Humanities desk
< April 29	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	May 1 >

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.

April 30[edit]

Cream of the cloth[edit]

Catholic priests must be celibate, but are they allowed to donate sperm? Let's assume that the spermatorium in question complies with all relevant standards: its clients must be Catholics in good standing; under no circumstances may they be lesbian, unmarried, or Unitarian. Assuming all these things, would an ordained priest be allowed to make a donation? If not, why not? LANTZY ^TALK 06:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because celibacy also means no masturbation. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allowed by whom? I don't see why the spermatorium would object. And the Catholic authorities would just give them a slap on the wrist and assign them to a different diocese. As for whether the priest's conscience would allow him.......--86.25.194.171 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if they must under no circumstances be unmarried, then Catholic priests would automatically fail that criterion. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the OP was suggeting Catholic priests should be the clients of the spermatorium, simply the one time contractors (or whatever you want to call them) Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that kind of client. I was thinking of "client" in its broadest meaning. Occupational hazard of being a big picture person, I guess. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to Adam's response. There are also techniques of surgical sperm retrieval, and spermatozoa can be retrieved from the morning urine, though I couldn't find any reference that these samples are or can be used for fertilization. (This paper says no.)---Sluzzelin talk 07:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic prohibition of masturbation (which is unrelated to its requirement that priests be celibate and applies to all Catholics, not just priests) is because it is wasting sperm rather than using them for procreation. If the semen produced was donated specifically for the creation of a child, that argument disappears. If that argument were used to ban priests from donating sperm, the ban would apply to all Catholics - is that the case? While there may never have been a ruling on priests donating sperm, I expect there has been on Catholics in general doing so. --Tango (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is: [1] "2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."166 " Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also [2] "all techniques of heterologous artificial fertilization,22 as well as those techniques of homologous artificial fertilization23 which substitute for the conjugal act, are to be excluded. On the other hand, techniques which act as an aid to the conjugal act and its fertility are permitted." Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This also means a spermatorium like you describe wouldn't exactly be a succesful business model Nil Einne (talk)

That answers that question - well found! I particularly love the euphemism, "conjugal act"! --Tango (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't surprise me that the Church opposes artificial insemination in general, but it certainly sucks the fun out of my hypothetical. I was hoping I had discovered a juicy loophole that would allow priests the Darwinian pleasure of perpetuating their genes. So, according to the Church, a child has a right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage, but not the right to remain with that father and mother, since the Church supports adoption agencies, which exist for no other purpose than to place children in the hands of strangers. Perhaps I can anticipate the Church's response: adoption merely rectifies a greater evil, while artificial insemination is "gratuitous" and therefore a sin in the eye of God (a money shot, if you will). So the church's position on Catholic couples who cannot physically conceive is that they may acquire a child only by "grave immorality" on their own part (if they choose artificial insemination) or on the part of someone else (if they choose adoption). But I suppose they should have thought of that before choosing to be infertile. LANTZY ^TALK 10:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I saw someone take that particular tone toward the Catholics' attitude toward procreation, it was to condemn them for opposing birth control. To breed or not to breed, that is the question, but someone's gonna complain no matter whether Catholics choose to reproduce or not. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Tango's reference, masturbation is forbidden on the grounds of wasted sperm. So, Catholic women can masturbate, as orgasm in women has nothing to do with reproduction, but not men, it would seem. Interesting! // BL \\ (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting perhaps, but completely inaccurate. Masturbation is a sin because the only "proper" sex occurs between a man and woman within a marriage, not because it "wastes sperm". If you believe the Catholic church deems female masturbation anything other than a sin, you are mistaken. - Nunh-huh 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What reference? Tango didn't provide a reference, because Tango was just repeating one of those often-repeated 'facts' that people assume are true because so many other people say them. Just because some comedians wrote a song doesn't make it accurate. 80.41.15.80 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Church supports adoption agencies; that does not mean it advocates leaving your child at an adoption agency. The idea of an adoption agency is to care for children who, for whatever reason, cannot be looked after by their parents and to find them families. I have heard it suggested that infertility can be part of a calling to adopt a child. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sedlec-Prčice[edit]

Is it true that the Czech government gave permission to destroy the Jewish cemetery at Sedlec-Prčice as your article claims? --212.73.96.111 (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up, that page needs work – it does not read like an encyclopaedia article and there are no references. I've posted asking for help finding some references on the WP:WikiProject Czech Republic page. To attempt to answer your question, the assertion may very well be wrong. The only website I could find in English is this one from a Jewish geneological society, and it says "the Jewish cemetery is located at 1.5 km N. of town… the present owner of the cemetery property is the local Jewish community of Praha. The cemetery property is now for Jewish cemetery use only…" Hopefully a Czech-speaking editor can confirm or provide more info.(PS anyone can edit Wikipedia, so when you find errors do feel free to fix them.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Czech WP seems (I do not speak the language) to have two pictures of the Jewish cemetery, the gate and a shot of a couple of grave stones. Assuming there may be no Jewish community in Sedlec-Prčice, it seems to be reasonably well maintained. I tried some zooming in on Google maps, but could not locate it there. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet politician replaced by stack of books[edit]

Who was the Soviet politician who was replaced in photographs by a stack of books after he was purged? I've tried googling this all sorts of ways but without success. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of images in the Soviet Union does not mention anyone replaced in this way, but it might have some links you can follow.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No luck there, but the before/after pictures of Trotsky etc are... interesting. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard the story that librarians were told to remove the page with the article about Lavrentiy Beria from a certain encyclopedia, and replace it with a page with a nice photograph of the Bering Strait. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's mentioned in Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Voting Qualifications[edit]

After reading about American exceptionalism in the negative sense I am struck that there is no article summarizing or explaining the qualifications for voting in the U.S. vis a vis other countries. There is a good article on women's suffrage but no equivelent article on universal suffrage or universal male suffrage. One has to page through detail country by country. England after the third Reform Bill of the 1880's still denied at least 40 percent of adult males the right to vote from the until 1919. I believe most of the European countries - except France - didn't give working men - that is non property holders - the right to vote until the turn of the 19th century...but I would have to do research on that. In contrast, the U.S. states...because it was individual state law - eliminated most qualifications for voting except age, gender, and race, long before the Civil War --- but again I would have to do the research on that...Maybe you should farm out this article - It surely wouldn't take much to tie the data together - at least for western Europe and the British commonwealth. Name: Jeff Fiddler Godofredus (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suffrage and Universal suffrage appear to have much of what you seek. If these articles are incomplete, you might want to join in the Wikipedia fun and add your referenced research. Except in the sense that someone volunteers to start a topic, we don't "farm out" anything. (I have removed your email address to help prevent spam.) // BL \\ (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., qualifications were determined at the level of each individual state, of course, but the strong tendency by the time of the presidency of Andrew Jackson was for all white male citizens 21 and older to be permitted to vote (with only relatively few exceptions). Rhode Island didn't fall in line until the aftermath of the Dorr Rebellion, and South Carolina voters weren't allowed to influence the selection of that state's presidential electors until 1868. Some non-whites were allowed to vote in the 19th century, but this varied strongly from state to state; and in some cases non-citizens were allowed to vote in local (municipal) elections. AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a movement to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ch. 11 bankruptcy...-[edit]

I don't get it, I see that Chrysler may be going into Ch. 1 bankruptcy, and people see this as a bad thing, but why? It sounds like they will just restructure the organization but it will still be operational. I don't get what the big deal is. Same with Abitibi Bowater, it is in bankruptcy but its still operating and hasn't laid anyone off yet..--Standis9 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy is certainly better than liquidation, but it is not a great thing. For the first thing, it destroys a company's bond rating which means that it will be very difficult for the restructured company to raise capital on the bond market. Also, it hurts both the shareholders, since the restructured company is worth MUCH less than prior to the bankruptcy, and bondholders, since the company's creditors are often paid off pennies on the dollar for their bonds, likely costing them more than if they were just paid off in liquidated assets. The pensioners and employees hate it, because it allows a bankruptcy judge to change the terms of their contracts with the company without their say, often slashing their priorly agreed-upon benefits. If the options are only two: bankruptcy OR disappearance, bankruptcy comes out better. If the options are three: bankruptcy OR dissapearance OR anything else, anything else usually wins. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, as I understand it, the shareholders are losing everything. Most creditors are getting paid in shares, bondholders are getting $2 for every $6.90. Everyone except some hedge funds agreed to the deal without bankruptcy, I think, so the bankruptcy is just to force those hedge funds to accept it. The company will still be operational, but a lot of people will lose a lot of money (I believe $4.9 billion of debt is being written of). --Tango (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that going into Chapter 11 is a bad thing itself (or no company would do it). But when it happens it's an admission of how bad things actually are. Up until then everyone may have hoped that things weren't bad enough to require Chapter 11. But when it happens, clearly they were that bad. Therefore customer confidence, share price, etc. all plummet. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blame Wheel of Fortune. Recury (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the spelling in an article's name[edit]

In particular, I'm referring to a couple of articles referring to Canadian history circa War of 1812. To whit, DeCew House (presently DeCow) and John DeCew (owner of said house). I'm desirous of changing the article names to reflect modern-day spelling in these cases as I feel this would make the particular articles more useful to casual users of wikipedia as they're less likely to be familiar with the alternate manglings in terms of spelling of the name DeCew. The alternate spellings of DeCew are included within the articles cited and I'm wondering as much how one goes about correcting the spelling of the name of the article itself so as to make it searchable.

Have I, in doing what I have thus far, created a grave wikifauxpas?

TIA Natty10000 (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a minor wikifauxpas. The article has been at DeCou House, and you've changed the spelling at the beginning of the first sentence to "DeCew", thus introducing a discrepancy between the article title and the boldfaced name at the beginning. If the consensus of editors is to use "DeCew", then the article should be moved to DeCew House, which is currently a redirect.

There's no problem with correcting a clear error. In this instance, however, given that the article text already mentions the alternate spellings, this is an issue that's known to the people who've been working on the article. Under those circumstances, the best thing to do would be to revert your own edits and prepare a post explaining your proposed change, putting it on the talk pages of both articles. If no one objects after a few days, go ahead and make the change. Whatever the outcome is, all plausible alternative spellings should be redirects. JamesMLane t c 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better discussed on the talkpage of the article itself, or on WP:Help desk. Alternatively, you can place the template "helpme" (with two curly brackets at each side of the word) on your own talkpage, and a knowledgeable person will talk you through your question. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, that is {{helpme}}, written on your talk page. 80.41.15.80 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T'is (as per suggestion of BrainyBabe). As long as I'm helping make the article more and not less accessible for those looking to use the contained information, all else is secondary.Natty10000 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

shareholder voting[edit]

At a company shareholder meeting, usually shareholders get to vote on certain ballot items. Does this include children who might own shares, or do you have to be a legal adult? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly. There's always going to be age restrictions on the participation of those who are below the age of majority. Their shares will typically be voted by an adult proxy (one parent or the other most usually).Natty10000 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is because children who are below a certain age do not have capacity to contract. The right to vote on certain ballot items arises as a result of the contract of buying shares. Children do not own such shares directly: they are usually held in trust for them by a trustee, e.g. the parent. That trustee is the legal owner of the shares and so holds the right to vote. If, depending on the jursidiction, the child owns the share outright (i.e. at law) then they would also have all the benefits of the shareholding, including the vote attached to it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to an annual general meeting at which a young person participated, so I don't know what the basis is for Natty's assertion. My understanding is that all common shareholders get one vote per share, no matter who they are. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to what I said above: the actual mechanism by which children who are below the age of capacity to contract are prevented from holding shares is usually by the company's own constitutional documents. Since a child below age cannot be held to a contract, it is in the company's interest not to enter into a contract with such a person. Of course, a company could choose not to put such a provision in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably depends on jurisdiction. In UK company law there is no minimum age for a shareholder, and minors may own shares in their own name - see [3], [4]. The company's articles will determine whether a shareholder who is a minor is entitled to vote directly or by proxy. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that some minors own shares in the United States pursuant to the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act or the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, under which those shares are held for them by a custodian (such as a parent). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]