastmasters International".

—Wavelength (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've found experience/practice really makes a huge difference. I started having to do talks of this sort about 5 years ago and was awful. But after having taught for a number of years, and being forced to give little lectures and explanations off the cuff for that time, my speaking skills have greatly improved. Part of it is just confidence (it doesn't make me nervous), but I think most of it is that I have a better sense of what kinds of things one should say, and a better sense of how long it takes to communicate ideas (I can "budget" 15 minutes without really trying, and hit all the points I want to hit). I do not think I am exceptionally talented in this regard (I am no great orator) — it seems like something probably most people can learn. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I recall there exist many checklists, some from classical times, that you can memorise and use to generate verbage about any topic. Sorry I cannot be more specific 92.15.25.92 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Good speaking habits can come more easily if you maximize your exposure to good speaking and if you minimize your exposure to habits of speaking that are not so good. This can involve any of the following.

• correct grammar (http://www.confusing-words.com/; http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/index.html)
• correct pronunciation (http://www.forvo.com/; http://www.howjsay.com/)
• avoidance of profanity
• avoidance of filler words

Also, practicing good speaking habits at leisure is helpful. You and a friend might agree to catch each other's mistakes.

—Wavelength (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered joining a public speaking organisation such as Toastmasters or the English Speaking Union? BrainyBabe (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

BrainyBabe, the indentation of your message indicates that it is addressed to me. If it is, then the answer is "Yes".

—Wavelength (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Wavelength, I meant those suggestions for the OP. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Loss of citizenship

Normally, denaturalization is a long, drawn out process. Yet, Solomon Adler and Lauchlin Currie lost their U.S. citizenship simply by being out of the country and not being allowed to renew their passports. How does this work? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Both the men were accused of working with the Soviets. I am pretty sure, under such allegations, it works exactly as the government wants it to. They were personas-non-grata, conveniently out of the country, and doubly convieniently not born in the U.S. The U.S. in the 1950's was a much different place, and the government was known for doing things of "questionable legality" regarding how it treated perceived "enemies of the state", and such actions often went unchallenged in the courts, or even supported by them. It worked because the Government got away with it. Lots of things work that way. --Jayron32 04:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, ..... OK I haven't studied Latin. But I'd have guessed the term would be personae non gratae. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

...That's confirmed by the article titled persona non grata. I win! Michael Hardy (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Comment 1: Much more recent US governments have been accused of "doing things of questionable legality regarding how it treated perceived enemies of the state".

Comment 2: The plural of persona non grata is personae non gratae. Not many people know that. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1: Entirely true, and irrelevent to the time period in question. Abuses by governments that occured chronologically later than the people in question lived cannot, even by the greatest stretches of the imagination, be credibly said to have an effect on their situation.

2: I can barely spell English words correctly, and its the only language I have any fluency in. I apologize for my butchering of the Latin tongue. --Jayron32 13:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't underestimate yourself, Jayron. The expression is not only Latin, but is now considered part of the English language by some (see wiktionary:personas_non_grata), so an English plural form is permissible. This is frowned upon by Latin pedants. Dbfirs 17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, it is quite impossible for me to underestimate myself. I am constantly surprised by my ability to be wrong on a daily basis. I have become quite adept at it. --Jayron32 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

...which would imply you are underestimating your ability to be wrong. Therefore your statement above that "it is quite impossible for me to underestimate myself" is incorrect. :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that was perfectly correct. I am so wrong, it is impossible for me to be even right about how wrong I am. --Jayron32 00:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My guess is the legal justification is based on allegations of obtaining citizenship by fraud. If it was based on fraud, the the naturalization could be regarded as void from the beginning. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Bicycle races, brakes

Is it standard practice that in indoor bicycle races, bicycles lack manually operated brakes (and maybe have brakes operated by pedals, or lack brakes)? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

According to our Velodrome article: "Bicycles for velodromes have no brakes." Dismas|^(talk) 07:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this is a safety feature. There is extremely rarely a reason to stop during an indoor race. On the other hand, someone braking will provoke back-enders in the confined situation of such a race. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The bikes are also (AIUI) fixed-wheel; ie you can't stop pedalling! Alansplodge (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet people have to cross over the track to the infield in many cases, with the bikers yelling they have no brakes, to which I reply "GET SOME!!" during the interminable warmups. Edison (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. My question was prompted by this video. About half-way through, Nena, who fired the starting pistol, comments that the bicycles have no brakes. But I don't find that mentioned in the German counterpart of the velodrome article (but I've only glanced at it so far). Michael Hardy (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Track bikes are usually fixies with no freewheel. If you want to slow down, just stop pedalling. The pedals will push up against your feet, and resisting them with your muscles makes the bike slow down. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, "67.122.209.190". Michael Hardy (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Manunda

Is this the same ship as Manunda?. The image is part of the donation from the Queensland state library. The ship is identified as "Mununda" but i believe it is spelled wrong and is indeed Manunda. Can someone familiar with ship structures confirm this?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that name in the actual photo starts with MAN?N?A not sure about the last A and the others are not clear as it is covered with ropes. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; it looks like the Manunda. Compare it with this photo and this - apart from the paintwork it seems to be identical. Additionally, about the only result Google brings up for "Mununda" is a bakery in Queensland (and that's probably a typo too) or a village in the Congo! Alansplodge (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I have updated the name and cat in the image.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The specific term for a legal clause

Hello.

I am looking for the specific term used to describe a legal clause that gives an investor priority to recover his stake in a company over other shareholders (particularly the management) in the event the company is sold or otherwise transferred.

Thank you a lot.--62.161.107.212 (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a legal clause, it is a specific type of financial instrument called preferred stock. Preferred stock is a hybrid between common stock and bonds and as such it is usually dealt with after bonds, but before other types of stock, when a company is liquidated. Preferred stock usually also carries no voting rights. IIRC, this was the type of stock the U.S. Treasury Department purchased during the bailout of GM; that gives the U.S. Government the first rights to recover its investment in the case of bankruptcy or liquidation of GM, but it also gives the U.S. government no voting rights in shareholder meetings. --Jayron32 14:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Right of first refusal? --Sean 14:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The legal term you are looking for is "liquidation preference."[1][2] The clause in the contract or articles of incorporation will usually be identified as the "liquidation preference clause." The wikipedia article on liquidity preference (venture capital) needs some expanding. This term and right is not limited to preferred stock although generally all preferred stock has a liquidation preference over common stock. A corporation may have multiple classes of stock all with different liquidation preferences. It is possible for individual investors to be granted a liquidation preference superior to all other investors independent of the class of stock such an entity or individual may own. Gx872op (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

On the bond side, there is senior debt, which indicates bonds that have priority over more "junior" bonds when it comes to paying bondholders in the event of a bankruptcy. Like Jayron32's example of preferred stock, this isn't a legal clause; it's just a type of bond. You mention priority over the management — theoretically, a bankruptcy can suspend any arrangement a firm has with its managers, including golden parachute contractual terms. Presumably, though, every manager in a near-bankruptcy situation fights tooth and nail to try to get his parachute paid before the bondholders or stockholders have a chance to recover any money from the firm. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Safest country to live in

A) Which country in the world is the safest country to live in: ie where you have the least chance of being killed or assulted etc? B) Similarly, which is the safest english-speasking country? Thanks 2.97.212.158 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

List of countries by intentional homicide rate suggests Liechtenstein and Iceland as good candidates for A), and Singapore and Ireland as good candidates for B) (or New Hampshire if you also want to go into subnational divisions). Note, however, that I) there are more to crime than murder (as you say in your question), and that II) dictatorships or countries with dubious human rights often have lower crime rates, as they keep their citizens more "reined in"; you might want to take other "freedoms" into account when you pick your definition of whether a country is "safe" (for example, the murder rate in China is less than half that of the US). Jørgen (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Side question:: According to the list above, the DC area is much more dangerous than any other region of the US (even Puerto Rico)? Why?Quest09 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs)

Partly because D.C. is a city and only a city, unlike any state... AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see. The absence of peaceful rural folks skews the statistics towards one side. Quest09 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also the case the DC does have a legitimately high crime rate, much higher than most other places in the US. It is a big city with a huge amount of poverty, despite (or because of?) its being the center of the federal government. I go there pretty often and consider it to be a pretty dodgy place once you are outside of the tourist spots. There are huge income disparities there. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to call on number II) there. What evidence is there that people murder and rob and rape less in countries with oppressive regimes than in those which allow basic freedoms and human rights? I am not aware of any reliable study which claims that it is safer to live under an oppresive dictatorship than a free society. I mean, Ireland is generally free, and it is much safer than China. --Jayron32 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would guess that it is a problem getting exact crime figures from any dictatorial state. And that if you get them one can't be sure they haven't be doctored (they could have been doctored in non-dictatorial countries as well, but there usually exist some sort of checks and balances system that should in theory prevent these sort of things). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying this holds on average - surely some of the most dysfunctional states in the world are both dictatorial and lawless. However, "well-functioning" dictatorships (think Asia, not Africa) have often succeeded in both economic growth and rule of law. And my point was precicely that it might not be safer to live there - crime, as defined as things the government defines as criminal (such as random assault) could be lower, while imprisonment based on "thought crimes", danger of running afoul of the wrong people, etc., could be higher. I only meant to say that low chance of "being killed or assaulted etc" (original poster wording) might not correspond 1-to-1 to "safest country to live in". Jørgen (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

On the other end of the spectrum, Tunisia was up until recently considered to be the most stable (and I suppose safest) of the North African dictatorships. TomorrowTime (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Japan: low crime rates, no guns, long life expectancy, very hygienic people.AerobicFox (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest Japan.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been some reports that Japanese life expectancy was being overestimated a little by the way it was calculated, ultimately meaning Japanese life expectancy is comparable with "the West". That is, of course, of little concern to an immigrant; it might be because of cultural factors they would naturally adopt. I was reading about the flaws in the Japanese crime reporting system - very serious allegations indeed - but it wasn't from a reliable source. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, Japan has these extremely terrifying insects. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

---

There's a semi-famous quote about the Mongol empire at its height, that a virgin (maiden) carrying a bag of gold could walk from one end of the empire to the other in perfect safety. (Having difficulty finding the original source...). AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Genghis Khan: Conqueror of the World by Leo de Hartog, 1989 p.144. "A contemporary Persian historian wrote that in the region between Persia and Turfan, public safety was so widespread that a traveller could journey without interference from the Levant to Central Asia with a gold plate on his head." You must have imagined the virgin maiden! Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't -- "virgin" is included in many forms of the quote, as can be found in a Google search... AnonMoos (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere in the science fiction Nantucket series (On the Oceans of Eternity maybe?), Isketerol says something very much like that (except I think it was a naked virgin and two bags of gold). Whether S. M. Stirling made it up and purloined it from a historical quote, I couldn't say. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Grimble recounted a similar story from his decades in Kiribati in the early C20. Before the Pax Britannica, villagers feared to wander; once the colonial authorities had established order, even maidens could walk between villages without fear. That was from one of his informants, an elderly local woman; he gave the story the "virgin with bags of gold" twist in his memoir A Pattern of Islands]]', if I recall correctly. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That would have to be a rather strong virgin to carry around multiple bags of gold...Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos explained it perfectly. Safety is a relative concept. You can cherry pick statistics all you want but at some point day to day life becomes the most important consideration. If you're persona non grata in a hostile country then all those stats are meaningless. And if you live in a bad part of town then the broader country isn't your first concern. AerobicFox might be interested to know that, until recently, D.C. is virtually "no [legal] guns" too. Shadowjams (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at preliminary 2010 crime stats, I see New Orleans' murder rate was about three times D.C.'s. Baltimore's was quite a bit higher too, same with St. Louis and Detroit. The U.S. state with the lowest rate of violent crime in 2009 was Maine, with 119.8 violent crimes per 100,000 people, with a 50% lower rate in non-metropolitan counties. There were zero violent crimes reported by the Aroostook County sheriff's office (which does not include the cities of that county) and none in towns including Topsham and South Berwick. So if you want to be safe, you might want to try rural Maine. Just bring a jacket. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Another place to consider is Tecumseh, Ontario, Canada, which had the lowest "Violent Crime Severity Index" among Canadian cities in 2009 ([3]). It's also noteworthy that there were only three homicides in the 2005-09 period in Prince Edward Island. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

""no [legal] guns""
Lol I lived next to DC for three years, and that doesn't stop anyone from getting a gun if they want. Japan actually has very few guns. Criminals will mug a convenience store with a knife typically, thus is Japan.AerobicFox (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That may be because DC is an island in a sea of gun abundance, and it is impossible to stop guns crossing the border. I recall the statistics indicate that almost a 9/11 occurs every year in the US from gun deaths, compared with what happens in the UK per capita with its strong gun laws. 92.24.184.8 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

re: statistics: Recently a studied showed that Malung-Sälen is the most dangerous municipality in Sweden. The study compared the number of crimes, accidents, fires, etc. in comparison to population. Malung-Sälen is a small municipality, but hosts a major ski tourism resort. 10 000s of skiers flock there every year. Many get injured and a few bar brawls occur as well. Thus in comparison with the small resident population, Malung-Sälen is by far the most dangerous place in the country by statics. In reality, not really. --Soman (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Might also be worth noting that most people who are killed or assaulted. Are attack by people they know, in their own home.Violence within families is more common, then violence between perfect strangers. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

UK police fudging crime figures?

Although the police say crime rates are falling, an independant survey says they are rising according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12238962 A) Is there any more evidence that the police are manipulating the figures? B) What motive would they have to do this? C) How else could the contradictory figures be explained?

I have to admit some personal interest in this - last year I had a lot of criminal damage to my property, which cost about £1000 to repair, and even then its still much worse than it originally was. I was disgusted that the police would not interview the person to whom all the evidence pointed to; in fact I do not think they even registered it as a crime, so it will not appear in their statistics. 2.97.212.158 (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite how I read that report. The British Crime Survey always report somewhat different figures to those recorded by the police, not surprising as they are collected in quite different ways. As I recall on many occasions they have actually recorded lower levels of crime rather than more. If you look at the BCS report itself [4], it shows an overall fall of 5% in all the crime that they record, compared to the 7% fall reported by the police, not such a big difference. Mikenorton (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, that if last year you had nine burgalies and one murder, and this year you have one burgalry and eight murders, then on average that's a drop in crime. In other words its not appropriate to average different types of crime. 92.15.7.223 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but the OP was talking about overall crime rates. Mikenorton (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That was the point of the previous paragraph - that it is misleading to average them and open to manipulation. 92.29.126.0 (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The police said burgalries, for example, fell by 7%, yet the British Crime Survey says they rose by 9%. I'd call that a large difference. 92.29.124.249 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that regarding the burglary increase shown by the BCS their report says 'BCS burglaries showed no statistically significant change compared with the previous year', presumably the sample was too small. Mikenorton (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't the police rely on recorded crime whilst BCS rely on sampling of people? Not all crime that occurs is reported to the police, and whilst some crimes such as car-theft/burglary will have much high report rates (mainly due to insurance reasons than a real expectation of recovery of goods), the surveys are likely to pick up things that aren't official reported. As for 92.15.7s comment - serious crime is separated out in almost all crime statistics reporting i've ever seen (but I agree that a reduction in the high level crime figure is an indicator of very little without looking into the numbers further). ny156uk (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The situation I had was that although a crime had clearly been committed, they didnt as far as I am aware issue a case number, in other words it was not added to the crime statistics. I wonder if the police have been manipulating the stats to show themselves in a good light? 92.29.126.0 (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that though recorded crime figures to come under significant scrutiny when compared to the BCS there is no decisive reason that the BCS should be perfect either. False recall and other factors can harm it but not the official figures (which are subject to their own errors as noted above). In other words, it isn't just a case of "Police say one thing, BCS says another, Police are lying". We could also do to remember that though both the BCS and Police Figures show overall crime falling almost every year for over a decade, fear of crime continues to rise. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you asked the police why they have stopped investigating your criminal damage? Astronaut (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

After not hearing from them for some time, I wrote them a letter, I've never recieved a reply. 92.24.178.157 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I would have given up quite so easily. Why not phone them and ask what progress they have made. Astronaut (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Headstone Foundation

Is it normal in the United States for the monument company that delivers a gravestone to a cemetery to make the foundation (picture link) http://www.flickr.com/photos/22738816@N07/3643227599/in/set-72157619909680727/
-OR- is it more normal for the cemetery sexton to make the foundation for the gravestone that is to be placed at the grave site by the monument company? IF the monument company usually makes the foundation, then is it marked out by the sexton where it is to be placed? Then does the monument company first come by and make the cement foundation, THEN so many days later places the gravestone on the new dry foundation? What is the normal procedure for MOST cemeteries in Michigan? Does the price of a gravestone then usually include the foundation?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest trying to find out who was paid to put your 'stones in place. They had a contract (actual or implied, in British law anyway) to do them as they should be done. If they didnt do them right, then they are responsible for fixing them, not you. 92.29.124.249 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita Translation

I probably mispelled the title. Having read the scriptures long ago in college, I wish to reread them. When I accessed commercial sellers and read reviews, it seems there is much controversy about translations. It even seems worse than the best Bible battles. I don't want a translation by a partisan of any faction. Rather what translation would be used at CAmrbidge or Harvard?yale in the Oriental Civilizations department? Thanks in advance. I'd like a hardcover copy. 75Janice (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)75Janice

This Google search brings up any references in Harvard courses. The common one seems to be by Barbara Stoller-Miller. Alternatively, you could go with the one by Arthur W. Ryder, who was the one who taught Oppenheimer the Gita. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you want. If you are after accuracy of translation then the above recommendations are good. If you want a less accurate translation that preserves the poetry and mood then I like [this translation]. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My personal favorite (and certainly among the most "academically reputable" etc.) English translation is Barbara Stoler Miller's The Bhagavad-Gita (Krishna's Counsel in Time of War) ॐ WikiDao ☯ 21:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I studied Indian civilization with Barbara Stoler Miller years ago. She would read erotic Hindu writings on WBAI in NY. I could not recall her names. Thanks.75Janice (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)75Janice

The dangers of pregnancy and childbirth

I don't think it is an exaggeration to claim that, until the past century, becoming pregnant and giving birth were grave dangers to women. Even now, maternal mortality in poor countries is shocking. I'd like to know what degree of danger it still holds now, in developed countries. Is it fair to say that getting pregnant is the most dangerous activity (risk of death, illness, persistent or possibly permanent disability) the average woman is likely to engage in? (Very few of us really go bungie-jumping or drive race cars.) Or are the real statistics dwarfed by, e.g. traffic accidents? I realise this must vary considerably if we are looking at risk over a lifetime (during which the average Western woman will drive or be driven untold thousands of miles, but undergo only a couple of pregnancies) or over the year of the pregnancy itself. I know that a senior scientist advising the UK government got a lot of flak for calculating that taking ecstacy was on a par with horse riding -- one bad outcome per 700 experiences, or something like that. We are apolitical and can afford to be rigorous. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the most dangerous time of life is when you are being born as a baby. 92.15.7.223 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that, for pre-20th century women, BrainyBabe is spot on. When I was researching for the article Plymouth Colony, one of the books I used was the work A Little Commonwealth by John Putnam Demos. The section Plymouth Colony#Demographics summarizes some of his data, but basically women died, on average almost 7 years earlier than men, and twice as many women died before their 50th birthday than men did; a discrepency due almost entirely to the dangers of giving birth. The section Plymouth Colony#Marriage and family life has information on infant mortality from Demos's numbers, about 12% of children, or one in eight, died before their first birthday. By comparison, in most modernized democracies, the number of infant deaths has dropped to less than 1% for most countries, that 12% figure is comparable to countries like Afghanistan and Liberia, and would place Plymouth Colony as the 5th highest infant mortality in the whole world today. See Infant mortality. While I don't have numbers for mothers dying in childbirth today, I suspect that the figures would be roughly to scale with the infant mortality numbers; that is there is probably a 10-fold increase in the survivability of childbirth due to modern medicine. Its quite clear in that today women out live men by 7 years, which is almost exactly the reverse of the 17th century numbers. --Jayron32 00:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To get started on the numbers, the world total for maternal mortality is 342900 (year 2008) while traffic accidents are 1200000 (year 2004). (from this and this article, didn't check the sources). If we divide traffic accidents by two (though I think men are more likely to die in traffic accidents), that means that women are twice as likely to die in traffic accidents as in childbirth. However, it is not clear how this translates into "developed" countries, where more people drive (though under safer conditions) and health services are vastly better. My guess would be that driving is more dangerous on an "entire-life" horizon, but perhaps the odds come close when you just consider the year giving birth. Jørgen (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict): Some recent US figures: Maternal death rates gives a range of 11 - 17 maternal deaths per 100'000 live births, as the most recent estimates in the United States (I didn't check the references in this case). The Fatality Analysis Reporting System's numbers for the past decade range from 11.01 - 14.87 for "Fatalities per 100,000 Population", 14.53 - 19.33 for "Fatalities per 100,000 Registered Vehicles", and 17.96 - 22.00 for "Fatalities per 100,000 Licensed Drivers". The number of traffic fatalities in the European Union is generally lower per population, but as the article points out, the fatalities are also counted differently in the US. I don't know how maternal death figures vary within rich countries. For one example: the German article on Müttersterblichkeit (maternal death) writes that fatalities per 100,000 childbirths in the Netherlands have increased from 9.7 (1983 - 1992) to 12.1 (1993 - 2005). The recent figure for people killed in traffic accidents in the Netherlands is 4.6 per 100,000 (from the table linked to above). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As an editor who has contributed to many articles on medieval women, I have noticed that infant mortality as well as maternal deaths in or as a result of childbirth were noticeably lower in the medieval period compared to the 16th century. A noticable example being two of Henry VIII's wives having died of complications following childbirth. According to biographer Antonia Fraser in Mary, Queen of Scots, women would make their wills prior to giving birth as they ran a very high risk of death.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OP here. Thank you for your responses so far! Re infant mortality, yes, I had heard, and it seems intuitively likely, that the single day of your life on which you are most likely to die is the day you are born. But that can't be a surrogate indicator for maternal mortality. Re previous centuries, and Afghanistan now: I'm well aware of the general awfulness, but thanks for the extra statistics for context. I am, however, interested in the situation now in countries with a modern health care system. Jørgen, the problem with the raw numbers is that while 100% of people who die in childbirth are women, the same is not nearly true of traffic accidents, and for an often overlooked reason: statistics that divide male-female say nothing about how many children are involved. Sluzzelin, thanks for digging, especially the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. So if I interpret that correctly, then there is a striking similarity between the 11 - 17 maternal deaths per 100 000 live births, and the 11 - 15 for traffic accident fatalities per 100,000 population. If we do assume -- almost certainly a false premise -- that these deaths are distributed evenly over the population, by age and gender, then a pregnant woman has as much chance of dying of her pregnancy as any of us do of dying in a motor vehicle accident in any given year.

From the NHTSA website: "A total of 41,059 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in 2007. Another 2.5 million people were injured." I wonder if a similar proportion holds true for pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation - 60x as many injured (or ill) as killed. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I drive a lot more than I give birth... I've got the feeling you're driving towards some point... what might that be? Shadowjams (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that a typical woman reaches menopause long before she gives up driving so......I don't drive myself but I must admit that I felt safer (four times) in the delivery room than I do on the Italian roads.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Modern doctors are remarkably good at healing wounds from both childbirth and automobile accidents, no matter the country. That the childhood mortality rate in countries with that kind of care have fallen to the rates they are would be called a miracle in any other time. I'm being glib because we're forgetting how absolutely amazing it is that we have childhood survival rates that we do, and that modern humans find it a matter of course.

Most mammals don't have this luxury, at least not without our help.

We ought to find that amazing for a second, and consider that we've done a lot of things right as a society. Shadowjams (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

However, many other mammals have easier childbirth than humans do (for humans it's complicated by simultaneous requirements for large brains and efficient bipedal walking...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

See Health-US: Maternal Deaths on the Rise — Global Issues.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all. I don't know that I am "driving towards some point"; I was hoping to find a realistic assessment of personal dangers. Is it true to say "a pregnant woman has as much chance of dying of her pregnancy as any of us do of dying in a motor vehicle accident in any given year"? So far, what we've found is indicative, not conclusive. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In Europe, maternal mortality peaked between the 1600s (when dedicated hospitals for childbirth became popular) and the late 1800s (when hygienic measures became popular) due to physician-spread cases of childbed fever (see Puerperal fever#History). Before and after that, maternal mortality rates were considerably lower. --Carnildo (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)