Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 October 6

= October 6 =

Babies
Was (or is) there a place and time where...

...it was believed that men planted the seed and women just grew the baby, while,

...male babies were preferred over female babies, while,

...if the baby was female, it was the mother's fault somehow?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Only a partial answer, but by googling "early views of fertilisation" I found this, which discusses how understanding of fertilisation developed. It says that 'Hippocrates (460–370 years BCE) argued that man and woman each contributed semen that mixed in the uterus to form the embryo, whereas Aristotle (384–322 years BCE) favoured a more male-centred view that the woman merely provided fertile ground for the male seed to grow.' I have the impression that Henry VIII tended to blame his wives for his difficulty in producing sons, though this is more from fictionalised versions than actual history,  AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Even after Nicolaas Hartsoeker discovered spermatozoa in 1694, he supposed that each sperm cell contained a tiny pre-formed baby. Just add uterus. Alansplodge (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The actual mechanics of human reproduction were not discovered until surprisingly late; our egg cell article says: "the doctrine ex ova omne vivum ("every living [animal comes from] an egg"), associated with William Harvey (1578-1657), was a rejection of spontaneous generation and preformationism as well as a bold assumption that mammals also reproduced via eggs. Karl Ernst von Baer discovered the mammalian ovum in 1827, and Edgar Allen discovered the human ovum in 1928. The fusion of spermatozoa with ova (of a starfish) was observed by Oskar Hertwig in 1876". Alansplodge (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly, our Sexual differentiation in humans article lacks a history section, a project for somebody on a rainy day. Alansplodge (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The terms "semen" and "sperm" both mean "seed". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Although "sperm" is generally a contraction of "spermatozoon" = "seed being". Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. The root words "sperm" and "semen" both mean "seed", from Greek and Latin respectively. See and  ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to sperm, "1. (uncountable) Semen; the generative substance of male animals. 2. (cytology) The reproductive cell or gamete of the male; a spermatozoon".
 * Right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Death of the Roman Republic
How did the Romans themselves explain what caused the crisis of the Roman Republic and the end of peaceful politics? I've read a few papers attempting to explain it, but strangely, none of them ever mention the ancient Romans' views. --71.83.160.187 (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You could look in the Lives by Plutarch, which covers some of the leading personalities of the period. AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is readable online here. Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also try The Historiography of the Late Roman Republic, Guy Williams, American Public University System. Alansplodge (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

In a failure to deliver, is there insurance for the long position holder analogous to a credit default swap?
In 2016, the companies building the DAPL pipeline sold futures contracts to deliver oil from Minot, ND to Chicago, IL (if I remember correctly). Because the pipeline was not completed by December 31, 2016, there was a failure to deliver. Do purchasing parties / long position holders on commodities take out anything analogous to a credit default swap if the supplier fails to deliver? It's not a "credit event" but I can't find the appropriate name for the concept. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A priori no, because if you insure speculation, it is no speculation anymore. In a sense speculation is (trying to be) an insurance itself, guaranteeing a projected prize of an asset in the future. Big Insurance Companies have managed to build themselves a system of Reinsurance because insurance is actually a very stable business. Munich Re is an example for that. Speculation in the realms of stock markets on the other hand is everything but stable and thus no insurances merchant in the world would back that up for a minor fee. --Kharon (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A bookmaker would probably take the risk.  See contract for difference.   Dorothy Paget, a wealthy racehorse owner and the biggest bettor on horses in British history, was allowed by William Hill to bet on races after they had run.   On one occasion she was annoyed with her trainer for telling her that Gordon Richards had won the Derby, remonstrating that "I was going to have a lot of money on that horse and now I can't back it". 92.8.220.234 (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

How to know which are the fake news?
How can you be trust the news you are reading? Some news defy belief or contradict basic scientific facts, but in general, if you don't have any direct link to the events, you are just comparing news to other news. Or you are following hunches, preconceptions, and so on. Ultimately, how can you set the record straight? --Hofhof (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are a few recommendations:
 * Try to stick with mainstream, respected news organizations. Personally, I find BBC News, the New York Times, Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune to be good sources.
 * Try to avoid hyper-partisan news sites (Brietbart, Thinkprogress, MediaMatters, Conservative Tribune, etc.).
 * There are fact-checking sites such as FactCheck.org and politifact.com where you can check questionable claims.
 * Wikipedia has an article called List of fake news websites. Don't trust or even read any of the sites in that list.
 * Here are a couple articles that may help: Fake Or Real? How To Self-Check The News And Get The Facts and  How to Spot Fake News.
 * I hope this helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You can't.
 * A Quest For Knowledge is just walking in circles. "respected news orgs", "good sources" are those that do not publish fake news, and, fake news are those published by non-respectable orgs, bad sources.
 * You end up having to trust something (BBC, Wikipedia, NYTimes, Facebook posts, not right wing, not liberal, whatever). Most people read news that match their ideology preconceptions, and vet news against these.
 * You can follow all the links above, but how do you decide whether these are just reinforcing other fake news?
 * A publisher of fake news could also well go through any list and make his fake news look legit. B8-tome (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at how the term "fake news" has been used over the last year... I come to the conclusion that the best definition of "fake news" is: "any news story (and by extension, any news outlet) that contradicts the user's political outlook on events." Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The most notorious fake news story of the 2016 election was "Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President", which is unequivocally factually false.,,... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Very simple and reliable: Time will tell. --Kharon (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'll take B8-teme stance above. It's not possible to tell definitevely.
 * Why do you trust the snopes, factcheck or cnbc news? Couldn't these be the fake ones? Couldn't they be colluding to spread the lie that the Pope does not endorse Trump? Can't we build our view of the world leaving believes by side? Hofhof (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hofhof -- that's "Epistemic nihilism" or "epistemological nihilism" (no exact Wikipedia article), also known as the strong programme and Factual relativism. It comes with a certain superficial tolerance, but is completely incompatible with science, as well as any attempt to base government policies on facts and evidence... AnonMoos (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems to be mainly used in that sense by those with active Twitter accounts :-) Alansplodge (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * According to Google, the Weekly World News "has been the world's only reliable news source since 1979." InedibleHulk (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * One possible way to tell is if they ever retract a story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A good warning sign of a skewed / biased news source is the use of Loaded language. Also to be on the lookout for is Betteridge's law of headlines. Eliyohub (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)