Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 11

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.

September 11

Since the internet and public libraries have everything theoretical that's taught in college

Since every bit of theoretical knowledge at college can be learned for free at the public library or the internet, is there anything set up where they tell you what to learn that normally would be taught at college and from expensive textbooks, and one can just learn it on the internet that way to know as much as one would have learned from an expensive education? I don't mean the random selections of free courses, but the entirety listed and said "this is what is learned". Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Public libraries rarely hold the research collection or undergraduate teaching collection that a University library holds. Public libraries that break this rule (NLA Canberra, SLNSW Sydney, etc.) are called deposit libraries, or state libraries and are of a different grade. If you lived in Newcastle, Australia you would read in the University library, rather than the public library system (generally). The internet's "collection" is substantially worse than most university libraries, mainly in indexing, planned collection and access to journal articles. Assuming you could access an appropriate library (University or deposit), you could attempt to read following a curriculum. One problem with doing this is that academics guide students through a curriculum by introducing concepts to students in an ordered fashion aimed at inculcating understandings that allow for further understandings. I suggest this blog post as a review of an amateur-hour attempt at distance education: http://www.angrymath.com/2012/09/udacity-statistics-101.html . Next, most Universities supply tutorials or laboratories, where students engage in action based learning by performing knowledge. Finally, Universities provided assessment and examination, both as a review of work allowing better work in future, and as a way of certifying the knowledge gained. The "Reading course" where an individual student at a university reads material under supervision, plans their own assessment, and doesn't have access to lectures and tutorials typically results in a worse mark. Curriculum content, btw, is hard to come by for free; and, even if it includes a full copy of the assessment requirements including all prompts and questions, you're not going to get the feedback. Most courses vary in their content and assessment requirements and full Universities self-certify through a policing system which compares Course X to Course Y in the same institution, where students may reasonably take a course like X and a course like Y. Again, you're not going to get access to that review or context if you download random curriculum documents. Finally, most Universities inculcate disciplinary understandings of epistemology, knowledge creation and verification, and methods of expression. These learning outcomes aren't factual, but are "thinks like a historian." The University provides a model in the academics, and variant examples in your peers, that learning alone won't provide. Trying to read to match your current understanding of a particular model or ideal outcome will be much much harder without examples lying around (or being reinforced in a tutorial or lab) of how a chemist measures and extrapolates, or how a literary critic confirms a hypothesis by argument. Good luck, but a reading list and learning outcomes list isn't what you need. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, there is more to learning than reading. If it were as easy as reading stuff, everyone would do it and be successful at it. A large part of learning comes from being able to interact with ones teachers, to have someone to bounce ideas off of, to have someone who can see what you are learning and help guide and direct that learning, the ability to correct you and teach you as you go. Like, when you think you understand something, but don't, they can fix that. If you have no one who really knows the material who can supervise, it is quite easy to go off course, and think you understand something, when you don't. I suspect that's a big part of the Dunning–Kruger effect; people who never get to interact with people who know more than them don't know that they misunderstand stuff. Sitting around reading books will only get you so far. At some point, you do need someone to tell what you've learned, so they can confirm that you are right, or if you aren't, they can correct you. --Jayron32 04:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32 brings an interesting point up in my mind (bouncing off it, in fact). Many working class people used to get an education through the union, the church (or anti-church), or the party. Public lectures used to be very popular. The more thorough-going education in this form involved both reading and discussion programmes. The communist Party School is one example of this. Now the old Leninist parties didn't have the best methodology or epistemology, but damnit they put people in rooms together with reading materials, curriculums and made them bounce off each other. Just pointing to, again, the interactive nature of education. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Until recently, one missing ingredient has been computers and software, which can make up for many of the deficiencies of reading alone:

1) They can detect your learning style and speed, and alter the curriculum accordingly, say by adding more remedial material for students who are struggling.

2) They can allow you to interact with other students via chat rooms, bulletin boards, etc.

3) Potentially, they can allow you to interact with an instructor, too. However, they either need to be a volunteers or we need to find a way to pay the instructor.

4) Many labs can be simulated online.

So, what's the hold up ? Well, it will take time to have all the curricula put online, especially if it's all to be done by volunteers. However, there are some initial attempts at it, like these classes: https://www.edx.org/courses. StuRat (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, sort of. Except there's no substitute for someone who can watch you work directly, and give you on-the-fly feedback. While technically, that is possible via the series-of-tubes, it turns out that most of the so-called online schools out there are little more than diploma mills, and a large proportion of them don't provide the same sort of training that traditional brick-and-mortar schools do. This NY Times article calls into question the efficacy of online school programs, and takes the cynical stance that the entire online education movement is primarily motivated by cost-saving and not by actual pedagogical success. That is, school districts and states are shuttling kids into online education because it is cheaper than actually teaching them with live human beings. Having seen the education system from the inside for most of my adult life, I'd have to say that there is more than a nugget of truth in that sentiment. this article in the Wall Street Journal is far more comprehensive, and also presents a rather dismal view of the online schooling system: it is rife with inconsistancy: some are actually decent programs with high amounts of teacher involvement, but the problem is that those good programs are swamped by the shitton of crappy online programs that are little more than reading quizzes taken online by students. It is quite impossible to seperate the wheat from the chaff in that system. It also notes that online students do significantly worse on standardized tests; while such tests are not the be-all-and-end-all of assessing educational outcomes, they are one measure, and they don't show that online schools do all that good of a job. I can't find it right now, but there have been several studies done tracking the job success of students from online schools, and IIRC, it doesn't look all that good either. I'm still looking. --Jayron32 06:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "for profit schools" tend to think of money first and students last, so I wouldn't expect much quality from them. The link I provided lists some free classes from MIT, Berkeley, and Harvard, and I suspect those classes will be better (once they get all the bugs worked out). StuRat (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through college before and while the practical aspects need in person teaching (I include math as practical too), most of it was listen to a professor and take notes and then go home and read a lot of stuff. Then re-read and memorize. And then the test comes and what everyone is tested on is based on theoretical stuff memorized. There are occasional projects but it's mainly just a rote memorization. The harder professors teach stuff in class and then have nothing in class is on the test, it's all from stuff not covered in the books. I'm certain I can find everything in overpriced textbooks on the internet, the problem however is that it's disorganized. It would work someone wrote a book with homework assignments basically saying "find out this, found out that" and people search, and then it tests them. I've personally not seen anything organized like that myself, a you'll know about the subject if you learn these aspects. Thanks. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, what you've hit upon is bad teaching in person. The solution to bad in-person teaching is not to replace it with teacherless learning. It's to actually replace it with quality, responsive teaching. It would be like saying "My toilet is always clogged and never flushes right, so I'll just crap in the woods from now on" If you replaced your malfunctioning toilet with a proper functioning one, it would be far better than abandoning the toilet altogether. Likewise with your educational experience. Yeah, you had shitty teachers. But that doesn't mean the teacher is superfluous. Just that yours sucked. --Jayron32 06:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well aside from practical learning, everything non-practical was the teacher lectured and we took notes. Or they show a film or something and we took notes. And that was class. In one of the Legally Blonde movies, her classes were all where they discussed the topic socratically all the time, but that was an Ivy league school and I've not seen that myself. And in fact all through middle school and high school, every teacher constantly drilled into us--take notes instead of just listening because in college every class is just taking notes. And then we go home and study our notes. I've even heard of professors that have a teacher's assistant prepare just read the professor's lecture notes while the professor rarely shows up to class. And as per your criticism of online schools, the whole reason things can be found for free on the internet, makes online schools largely a waste of money. All students would need is a list of material to learn and then someone could go to a free forum website and they could all discuss it if they have questions -- that's what a lot of companies do instead of tech support, just have forums. Then once the theoretical is learned, much shorter period of practical training is needed, which can be done by internships. ... of course I'm asking not to debate this or that, but to discover a feasible means for this to be a reality. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are several problems which occur in brick-and-mortar classes which could hopefully be eliminated in online classes. These include instructors who apparently don't speak English, don't speak loudly enough, can't write legibly, erase their notes before you can copy them, not being able to see from the back of the lecture hall, the instructor standing in front of his notes as you try to copy them, etc. I once had a robotics instructor derive some equations during several classes, then tell us to implement them to get straight-line motion out of our robotic arm, but nobody could make them work. Since that appeared to be the first time he ever derived those equations (no notes were used), I have to conclude that his equations were faulty. StuRat (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My main motivation is just how expensive college is when I could get the knowledge for free online. Even my cheap community college in where I grew up quadrupled in price over the last 14 years. And I'm just seeing it add up and going "I put off all these expenses that cost a fraction of this money when I could get the information for free with a bit of hard work online." People have even scanned their college textbooks and created torrents out of them. I'm just, I could learn this myself for free and then get some unpaid internship at a company to learn the rest. It's basically like this scene in Goodwill Hunting (hopefully linking to youtube isn't taboo here). Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The system of higher education you describe is so vastly different from the post-UK post-1960s tutorial revolution system of mass higher education that I'm familiar with that I'm unable to respond to you in a sensible format. However, any attempt to conduct self-directed reading without an internalised research structure and without serious exposure to disciplinarity will result in, at best the kind of annoyingly incoherent didacticism seen in isolated self-directed learning. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in the company Coursera, which my University recently started offering classes through. Classes are taught by professors at good (not-for-profit) universities, to tens of thousands of students, for free. It remains to be seen how this type of education model works, but it will be interesting.Buddy431 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is it Considered Indecent for a Woman to Expose Her Nipples?

In contrast to a man? Futurist110 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't in many cultures. In those where it is, it may have to do with their reproductive function (feeding babies), which men's nipples lack. And breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic, although men's beards are, too, and I can't think of any culture which feels the need to hide those. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Tuaregs? -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting oddity. StuRat (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There's some information at Breast#Cultural_aspects as well as at Toplessness#Social_attitudes and Modesty#Generally-accepted_Western_norms. The answer is somewhat tautological: It is considered indecent because the cultural norms in many Western societies say that it is. Cultural norms don't necessarily have mechanistic "whys" the way that, say, a scientific law would have. A question like "Why does the light bulb glow when I flip the switch?" can be answered with diagrams and equations and references to scientific principles like electricity and resistance and materials science. Questions like "Why can't women show their nipples?" can be answered with lots of really complicated and dense discussions that distill down to "Just 'cuz" when you get down to it. You end up with a never ending recursion of "Why" questions, rather than any good core answer. --Jayron32 05:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, nipples being sexualized makes a bit more logical sense than, say, ankles, which oddly enough were at one point. StuRat (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In Victorian times, ankles were actually the only part of the female body below the waist which was often publicly-visible under form-fitting clothing... AnonMoos (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, nipples are an erogenous zone for both men and women, so it doesn't explain the double standard the OP asks about. That is, men's nipples are as much fun as women's are, but men get to bare theirs in public, while women generally don't. --Jayron32 06:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's legal in New York state. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/topless_bowery.php As for decent regardless to the law, well if she is attractive then in one way it's good because she's pretty but in another way it's bad because she's so distracting to men and it could get so bad it would cause traffic accidents. Though even if she was sub-a-cup and boring, it would still be considered indecent because it's unusual. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It is actually legal in many states. Most states don't make bearing chests strictly illegal, but that doesn't mean that cultural norms follow the law: people's expectation that women keep their nipples covered is a strong one, and may be a stronger impediment to bearing breasts than any law would be. As far as the rest of your answer, I think you seriously need to reassess your place here at a project like this. I'm not a woman, but I can see how many would be offended by your follow on comments, and you would do good to retract them. They are utter nonsense. --Jayron32 06:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean it as offensive or nonsense. It's a simple fact that people would react a certain way to being topless. If two men were topless and one was thin and hairless and the other was morbidly obese and hairy, would most people not react differently? And do men who go shirtless normally not in some degree of shape and with little body hair? And if a guy is really in shape and muscular, not just thin and plain would you expect women to react? And if another topless man is in his 90s would you expect people to slightly grossed out? I don't mean to offend, this is how reality is. And you can always test this experimentally if you think I am speaking "nonsense". Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And, conversely, if toplessness was the norm, it wouldn't cause accidents, as everyone would be used to it. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My guess: the intent of the rule is to forbid displaying breasts. Because it's not easy to define the boundaries of a breast in fair and objective terms, the prudes can't get all they want; but when the nipple appears, the prudes can say "Come on, you can't say that isn't an exposed breast." —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Going far beyond avoidance of exposing the female nipple to view, in the US it is extremely rare for even the mere hint of the shape of the nipple to be visible through clothing, with padded bras or padding under swimsuit tops designed to conceal. By contrast, after a famous 1976 Farrah Fawcett swimsuit poster, female nipple protrusion became part of US fashion to the point that department store mannequins got nipple shapes added so shoppers could see that a top would allow some hint of the underlying nips. Today in the US, (original research) nipple protrusion seems more common among women over 50 than in those under 30, who seem to view it as obscene. Edison (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And notice that, while male nipples are acceptable at the beach and a few other places, they are not acceptable in most places. Try walking into a restaurant or office shirtless and you are likely to be booted out. Even seeing the shape of male nipples is also considered to be "bad form", in most places. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that exposure of the adult male chest in public has not always been socially acceptable. It wasn't until 1936 that the first daring bare chested male swimmers appeared at the Olympics[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Right on. It wasn't the nipple factor specifically. Male nipples have been historically relegated to worthless and pointless appendages, so the mere display of them was considered no worse than any other part of the torso, such as the belly button, chest hair, pecs, etc. But it was bad enough, because the nipples happen to be on the chest, and no part of the chest was to be displayed. Some people have finally woken up to the real function and purpose of the male nipples, but for many they remain the Final Frontier. When that's finally recognised by the world at large, I imagine we'll have to cover up again. Such are the cycles of history. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't "Insider trading" rules be easily evaded?

I'm no financial wizard, but the practical issue of enforcing insider trading rules in financial markets strikes me as odd. Evasion would seem dead easy.

Imagine I, as an investor, hear "insider" information that a certain stock is likely to soon experience a jump in price (e.g. a takeover offer). Would I just go and start buying up the stock? Hell no - I'd easily be caught.

What would appear all too simple to do, however, is place a "standing order" for the stock in the system designed to trigger at the next price notch upwards. (I'm sure there's a technical name for such an order, just not sure what it is). Essentially, it would allow you to "get in early" once the good news breaks (and the upward price jump starts), essentially still catching much of the price rise. Whilst buying pre-rise would be suspicious, this would simply look as if the investor is "buying into the rise" (which is totally normal and very common).

The opposite would seem to hold true as well. If I own stock, and I hear of (as-yet secret) bad news in the horizon, selling the stock might sound alarms. However, putting a "stop-loss order" on the stock (which would make it sell early in the plunge, once it hits, thus minimising my loss) would seem awfully harder to catch.

Would such actions still be illegal? And, if it is, how would regulators attempt to catch such things? What am I missing here? scratches head

(Note, I am not an investor, so this isn't a request for legal advice). 58.111.230.117 (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I hear, there isn't any legal advice to be had; the authorities refuse to say what is and isn't insider trading, so they can punish it when they feel like it. —Tamfang (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question, despite getting cute with how you trade in and how you trade out the ones who are usually caught are the serial abusers. Like almost every crime the criminal almost never gets caught the 1st or 3rd or even 8th time they commit it. Everything from bank robbers to random serial killers to shoplifters are because they get greedy, get over confident and there is even some evidence that it becomes addictive. Now if you are one of the 1 or 2% in a position to both financially and by word of mouth to trade inside on more than one stock, even if there are 2-3-4 ways to hide getting in and getting out by the 5th or 8th time your doing this it gets very suspicious very quick. As Robert DeNiro's character on Casino (betting follows many of the same rules as stock trading) caught most of the "cheats" because of how much they won, how greedy/sloppy they got and by memorizing the odds (watching some cheats win 2 or 3 out of 5 all day and knowing how impossible that was) combine that investigative technique with the old Watergate question "what did you know and when did you know it" and a lot of prosecutors have enough to start intimidating you and everyone you know to cough up admissions. The tactic starts with something along the lines: how could a pattern of stock trades always with x% gain or higher always on stocks your pal or you had insider knowledge of be explained any other way when the odds are a million to one against you? Since insider trading is always a team sport, you have a lot of what you would see on the movie Casino Jack where it is a race to be the singing canary once the Feds start the interrogations. Over half of police work is just making sure you listen to the confession, the vast majority of humans have an instinctual urge to just come clean and not live with secrets, the pressure cooker of US Assistant District Attorney staffs playing good cop bad cop with you as your life flashes by and the knawing thought that the others in the scheme are spilling beans and getting reduced sentences combined with that human urge to take credit for things--even crimes, is usually enough to crack those cases. People in finance and running companies and banks are very smart but usually have not one clue how to run and maintain a criminal conspiracy, I'm thinking the first 3 seasons of Breaking Bad where Walt despite his genius looked like a fool trying to keep up with hardened criminals. Marketdiamond (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Remember also (though many are confused by it) that Gordon Gekko was caught because of Insider Trading in the movie. The whole "Get me the information" thing. One might say it was just a movie but interesting tidbit, Oliver Stone's father worked on Wall Street his entire career and Oliver basically grew up going down to brokerage and banking houses (and the exchange) with his dad, for most in the industry Wall Street is a very strikingly realistic version of what actually happens day to day in Financial markets. Marketdiamond (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• The basic answer here is that it is impossible to prevent some level of insider trading, but it is essential to make a very serious effort to restrain it, because investors won't buy stock if they get too strong a feeling that the game is rigged against them. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to add...Some argue that insider trading should be made legal Insider trading#Arguments for legalizing insider trading. ny156uk (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

First time I have seen on the Ref Desk a first response of considerable length to a real-life situation but only sourced to the fiction of movies and T.V. Bielle (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are in possession of inside information on which it is illegal to trade, trading does not suddenly become legal simply by using the strategems you suggest. You are still placing trades on the basis of inside information. It would be different if you had a preexisting trading plan under Rule 10b5-1. Would you get away with it? It's hard to say. Although the SEC likes to catch all insider traders, even those who lose money, they do have to set priorities. The very oddness of your strategy might get you caught: Who uses a buy stop order without a corresponding short sale? The regulators have access to market data and can identify odd trading patterns with computerized analyses, so it doesn't pay to get too cute. But you might get through the net, because they aren't focused on strategies that are ineffectual. And your strategy would probably be ineffectual. When there is great good news, the stock doesn't just gradually rise; it jumps. So, by the time your order is filled, the trading price would already reflect the news, and you would get the same high price that everyone else got.

Tamfang: The law prohibits the purchase or sale of a security of any issuer, on the basis of material nonpublic information about that security or issuer, in breach of a duty of trust or confidence that is owed directly, indirectly, or derivatively, to the issuer of that security or the shareholders of that issuer, or to any other person who is the source of the material nonpublic information. There is a discussion at this blog post on when information is nonpublic. John M Baker (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• It would be particularly interesting to hear more about insider trading by espionage agencies or their fronts or personnel. I would think that they should have no need for public funding, though I suppose nobody turns down more money. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@Bielle . . . Gordon Gekko was fiction?!?, aw you just burst my bubble ;-), to step back just for a moment the OP is basically asking how serious Federal felonies (not to mention rule breaking that can bar you from owning/running a company, get you kicked out of the exchange and have any professional licenses revoked) can be evaded(or to that affect) in the context of non-legal advice, so isn't this all speaking hypothetically . . . or fictionally? The best most widely understood examples would be fiction, and as I said earlier Wall Street is so realistic with character development and actual events it is somewhat scary, with Oliver Stones father exposing him to "the Street" for the first 18-19 years of his life. That said, I did chuckle some at your poking fun! Marketdiamond (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

@Wnt . . . although not impossible to overcome part of the problem for espionage agencies or their fronts or personnel is that your assets are put under a fine tooth comb once you deposit them into a brokerage account in the U.S., Japan or Europe. To come in with the amount of cash to make it worth all the time and trouble would attract serious attention on how exactly ones "organization" was coming into all this money, and the nightmare of many of these espionage agencies is that once a U.S. or European or Japanese market even suspects that it is illicit the government can freeze and or seize those accounts, and now your talking years and years and depositions and witnesses and courts and appeals just to get back to square one. The whole point of having an espionage organization is to not have it know that you are that, as John M Baker correctly pointed out the government (and the exchanges and brokerage firms) have lots of power and access to your data and information. Think how they caught Al Capone, if your into espionage the stock market would be one of the last places you'd want those 100,000s or millions showing up, even worse to have it show up with you intimidating or attempting to buy your way into information and then having to explain not only where all this untraceable money came from to invest but how exactly someone not on Wall Street for a number of years posted these kinds of profits so quickly. There was some news stories a few years ago about the Mafia roughing up and shaking down some brokers and brokerage offices for influence. Now the more interesting stories would be of investors who after a decade or two working their way as insiders in the market then turned to espionage and used espionage in the market and to launder money, but again either the espionage group would need to court people with decades of experience in the markets and with their own large asset accounts or people turning to espionage on their own after such decades long experience, which in a way is how the CIA was founded. When your speaking about those few types of people best of luck getting any complete and actual stories. Would be interesting to hear them though if you did. Marketdiamond (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Infant formula -> To Autism? Why no study?

How come there doesn't appear to be a study linking infant formula (or compounds thereof) to the forming of Autism? Wouldn't it be obvious that Autism rates are skyrocketing because something poisonous is being added to the babies' / toddlers' daily sustenance?

I swear, if a substance found in a set of children's products is ever positively linked to the epidemic, this finding could trigger the most epic class-action lawsuit of the century! --70.179.167.78 (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

How thoroughly have you searched for a study? I spent 15 seconds and found a whole bunch of potentially relevant studies here. Your excitement is understandable, but please try to moderate it in case you unnecessarily frighten any parents of newborns with words like "poisonous" and suggesting the link is "obvious". --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In fact,such studies do exist (assuming you mean 'a study investigating the link between infant formula and autism'. I haven't seen a study that proves such a link.) Google Scholar is very useful for this - try searching 'infant formula autism' and you get a number of studies which investigate the link. The top result, interestingly, concludes that "children who were not breastfed or were fed infant formula without docosahexaenoic acid/arachidonic acid supplementation were significantly more likely to have autistic disorder" (emphasis mine) - that is, the study concluded that some infant formulas may provide important compounds (that seem to be present in breast milk) which play a role in reducing autism. You may find different conclusions from other papers whilst searching. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As Cucumber Mike notes, there are many theories, studies and conflicting conclusions about possible environmental causes of autism. On the one hand we have Could Infant Formula Cause Autism ?; on the other hand we have Autism Caused By Breast Milk ?. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) It would be obvious; but it is probably not true, so it isn't. Autism is known to have a significant genetic factor in its etiology. Moreover, there's been (proportionally) excessive emphasis recently on cases of regressive autism, where the child develops autistic traits in late infancy, leading to the loss of already acquired skills. The majority of autism cases do not follow this pattern. And it's important to note that there's been much controversy about the way that some autism causation studies have been conducted, and the lack of review they received before being taken up by the press.

It's not abundantly clear that there is an 'autism epidemic' at all - further research is needed, but with historical data lacking, it's always going to be hard to be sure. It's still possible that the perceived increase in autism is simply an increase in detection rates. There are many with a vested interest in claiming that such a thing exists. For example, the web site 'Age of Autism' is run by a communications manager from the Unification Church, or Moonies; hardly what I would call a neutral or reliable source.

The publication of DSM5 next year will probably lead to a reappraisal of some of these issues, as it looks set to amend the medical definition of autism. and that's not trivial; autism is not a transmissible condition which can be subjected to regular epidemiological analysis, but a neurological condition which may have one or several causes. It is not detected by checking the patient's blood for antibodies or bacteria, but by assessment by a trained professional according to the DSM criteria (or the equivalent and substantially derivative European standards). And those criteria are subject to change.

It's worth reading the UK National Autistic Society's pages on the causes of Autism: [2]

The NAS (unlike, for example, Autism Speaks) is well-supported and well-regarded by people who themselves have autism, and is not ideologically committed to demonstrating any foregone conclusions about the causes of the condition. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Seen not all agree, that lead to the conclusions that it is not obvious that autism rates are skyrocketing or that something is being added to baby formula or that the second is the cause of the first. Some people speculate that vaccines are the cause of many autism cases, many more consider it a genetic disorder. See MMR vaccine controversy and Causes of autism for the alternative view. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I point out that, as in so many cases of childhood conditions that are neither superficially obvious nor amenable to surgery, the layman's response is to either a) blame mother for caising the problem, generally through non-conformity ("coldness", allowing vaccines, formula feeding, etc., etc.) or b) blame the mother for making the affliction up in her tiny inferior neurotic female brain. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sexual attraction and ethnicity

Are people predisposed towards finding people of similar ethnicity more sexually attractive than others, or is the prevalence of such relationships merely the result of availability and cultural norms? Ankh.Morpork 12:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles Allophilia, Xenophily... AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah neither of those are about sexual attraction... --Viennese Waltz 13:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

They're about generalized attraction which can include sexual attraction in some cases. AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness touches on race in a few places. Your question seems like a bit of a false dichotomy - sexual attraction is certainly affected by cultural norms. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I may have been unclear. I certainly understand that cultural norms will affect the nature of people's sexual proclivities and may even serve as the predominant factor. What I am curious about is whether in addition to this artificially induced behavior, there exists an underlying genetic impulse that affects our interracial sexual behavior. Ankh.Morpork 14:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There could possibly be 'an underlying genetic impulse', but if so it is an 'impulse' operating on a social construct - 'race'/ethnicity etc aren't biological facts in the first place, and whether someone is seen as 'of similar ethnicity' depends very much on the context. Even if this 'impulse' exists though, it appears not to be a particularly strong one - otherwise the 'cultural norms' (and the mechanisms to enforce them), them wouldn't be needed in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"'race'/ethnicity etc aren't biological facts in the first place" - While certain ethnic determinants such as a common history, language or culture are socially designed, there are genetic similarities that are very much biological. Ankh.Morpork 14:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

'Genetic similarities' between what and what? Please explain without resorting to social constructs... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The genetic relationship argument is largely bullshit. There are people from neighboring villages in Africa that each share more genetically with a person from France than either shares with each other. What counts for a "race" or an "ethnicity" in one culture is vastly different from what counts in another. The article Race and genetics is a decent read, and notes many of the problems with finding a genetic component to racial categories. The short story is that there isn't one, or where there is, it actually doesn't bear out in ways that justify the arbitrary racial characterizations we have (such as genetic malarial resistance among sub-Saharan Africans). --Jayron32 16:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The article that you refer to delineates the various positions on this issue and I am not convinced that your summation that "the short story is that there isn't one [a genetic component]" is accurate. Notably, Lewontin's Fallacy contested this line of thought, and was later endorsed by evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins. I will add that it is misleading to refer to our tiny genetic variations and adduce this as proof of genetic similarity. By the same token, we should not make a taxonomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees which share a 98% genetic make-up, and would you similarly contend that our sex is of no genetic significance since there are people from neighboring villages in Africa that each share more genetically with the opposite sex then than either shares with each other? Here, Dawkins addresses the significance of racial classification and adumbrates theories involving sexual selection in explanation of racial differences. Ankh.Morpork 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

However, it is known that people are attracted to people who look like themselves [3], and people who are genetically more similar to you are more likely to look like you. I think Jared Diamond had a chapter about this in The Third Chimpanzee. Buddy431 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly valid to claim that there is a genetic component to attractiveness. But genetics is not ethnicity. --Jayron32 16:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that you can assert that "people are attracted to people who look like themselves" is 'known' based on a single questionable experiment - which said nothing about ethnicity. Not that ethnicity necessarily has much at all to do with how people look. How many of us could tell a Serb from a Croat by appearance? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's based on more than one experiment, that's just the one that I pulled off the internet first. Certain features among sexual partners, from the length of the earlobe to the distance between the eyes, show much higher correlation than they do among the general population [4]. Again, I'm not saying that it's all genetic or all cultural, and there are obviously confounding variables, but it's an interesting field. Buddy431 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump cherry-picked two ethnicities that happened to be very similar. How many people can tell a Chinese from an Italian, or an Arab from a Jew? See also homophily, which has been confirmed by experiments in not just humans, but other animals. --140.180.247.208 (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"How many people can tell... an Arab from a Jew"? Or indeed "a Jew" from "a non-Jew". If you want to suggest that there is a correlation between appearance and ethnicity, I can't think of a less useful one than that. Whatever 'Jeweshness' is, it has very little to do with biologically-determined appearance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You guys can argue all you want about how ethnicity's "constructed" or false or whatever else, but for most of our history people have defined themselves in these terms so you can't just sweep away that they exist because they have an ugly history.

As to actually attempt to answer the OPs question instead of diving into a generic discussion about race/ethnicity/nature-vs-nurture, which these discussions are wont to do, here's a modest attempt at some references at this desk:

• Some OK Cupid internal studies. Perhaps not the same as being published in Science, but on the other hand they have a large dataset and it's people acting in real world conditions, not responding to what they think they should say. There are some very interesting findings in some of these posts: [5] [6].
• Here are some more scholarly ones (some behind paywalls): Homophily in online dating: when do you like someone like yourself? doi 10.1145/1056808.1056919
• Assessing attractiveness in online dating profiles doi 10.1145/1357054.1357181
• Racial preferences in dating, "Females exhibit stronger racial preferences than males....Older subjects and more physically attractive subjects exhibit weaker same-race preferences." 0034-6527/08/00060117
• Mate Preferences and Matching Outcomes in Online Dating

There's a lot of research on this subject. Just use some google scholar. Shadowjams (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

None of which has any relevance to the question asked by AnkhMorpork - which is whether there is any biological predisposition towards this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

rofl... "people predisposed towards finding people of similar ethnicity more sexually attractive than others, or is the prevalence of such relationships merely the result of availability and cultural norms?" If you bothered to look at some of those studies they speak directly to that question. For instance I believe the 4th one talks about how social friction may have a lot to do with those differences, as do changes throughout ages and other issues. But by all means, get back to the tangent discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What AndyTheGrump is saying is that such studies do not in any way disentangle the social from the predisposed (biological). They show that social categories of race matter in attractiveness — which the OP was already aware of, and asserting. They do not explain why. Social factors obviously play a big role, which the OP already knew. The question is whether there are more than social factors. I'm not sure how you'd measure such a thing empirically. Even with twin studies the cultural influences are going to be pretty dang huge. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Experience can figure into it also. Maybe Grumpy has not heard the expression, "Once you go black, you never go back." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like this is the sort of thing which could be easily turned on its head by the KKK and other racists. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Were you unfamiliar with that saying until now? (I.e., is it an Americanism unfamiliar outside NA?) μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember that some of the news stories during the Bosnian war described the Albanians as a uniquely attractive people - though I think I must have that mixed up with the Bosniaks and/or the Kosovo War! Wnt (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

All the world's geniuses

i'd like to get a view of all the worlds geniuses. I have heard that before this generation there has been many geniuses.This leaves a question on my mind,who are they?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.2.168 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You can start with me, although my reporting that will have to remain WP:OR. See Genius and Lewis Terman. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Terman article refers to the stereotype of "conceited, freakish, socially eccentric, and [insane]". Just saying. Ankh.Morpork 22:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And? Stanford-Binet IQ test is probably a lot less fun. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want a good scholarly work on human achievement, with plenty of lists, you should read the book Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray, here at Amazon. Unfortunately it lacks many of my favorite geniuses like J. R. R. Tolkien and Ayn Rand because their primary works were dated after 1950. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Genius and achievement are by no means synonymous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sure the OP is fascinated by yours and Pork's suggested reading. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Genius is such a squirmy concept, it's difficult to draw the line after the obvious choices: Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, etc. I for one wouldn't call Tolkien one. Was Sigmund Freud a genius? What about Napoleon? Steve Jobs? It all depends on your criteria. (P.S. There are more geniuses before this generation simply because there werew more people in total before. Plus any budding ones may not yet be recognized for their brilliance yet.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Small pendatic point: there were certainly more people in the deep past, but the current "generation" of living people is obviously larger than any in the past. If "genius" is something that occurs as a function of population (so many per thousand), then in theory there are more geniuses in China today than existed in the entire 18th century. In practice, whatever genetic components to "genius" there may be, its expression, application, and broader identification must surely rely on social conditions of various sorts. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Tolkien definitely was a genius, his work is important in multiple fields, not that he compares with the top people listed in Murray's work, which I again recommend. Murray claimed in an interview that he held Aristotle in the highest regard, and I agree with that judgment. Aristotle, Newton, Galileo, Descartes, Goethe, and Da Vinci all rank in multiple categories according to Murray. Beethoven, Shakespeare, Edison and Watt all rank at the top of one category. Note that all of these names are one-word links to the person involved, except for the last two, whose names are still linked prominently and for obvious reasons at those pages. Avicenna and Averroes deservedly take their place at the top of the Muslim world. I cannot myself from experience comment on oriental culture.μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want some interesting polymaths (i.e. people who work in multiple fields to a great degree of success), two of my favorite are Greg Graffin and Brian May, two highly successful musicians who somehow found the time to also be gifted academics. They have PhDs in fields unrelated to music, and also serve as professional academics. Besides leading Bad Religion, one of the fathers of hardcore punk, Gaffin is also a university lecturer in evolutionary biology and anthropology. Brian May is a fantastically great guitarist, built his own electric guitar from scratch (like carved it from wood and also installed all of the electronics and stuff), and oh, he has a PhD in astrophysics and is also a University Chancellor. People who can operate at that level of success in multiple, unrelated fields are quite facinating to me as well. --Jayron32 03:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And, he wrote the best Queen song of all time, Too Much Love Will Kill You, and sang it alongside Luciano Pavarotti. --Trovatore (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If that isn't enough, he fosters injured wildlife on his farm. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c x 2) Yes, most of us probably have our own internal lists of geniuses, but if pressed we probably couldn't say exactly why one person's in but another's out. There is no generally agreed definition; certain people are widely considered to be so (Leonardo, Newton, Einstein ...) but there are those who would say that Einstein was the devil incarnate because his work ultimately led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But then, who's to say that geniuses are only ever associated with deeds that are uplifting to the human spirit? Some infamous denizens of the dark side have been referred to as "criminal geniuses". Without a definition, anything goes, really. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Einstein came up with the general equation of the equivalence of mass and energy, but didn't do much of the work which directly led to the possibility of the atomic bomb. AnonMoos (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say he didn't do any of it, unless you include signing his name to the grant proposal.

It's an interesting question, though, whether having the theoretical framework of relativity aided the development of the bomb. It clearly wasn't necessary in the strict sense — the experimentalists had observed fission, and presumably the energy derived from it, and in principle should have been able to build a bomb without knowing that it "converted mass to energy". They could have thought of the energy as coming from the mutual repulsion of the two positively-charged fragments of the uranium nucleus (which is, of course, a correct description), and still built the bomb.

But we humans have our peculiarities, and one of them is that we work better when we have a conceptual framework to hang things on. So it might have helped.

Does anyone know whether there's any evidence that the calculation of the mass difference of the U nucleus from the sum of its daughters, put through Einstein's formula, was used by the Manhattan team (or earlier, by Fermi) as a way of predicting the energy output, before experimental results were available? --Trovatore (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was used by Meitner and Frisch to calculate the energy released from the fission of a uranium atom in 1938, when they first came up with the physical explanation. Of course, in the spirit of all of the other pedantry, I hasten to add that nuclear fission in and of itself is not what makes atomic bombs, it is the chain reaction. That's its own separate thing; if for whatever reason a chain reaction was impossible, nuclear fission would just be an interesting physical curiosity. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki lies squarely on the stretched neck of Hideki Tōjō. μηδείς (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

O ye of little reading but much haste to correct. What I said was "his work ultimately led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki". I know damn well that he didn't directly contribute to it and cannot be directly blamed. But some people have made the tenuous connection and pointed the finger. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Jack, I just have to point out that, as you're addressing only one person (at least I think you are), it needs to be O thou, not O ye. --Trovatore (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I was addressing everyone who made a comment after me, about the blame for the bombings. Not all were replying directly to me, but all were commenting on the subject I raised. If your comment is really about my indenting, you may have a point. But the editor before me may have confused matters, so best start with them. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The connection between E=mc² and the A-bomb seems to have entered the popular consciousness due to the Smyth Report, but Einstein was not actually prominent in the work which directly laid the foundations for nuclear weapons... AnonMoos (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Mass–energy equivalence#Radioactivity and nuclear energy... AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I should have mentioned Maimonides, Spinoza, and Nietzsche, as well as Leibnitz. And, of course, Jefferson and Franklin. μηδείς (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Donal Wales.</wiki> --Robert Keiden (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to put forwards Roger Bacon to a list of genii. And also, if you look at child prodigies, John Stuart Mill and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Darwin: a scientist doesn't need to be a genius. Wallace almost published his Theory of Evolution before Darwin. Napolean: yes. Confucius, Copernicus, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell: yes. Edison: a first-rank genius.
Sleigh (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if Darwin had never published, it wouldn't necessarily impact his claims to being a genius. I'm not sure how one can evaluate whether Copernicus was a genius or not — not much to go on, and his version of heliocentrism was unconvincing and incomplete, something he himself knew. I think your list, and this page in general, suffers a bit too much from textbook versions of the history of science, which are big on mnemonic hero worship but bad on facts. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Edison, Nikola Tesla is in the news at the moment because of the new Tesla museum. The organizer of the funding describes him a "this insane mega genius" [7].  Card Zero  (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If you reverse the order of "insane" and "mega" that works.--Robert Keiden (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Jayron mentioned the article Polymath, above. We also have a List of people who have been called a "polymath", which, as the specicifity of its title indicates, has been the subject of endless heated debate, both before and since it was hacked out of the Polymath article in 2009. --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Judging from responses given so far, we can narrow down the population of possible geniuses to white men (Confucius being an exception). — Kpalion^(talk) 11:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I was going to add Mary Wollstonecraft, so I'll add her after that statement. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As per the above discussion concerning "Hiroshima and Nagasaki", cannot nuclear weapons be put to good use, such as in altering the paths of incoming asteroids or larger celestial bodies? (If done carefully, of course.) The question is a general one: aren't there any potentially beneficial applications for the destructive very large power of nuclear explosions? (Sorry, as this is off-topic.) Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. See Operation Plowshare, or Project Orion, for examples. Whether the potential for blowing big holes in the ground, or powering cool sci-fi spaceships, makes up for the real possibility of mass annihilation is an open question. The original idea that genius and social good are related seems totally silly to me, though. Nobody can doubt that John von Neumann was a genius, but he was far more hawkish than Einstein ever was, and there's no doubt about his contributions to the development of weapons of mass destruction. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Our article "Asteroid impact avoidance" also mentions nuclear weapons as a possible means of altering the path of a Near-Earth object. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Whether they'd work or not depends on the type of asteroid. If it's big and solid, they're a good idea. If it is loose and diffuse, they're not. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Kpalion, you talk of narrowing but I think of expanding our horizons and looking at the bigger picture. Just for starters, there are heartbreaking works of staggering genius, failed genius, evil geniuses, genius shit, geniuses who didn’t know they were geniuses, schools for geniuses, salons for geniuses, political genius, aqueous genius, comedic genius, black genius, dark geniuses, neurotic genius, billionaire geniuses, supreme geniuses, genius sperm banks, lone geniuses, mythological Genius and his feminine counterpart, and how to keep a genius busy for hours. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Kpalion, fewer than half a dozen of the first 20 names on the list of polymaths were probably white. In fact, one user, now banned, complained that there were too many Arabs in the list! More recent entries do tend to fall in line with our general systemic bias problem. But I'd also argue that most of the recent entries aren't really polymaths in the true sense - one of the reasons why the editors of the article (myself included) try so hard to make it into WP:LAME. The preponderence of men in such a list is easily understood by considering that gender equality has barely begun to make an impact, relative to the 4,500 years of history covered by the article. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Dweller, I was referring to the names mentioned in this thread, not in the list of people who have been called a "polymath". And I'm glad to see that list is somewhat less biased (although I would still count most Arabs as whites). As for female geniuses, perhaps there's been fewer of them because of the phenomenon AnonMoos wrote about above (men and women have the same average intelligence, but males have a greater range [standard deviation] of intelligences). But ingenius women have definitely existed; Mary Wollstonecraft was mentioned above, so let me add Marie Curie to make it two. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Mr 98, Murray goes into quite some detail as to his methodology in Humman Accomplishment, his work is not based on subjective intuition. @ Tammy, Mozart is tied with Beethoven at the top of Murray's list of composers, although he does list Beethoven first. It would be interesting to see where Lennon and McCartney would have placed. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing Murray's work whatsoever. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware I said you did. I was just taking your comments seriously and suggesting that there was actually someone who has tried to look into the matter in a rigorous way. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously though. If Jimbo doesn't fit polymath where would you put him? polyeverything?--Robert Keiden (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Lots of people are polymaths. Even I have always described myself on my user page as a "pauper's polymath". No way does that make me a genius. Not by my definition. Whatever it is. All I know is, whatever my definition would be if I had one, I wouldn't fit it. Others are naturally free to disagree. Very welcome, in fact. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Twelve Tables

This article just simply says this law gave rights to the plebeians but it doesn't not specially say what rights do the plebeians got. So what specially the rights the plebeians got due to this Twelve Tables law? Can someone know the answer just add the info into the article? Or leave the answer here and I will add it to article. Info must include sources otherwise it would be consider as made up information.Pendragon5 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The external links section of that article gives a link to their translation. See http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps01_1.htm μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Who took this picture?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.133.237 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That file is poorly documented. The "author" field should identify the photographer, but just mentions the Yugoslavian national revolutionary museum. The actual photographer may be unknown. μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Slobodanka Vasić (Požarevac, 23 March 1925 – ? ). See for example [8]. Is she still alive? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Or possibly Radojko Antić (26 January 1927-1971) [9][10]. And here's a print citation for Vasić as photographer:

Oops. The last one is not yet published. So I guess its still OR for now. --Robert Keiden (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the link Pp.paul provided says that "Slobodanka je mnogo kad pominjana kao najverovatniji autor poznate fotografije vešanja u Valjevu, 22. maja 1942. godine, partizana Stjepana-Steve Filipovića. ", translated that would mean:"Slobodanka is often mentioned as the most probable author of the famous photograph of the hanging of Partisan Stjepen-Stevo Filipovic". The links by Robert Kaiden hold the claim that Radojko Antic (14 at the time, sitting on the shoulders of his father) was in fact the author and the announcement of a book to be published about the subject of the photograph's authorship (apparently this books stance is that the author is Slobodanka Vasic. 164.71.1.222 (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In any case, both worked for the same photographer and tell more or less the same story of the picture's origins, aside from the actual photographer. There is another reference here pretty much down the page. The men depicted in the background are presumably Serbian guards. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

References