Humanities desk
< November 19	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 20

States that require ultrasound before abortion

Is there a list of states that require women to view an ultrasound before having an abortion?Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion in the United States by state features a color-coded map. It's mainly just Texas and Louisiana that absolutely require the woman to see the ultrasound, though about a dozen other states have laws pushing it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was looking all over the place, but you've just nailed it now. Now, I'm not meaning to ask a potentially inflammatory question, but have there been any studies done to investigate whether women in Louisiana and Texas decide to continue their pregnancy after seeing an ultrasound? I saw a research study saying that the majority who saw it still decided to terminate their pregnancy, but the study was conducted in Los Angeles.Uncle dan is home (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to ask the question you've asked, and I have no answer for it. I'm not sure that there would be anything particularly special about women from those two states that would make them differ from those surveyed in other studies. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What might be special about them would be the amount of coercion those two states might engage in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or there may be a difference between people who have chosen to see the ultrasound, and people who are forced to see it - I would expect the latter to have a higher rate of abortion, as the first group will select against those that are so sure that they feel no need to see the ultrasound. MChesterMC (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, coercion by the state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Serious question, no trolling) Prostitutes as a economic index

People talk about using gold standard or use big mac as a index to check for the real value of the money and etc....
My question is, would be prostitution prices a good index?
Prostitute don't depend on items (other than condoms) and so their job dont depent on the price of other stuff or their availability. They also pay no taxes.
PS:This is a genuine question, I am not trolling.201.78.176.7 (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see two immediate problems. First, prostitution is not a commodity market. Services are not standardised, but quite diverse and specialised. Thus, it is very hard to compute a price index. A Big Mac is a Big Mac is a Big Mac. Secondly, prostitution is illegal (if often tolerated) or semi-legal in many jurisdictions. It is socially shunned in most if not all markets. As such, it is usually part of an underground economy with little if any visible accounting. So its economic impact is hard to measure. In summary, I don't think it is particularly suitable to measure economic activity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be methods of at least estimating the value of illegal businesses like prostitution and the drugs trade, as they are included in the UK GDP: (Link). Fgf10 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a back of the envelope kind of calculation. Llaanngg (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim prostitutes pay no taxes seems dubious. In places where prostitution is largely legal I'm not sure if prostitutes tax compliance is that much worse than some others in the services industry, especially if we exclude those who mostly work in the street. Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In places were prostitution was decriminalized (most of Europe), it's not seen as a profession, so no one is paying taxes as a prostituted person. If they pay, they register as some other profession for social insurance and taxes. The only place that I know were prostituted people are employees is in Germany, but there are apparently just a tiny fraction, something like 0.001%, registered officially prostitutes. Llaanngg (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Tax man goes after sex workers and escort agencies to stop evasion. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, these "businesses" are registered as something else for tax purposes if they are paying taxes - massage parlor, sauna, escort agency, or simply a pub. That makes difficult to know how the prices are. Or are not paying taxes at all and being persecuted by the British tax man. Llaanngg (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you can't use the info to determine prices, but that's a separate issue from whether or not they're paying taxes. Note also in many countries business registration isn't simply about taxes, even if it tends to be a big part of it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how employees came in to it. You don't need to be an employee to pay taxes, otherwise everyone will be self-employed. Here is NZ's guidance for self-employed sex workers [1]. Note that there may be no need to declare a profession when reporting income, you may simply need to report how much you've earned. See e.g. NZ's individual tax return form [2]. Even if some indication of where the self-employment income came from is needed, it's possible you don't really need a great level of detail, e.g. perhaps something like "personal services" will be sufficient. Now if you get audited, I assume you will need to tell them where your income came from but otherwise I'm pretty sure the tax department doesn't care provided you're paying all the tax you're supposed to.

In NZ, if you have a turnover $60,000 or more, you'd need to register for GST. In that case, I think you'll need to declare a but more about what you do. Likewise if you want to start a business for some reason, I think you'll need to declare a bit more. But neither of these are going to apply in all cases of sex work.

By the same token, not all countries require someone to "register" a profession whether for tax purposes o some other purpose. I.E. it may be there's no need to be a "registered official prostitute" anymore than there's need to be a "registered official home cleaner" or "register official lawnmower". Provided you're complying with all relevant laws (including tax laws), what you job is (and whether you want to call it a profession or not) is ultimately your business (except when it comes to the census, but that doesn't make it your register official job).

In countries with less liberal laws on prostitution you can't be complying with all relevant laws. And the tax situation can be more complicated, e.g. the UK example mentioned above. But it's likely at least some, especially high end sex workers are paying at least some tax (whether it's all they're supposed to). Tax authorities generally have great power and great interest in pursuing those not paying tax regardless of the legality of their source of income, especially those earning a lot of money. (Although it's true these high end ones probably don't come in to the price assuming you're using a median.)

Likewise the claim "no one is paying taxes as a prostituted person. If they pay, they register as some other profession for social insurance and taxes" is questionable. Even if it the later part is true, if they are paying income tax on their earnings from sex work, as far as most people are likely to be concerned they are paying tax as prostitutes/sex workers. Whatever tax authorities or government claims. Otherwise you can come up with weird stuff like saying "people mowing lawns, or home cleaners, or whatever else isn't a 'recognised' profession' don't pay taxes".

Ultimately the point remains, the implication of the first post that prostitutes never pay tax is quite dubious. Some do pay tax. Their tax compliance is likely to be quite variable. In some cases it may be a lot worse than others with similar jobs (e.g. person to person cash jobs). In other cases it may very well be similar.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing is problematic, but I could see the percentage of the population engaged in prostitution being a potential indication of the economy: if an economy is down (but not apocalyptically so), prostitution may increase due to clients being unable to afford long-term relationships and potential prostitutes having trouble finding other work. However, this is complicated by developed economies shifting to service industry jobs (which prostitution falls under), as well as social factors. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitutes definitely pay taxes - they just pay them to the real government, not the one that claims to prohibit them. See also pimp... Wnt (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As others have noted, prostitution is not illegal everywhere, so the idea that prostitutes universally don't pay income tax is false. Even in places where it is illegal it's likely many prostitutes who work as "escorts", "housekeepers", "hostesses", etc. pay income tax. Especially if they use the banking system, they're more likely to get the tax authorities after them for not paying income tax then they are to get caught breaking prostitution laws. That's what they got Al Capone on, after all. (Also, there are many taxes other than income tax; using "tax" to mean "income tax" is, I think, a sloppy use of language. It's often pretty hard to avoid paying sales taxes, VAT, property taxes, etc. in jurisdictions that have them.) --47.138.163.230 (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This site appears to be a mine of information. [3]. There is also a search function which brings up information on specific topics, for example [4]. 86.134.217.94 (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date

Does anyone know where I can find a birth date for this guy (Steven Frederick Spears)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A date has now appeared in his article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a date has now appeared. But, that's not my question. I have been searching high and low for that guy's birth date, but I could find nothing at all. Then, that date appeared out of the blue. So, does anyone know where I can find a birth date for this guy? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Unfortunately the editor who added the date did not provide a WP:RS and the refs used in the article did not mention a date. If anyone can find one then please feel free to add a correct date. MarnetteD|Talk 20:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term prospect of YouTube stardom

Traditional films are preserved, no matter how old they are. We can watch a 50 year old movie, a 100 year old movie. These movies have great historical significance, they tell us about the culture and society of that times. But many people now a days are relying on YouTube to promote their films and videos. Stars are using YouTube as a platform. if someday in the future, YouTube or its parent company goes bankrupt, and the site no longer available, what will happen to those millions of videos, films and stars who relied on YouTube for their popularity? will these stars go into oblivion? today's generation remember Fay Wray, Marilyn Monroe, Charlie Chaplin, Marlon Brando, Audrey Hepburn, but will tomorrow's generation remember today's YouTube stars? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional films are preserved, no matter how old they are." No. A great many have been lost and losses continue. Ditto TV & radio - huge amounts lost huge amounts not archived. Meanwhile digital preservation is also a huge problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One simple question: if youtube goes offline, what will happen to the videos? Will they die with youtube? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest films were recorded on nitrocellulose film, this was replaced with cellulose acetate film. Both of these rot with time. A lot of TV programs in the 60s and 70s were recorded on (then) expensive magnetic tape; at the time there was no perceived value in keeping old recordings, and they were often wiped. It is only with the advent of cheaper tape, and the realisation of the home video and re-run markets, that programs are kept. According to Lost film, 90% of pre-1929, and 50% of 1930-1950 films have been lost. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what happens if Youtube offline, the simple answer is we can't predict since it will depend on the precise circumstances and we don't have a WP:Crystal ball. It also depends on what content. Youtube does have a lot of music videos, trailers, copyvios of TV episodes, movies, newsclips and sports broadcasts, etc which may be archived elsewhere. Admittedly for some of the last 2, since many people have smartphones but it's harder to figure out how to record content (heck for many people even if it's playing on their computer), some of these Youtubes videos may be somewhat unique in that you can see the phone moving etc. (In some cases only the shittiest recordings can survive due to Youtube's copyvio detection although I haven't actually seen those for a while so maybe it no longer applies.) But in most cases people aren't interested in that and if anything would prefer a quality direct recording. For user created content, some creators do upload it to more than Youtube for various reasons. For content uploaded exclusively to Youtube which is perhaps what you're referring to, if it's famous enough there's probably already an upload (likely copyvio) elsewhere. It also seems to me it's only a matter of time (if it isn't already happening) that the US Library of Congress and other national archives will preserve content significant to their countries originally released on Youtube and other such places. Other stuff may be preserved elsewhere for various reasons. E.g. archive.org appears to have some Youtube content [5]. Still there's a fair amount of content that isn't likely to be anywhere else, perhaps not even archived by the creator. (Live broadcasts are only going to add to that.) If Youtube suddenly dies tomorrow then perhaps it'll be lost. More likely there'll be an announcement and efforts will be made to preserve as much content as possible. E.g. as happened with Geocities. Note of course, for the foreseeable future many of the other places the content may preserved are more likely to die before Youtube, so this gets back to the earlier question, under what circumstance. Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People living in the world in 4000 CE will find it easier to visualize and understand daily life, economy, society, culture, politics, and warfare of the 21st century compared to how we try to visualize the society of 1st century CE. We do not have any live video of the Fall of Constantinople, but people in 4000 CE can easily see footage of 21st century warfare. These videos have the same historical value of Histories (Herodotus) or Annals (Tacitus). But unlike Histories and Annals, there is no organized public effort to preserve the current videos. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a terrible omission on our part. Fortunately we have left them beautiful historical footage of the fall of Troy... Wnt (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reconstruction of that time based on the interpretation of available archeological evidence and historical texts. If the interpretations process suffers from error, the reconstruction would be erroneous too. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries do have now "Web archives" which may contain videos that are noticed for their importance. Also there is the internet archive --Lgriot (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are fragmented private efforts. Is there any unified international multi-stakeholder effort to preserve those things (videos, films, print and online media articles, contemporary accounts of society, travelogues, objects) that will become historical evidence 2000 years from now? Is there any such effort on part of the United Nations or the UNESCO? Is there any global repository of the entire human history? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a UN-sponsored effort, but the International Internet Preservation Consortium is a network of national libraries, and some other organisations, doing exactly this. Warofdreams talk 15:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navy recipes, 1946

During our recent honeymoon in Hawaii, my wife and I decided to cook the Thanksgiving menu posted in the mess of the USS Missouri (BB-63). Based on the CO, it appears to be the menu from 28 November 1946. The menu references whipped creamed potatoes, likely just a type of mashed. There's also "old fashioned cranberry sauce" which I'm guessing is the non-jellied variety. Is there any archive (hopefully on the internet) of what was actually involved in these items or hopefully the recipes themselves? 73.140.114.77 (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old-Fashioned Cranberry Sauce:

http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/old-fashioned-cranberry-sauce

The cook book of the Navy from 1944:

https://archive.org/stream/TheCookBookOfTheUnitedStatesNavy1944#page/n81/mode/2up/search/cranberry

212.96.33.44 (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mare magnum siue

In this T and O map, what's the "Mare magnum ſiue" that separates Asia from the other continents? I'm curious both about the term itself (what the mapmaker presumably meant by putting that inscription there, versus another inscription or no inscription at all) and the purpose of putting a great sea [siue] in that location. I can understand it being the Red Sea between Asia and Africa, but I'm unclear what (if anything) in real life, aside from a desire for symmetry, would have inspired its placement between Europe and Asia. Google finds essentially nothing, and I checked the Latin Wikipedia, but la:mare magnum siue doesn't exist and a search for the words in the phrase (not for the phrase as a phrase) found literally one article, la:Lubeca, i.e. Lübeck. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Siue" just means "or", and the rest of the description is written vertically - "Mare magnum sive mediterraneum", i.e. "the Great Sea, or the Mediterranean Sea". I guess in this case the Mediterranean represents the Nile/Red Sea, as well as the Black Sea/Don River that the cross-bar of the T usually signifies. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I didn't know that the vertical text was part of the same inscription, and I had no clue that the left side conventionally represented the Black and the Don; the Black makes sense, so I guess they had to pick something to fill out the T? Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]