Humanities desk
< April 20	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 22 >

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 21[edit]

Fingerprints on Driver's Licenses[edit]

Some states (e.g. California, Texas) require driver's license applicants to submit one or more of their fingerprints. Such prints have been used in some cases to track down fugitives if authorities are tipped off to these states. However, it seems that the actual physical licenses themselves don't contain the prints, so where exactly are these prints stored - are they embedded somewhere on the licenses themselves, or do they just appear on the application paperwork submitted by the licensee? 98.116.73.98 (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A driver's license is used as a form of ID. The fingerprints will have been stored on a database. If your fingerprints are found at the scene of a crime, the database will show your home address, and the license plate number of your car. This way you can be tracked down.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

05:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember one case where the FBI, while searching for a fugitive, stumbled upon a person living in California (using a different name) who seemed to resemble the fugitive, so they decided to obtain a "certified copy" of that person's driver's license (which contained the right thumb print) and used the print to confirm that this particular individual was indeed the fugitive they were looking for. I'm guessing that this "certified copy" of the license will contain everything in the application records (including the print)? 98.116.73.98 (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, this has some downsides:

1) Gives police another tool in framing people. I'm not sure if they can reproduce that fingerprint at a crime scene, but they could just show a copy of that print to a jury, and claim they found it at the crime scene. (They would need to do some photo manipulation to make it less obvious the print was made in ink, and it would likely only work on poor defendants who lack a good lawyer who might figure out where the prints came from.)

2) False positives. If enough people check enough partial prints against yours, eventually one may "match", especially if they use low standards for a match, as many do in many places in the US. StuRat (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section 12800(c) of the California Vehicle Code requires license applications to include a "print of the thumb or finger". Oddly, I can't find anything prescribing what they're supposed to do with it (based on searching for "finger" and "fingerprint" in the entire Vehicle Code), aside from §12800(j) which implies that it's to "enable the department to determine whether the applicant is entitled to a license under this code". Maybe they compare the submitted fingerprint to the previous one to ensure it's the same person, though you'd think the photo would be enough for that. I don't think the fingerprints are disclosed in bulk by the DMV to any other entity, because the California Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional (though that was in 1986 and I'm not certain they haven't changed their mind). Law enforcement can obtain a print from the DMV if they suspect that person of a crime, but not just because they want to have all citizens' fingerprints on file. The code doesn't say whether prints are included on license cards, but does specifically forbid the SSN from appearing, even in digital form (§12801(e)). I'd think the prints would not be included because they are quite sensitive (more sensitive than the SSN, because you can't change your prints if your wallet is stolen) and I don't see what purpose including them would serve. I didn't look at other states' or countries' laws. -- BenRG (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't Lutherans make the sign of the cross the norm?[edit]

In the Lutheran church I visited, making the sign of the cross was the exception, not the norm, and relatively few people did it. Children and the teen acolytes didn't do it at all. In contrast, in the Roman Catholic church I visited, making the sign of the cross was the norm, not the exception, and the congregation did it together or whenever they received the Eucharist. In Martin Luther's Small Catechism, Martin Luther advised explicitly that people should make the sign of the cross - but Lutherans today, even with the fancy vestments and elaborate liturgies, don't do it? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia article sign of the cross, it is not discouraged formally by the Lutheran faith. Which doesn't mean it is mandatory either. --Jayron 32 13:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it done by many if not most members of the congregation at a Lutheran (ELCA) church I visited.Some also put water from the baptismal font on their heads when they left the sanctuary. Perhaps in some Lutheran congregations the members are more familiar with Luther's writings than in other congregations. Edison (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There also may be a distinction between congregations where most of the membership was raised Lutheran over multiple generations, versus those that have more new converts or which formerly attended other denomination churches. The expectations between the two may be different. --Jayron 32 08:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a male equivalent to "Fallen Women"?[edit]

Fallen Women occurred before and during 19th century Western Europe. Was there an equivalent term for a concept for fallen men? Does being "fallen" have to be related to sexual promiscuity or sexual libertine behavior? Can it refer to general perversion or wickedness, like being uncharitable or irresponsible? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it's used to refer to sexual promiscuity. While there is generally more leeway given to men in this area, there is a limit, and you get insults like whoremonger tossed at men who pass that limit. Historically, having sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis might be the point where the man is then shunned by his peers. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historically the equvalent term in English was "rake", but of course "fallen woman" is usually just a euphemism for prostitute, though there is a bit of leeway in its usage. Paul B (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you can really say it equivalent. For example, as I understand it, a woman who'd had sex outside marriage once, even been raped, could be regarded as a fallen woman if it was publicly known regardless of anything else. I doubt a man who'd had sex with one woman outside marriage is likely to be regard as a Rake (character), at least not without a late of other stuff. It may be the closest term as there may not have been a closer one due to the different moral standards and views of males and females particularly their sexuality. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There can be no direct equivalent, of course, because female promiscuity and adultery has historically been much more condemned than male promiscuity and adultery, which is just a sign of masculinity. Rake and 'rakish' can even be positive terms, as in the Aussie TV series. There've never been real effective male equivalents of slut, slag, whore, etc. Paul B (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or kind of celebrated, as in The Rakes of Mallow.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! Glad he did ask about an equivalent of a fallen Wikipedian editor. I can't imagine a member of the fairer sex falling as low as we do. Come on girls, get editing – we need you to lead us out of this world of intellectual smart-arsed promiscuity and back onto the path of righteousness! - edit, edit, edit.--Aspro (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Men can fall down too. Supposing a guy is walking along and he trips. Wouldn't he be a fallen man? Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With Paul B. above. Notion of a "fallen woman" is yet another sign of the historical domination of women by men. Men need to own women. Men need women to be dependant. Machismo, etc. Akseli9 (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think of myself as a fallen man, although I suppose, strictly speaking, it's less that I fell and more that I jumped... RomanSpa (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a female equivalent to "Jumped Men"? Akseli9 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Epic of Gilgamesh[edit]

I found a list of great books and decided to try reading some of them. The very first book on the list is the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I'm not expecting this work to be easy to read given my lack of background knowledge. Has anyone who edits here a recommendation for a particular English translation, or for preparatory reading?

Thanks, CBHA (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with our articles on Gilgamesh and The Epic of Gilgamesh. StuRat (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The one translation published since 1979, when a new longer version of the text was found, that is listed in the article in the Encyclopedia of Religion is the one by Andrew George. That or any more recent translation taking into account the 1979 discovery might be the best option. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Penguin classics version as a teenager. It's not hard at all. Paul B (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Penguin classics version is very readable and immense fun. Prostitutes, a wrestling buddy provided by the gods, a monster to hunt and kill in an unexplored forest and an underwater search for a prickly vegetable that gives eternal youth; what's not to like? "Oh Gilgamesh, great is thy praise" is the final line (from memory). Alansplodge (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Penguin version is quite suitable and, iirc, it provides a few versions of the text as well, as it is known piecemeal from several sources. The thing I found surprising about it is how thoughtful the main character turned out to be; as one of the earliest known bits of writing, it might be guessed that it's a straightforward story with simple heroics. Certainly the fight with the bull is the only part widely known to the public (to the extent it's known at all). And yet the fight with Enkidu and subsequent adventures are only a small part of the tale - a great deal of it is Gilgamesh trying to raise Enkidu from the dead (spoilers!) and coming to terms with not being able to. Matt Deres (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of the more philosophical passages goes...“Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? You will never find that life for which you are looking. When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man.” Alansplodge (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I'm reading a 2004 version by Stephen Mitchell which is the one I found at the local library. It is very good, I would say. I'm also looking for the Penguin version. CBHA (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]