Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 March 12

= March 12 =

What is the highest sex on earth?
I am not talking about sex in a plane or sex in the ISS. I am talking about sex on the physical earth. What is the highest altitude where documented sex has taken place by humans? 110.22.20.252 (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Various sources suggest people have had sex at the South Everest Base Camp. (I'm not linking to them since they often name or imply the name of living people.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That is, at least 5,380 m (17,600 ft) high. That's how high the Everest Base Camp in Nepal is.--Hofhof (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * . Our article says 5364m Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Various sources suggest people have had sex at the South Everest Base Camp, so you can probably set 5,364m as your minimum. (I'm not linking to them since they often name or imply the name of living people.) In any case, I'm sure that La Rinconada, Peru is a definite minimum at 5,100m. Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This source claims of at least one case on South Col at 7,906 m but I'd be cautious about such claims since they're the sort of false rumours that may easily spread. (The base camp I think we can be more confidence since there seem to be enough reports suggesting it isn't unheard of, rather than just one alleged incident.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At least one couple also got married on the base camp [//www.stuff.co.nz/travel/themes/adventure/92387650/talk-about-a-white-wedding-couple-get-married-at-mt-everest-base-camp] albeit no mention of whether the marriage was consumated there. Nil Einne (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a teahouse very near the crest of Thorong La pass in Nepal, where trekkers can spend the night. That pass is at 5416 meters, significantly higher than the south Everest Base Camp. About 20,000 hikers a year attempt that trail, called the Annapurna Circuit. It would be plausible to assume that well-acclimatized people have had sex there when the weather is good. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't help wondering how common "documented sex" is.Shantavira|feed me 09:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Documented sex is widespread.Hofhof (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If it were not documented, there'd be no possible way to answer this question. Maybe Hillary and Tensing had a moment on top of Everest.  But we'll never know.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Snoop Dogg and Shante Taylor? -- Jayron 32 19:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Highest face value gold or silver coin?
What was the highest-(face)-value gold or silver coin ever issued? This is indicative of slow but steady inflation, as if inflation is fast, the precious coins will simply be melted down. For example, a silver 100,000 leu coin was issued in 1946. Are there any gold or silver coins that show even higher values?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 09:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps $1 000 000? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I was going to answer. The OP might want to limit the question to coins actually intended for circulation. Which is still difficult, because large gold coins (say the Saint-Gaudens double eagle) really didn't circulate that much, they were used in large business transactions and where settlement had to be made in gold by contract. More often currency like gold certificates were used. I'm aware that the 100,000 yen gold coin issued by Japan in 1986 for the 60 years on the throne of the late Emperor who was generally known as Hirohito has seen some use because the face value has sometimes been higher than the gold content.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd like to restrict the scope of this question to coins whose mintage exceeds one million. So the 100,000 lei would meet the criteria since just over 2 million of them were made.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Life in prison without parole in the EU
Do Eu countries have life without parole (no matter what)? Is there any jurisprudence against it?--Hofhof (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The UK has whole life orders, for people over 21 only.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article on Life imprisonment includes a list of countries with an indication of which ones do and do not have that option. Wymspen (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Whole life orders can be given, but they must be formally reviewed every do often. Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(multiple ec) See the template below for links to articles for countries in Europe. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It depends what you mean by 'life without parole (no matter what)'. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that life imprisonment with absolutely no possibility of release is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. There has to be some possibility of review of the sentence at least after 25 years; and release, and this cannot simply be in end-of-life situations (or errors in the initial case or sentence). See for example [//www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Life_sentences_ENG.pdf] which has a decent summary at the beginning and then some of the relevant cases. However this does not have to follow the normal parole process and it could still be very difficult or rare that someone will be released although they ultimately have to consider whether 'continued detention can' 'be justified on legitimate penological grounds'. As to how this has interacted with the UK law mentioned above, see our article Life imprisonment in England and Wales and these sources [//www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jan/17/european-judges-uphold-uk-right-to-impose-whole-life-jail-sentences] [//hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf?library=ECHR&id=003-5600221-7075341&filename=Grand%20Chamber%20judgment%20Hutchinson%20v.%20the%20UK%20-%20whole%20life%20sentences.pdf] . Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

celebrity endorsements in Dutch general elections 2017, German general elections 2017 and Italian general elections 2018
Is there a website that a shows a list of celebrities in Netherlands endorsing which political party in the general election 2017; in Germany endorsing which political party in the general election 2017 and in Italy endorsing which political party in the general election 2018? Donmust90 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont think there is a website that holds track. Political endorsement of celebrities is not as common and far less important in the EU as in the United States. --Kharon (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In the Netherlands, there is the concept of the lijstduwer ("list pusher"), a celebrity who stands for election without the intention of winning but intending to boost the overall vote for their chosen party (see open list for the Dutch electoral system). Our article lists Maarten van der Weijden, Foppe de Haan and Wiljan Vloet, who are all presumably well known to Dutch voters. Alansplodge (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Germany's election was incredibly dull, partly due to Angela Merkle's tactic of "asymmetric demobilization" (not arguing with opponents). I couldn't find a single English language reference to celebrity endorsement in the campaign. Alansplodge (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If only the same could be said in ALL political campaigns. Blueboar (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The biggest difference is the Primary elections in the United States. That already looks very excessive compared to elections in the EU. But then US have the general election on top with even more excesses and billions of dollars for TV campaigns. Celebrities actually perfectly fit into that grand show of the US elections like royals from around the world come to any royal wedding. --Kharon (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh... Royals go to each other’s weddings because they are related to the bride or groom (or both). They would go even if the press didn’t cover it.  Celebrities make political endorsements because they crave attention.  If the press didn’t cover it they wouldn’t bother. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your point is correct, but I don't think Prince William is in any way related to Crown Prince Naruhito and Crown Princess Masako, who only missed the big day because of an inconvenient earthquake and tsunami. Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Politicians and celebrities both crave attention. Our current president is a combination of the two. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Borders of Pennsylvania
The original borders of Pennsylvania, before the sale of the Erie Triangle, gave the state virtually nothing on Lake Erie; it had only a couple of miles of ordinary lakefront. Was this a coincidence, or was it intentional? Nothing really in Geography of Pennsylvania or Erie Triangle, and Borders of Pennsylvania doesn't exist. This article from Penn State University claims that the western border was set at "five degrees west of the Delaware Bay", but like all other estuaries, the end of the river and the beginning of the bay is difficult to ascertain. Therefore, I'm wondering if the beginning point were chosen so that the northern and western borders would meet at the lakeshore, and if the couple of miles were the result of surveying error. [I don't know much about 18th-century surveying and can't really say whether this is something that could even have been done at the time, regardless of whether anyone would have desired it.] Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the western border of Pennsylvania was intentionally placed there to meet at the lake, but the southern border of New York and the northern border of Pennsylvania are actually just a westward extension of the northern border of Connecticut (see Connecticut Western Reserve - the northern border of Ohio was originally at the same latitude). I would assume it's a coincidence because surely there's no way they could have been that precise in the 18th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would assume it's a coincidence because surely there's no way they could have been that precise in the 18th century — that answers my question. Thank you!  Also, how would Ohio's northern border be set at the same latitude?  Ohio doesn't have any land at 42°N (the spot where the Pennsylvania northern boundary meets the western terminus of the Western Reserve, 42°N, -82.85°W, is in mainland Ontario), and the only place where there's US land farther north is Michigan, whose easternmost point is a good deal farther west than 82°51'0 W.  Or if you're talking underwater rights, was the original idea that New York or Pennsylvania would govern everything underwater above that latitude?  It seems a bit impractical for either one's jurisdiction to go far to the west of its westernmost land.  Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the map in the State cessions article - until 1786 the northern half of Pennsylvania was claimed by Connecticut, as that colony originally stretched indefinitely between its set northern and southern latitudes. Wymspen (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the state of American surveying in the 18th century, but it was a very well developed science in Europe at that time. Our article about the French Cassini maps says: "the level of precision of the road networks is such that satellite photographs correspond almost completely with drawn roads more than 200 years later". The Principal Triangulation of Great Britain was begun in 1791, the baseline at Hounslow being measured with an accuracy of 3 parts per million. Alansplodge (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There was some very good surveying going on in the late 18th C, although the triangulation of England or France, over open ground with good landmarks which was already thoroughly (if not precisely) mapped, is a very different thing from the American surveying of lines of latitude or longitude, or lines from one named point to another, over land which had never been seen by the people defining the lines and possibly wasn't well known to anyone (certainly anyone of European descent), often through untouched forest - that was far less about landmarks and angles, and more about accurate measuring on the ground, and correction from astronomical observations, which were also used for starting points.
 * Really good surveying was imported from Europe - that's where Mason and Dixon came in - but possibly more to the point, really good surveying instruments came from London.
 * What was wildly imprecise, however, were the charters that the surveys were based on (which are a century or so older). The original grant for Pennsylvania sets the western boundary 5 degrees of longitude west of the 'eastern bounds', which follow the Delaware River from a point 12 miles north of New Castle, Delaware, and the northern boundary at 43°N, or the northernmost point of the Delaware River if that is further south. 43° north is well into New York, and overlaps a good chunk of land granted to Connecticut in a separate charter! The border with Delaware is also a mess - it's defined as a circle 12 miles distant from New Castle until it cuts the 40° line of latitude, but the whole circle is well south of that line. In all that muddle, I can't imagine that the lake crossed anyone's mind, even if it was known to be there at the time of the charter (see below about the western sea...) Ingreatwaters (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The original Connecticut grant seems to have given it the land lying between the Massachusetts border in the north, the sea in the south, Naragansett Bay in the east - and everything in that line until the sea in the west! (If I'm remembering correctly, the western sea was originally thought to be somewhere around the Great Lakes, which makes more sense than a deliberate grant to the Pacific.)
 * So if I'm not confused, that would mean that the northern border of Pennsylvania (and Ohio) was in line with the *southern* border of Connecticut, as it claimed all the land to the north (although I'm not sure which point on the current sloping southern border, and I'm not quite obsessive enough to try to find out).Ingreatwaters (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The south-western border of Pennsylvania was set in a treaty with Virginia (which included what is now West Virginia... and which also claimed all of Ohio). That line was supposed to continue north until it hit Pennsylvania’s border with New York. In other words, they were expecting Pennsylvania’s western corners to make nice right angles in the wilderness... They didn’t expect to hit Lake Erie, so they did not take it into consideration.  Surprise! Blueboar (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the border jiggly at one point, exactly following the Delaware River displaced 5 degrees to the west? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Originally, yes... but that didn't really work well wen it came to actual surveying, and so the "jiggly line" was abandoned. This website does a fairly good job of explaining what happened, and when. My point was that everyone was focused on figuring out where Pennsylvania's SOUTH-western edge was (it all had to do with access to the Ohio River)... once that was settled, the lines that were drawn could be extended to form the NORTH-western edge.  No one really took having access to Lake Erie into consideration (partly because having access to Lake Erie wasn't considered all that beneficial  - that changed once the Erie Canal was constructed). Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you by any chance know why the Ohio River only has small towns between Cincy and Pittsburgh but the Erie Canal has bigger cities closer spaced? (though not as big as Cincy or Pittsburgh). I've also wondered why Cincy, Columbus and Cleveland are almost exactly the same size (metro population) despite disparities in majorness of water access and fame. (Cleveland has a Consolidated Statistical Area that's much bigger but that includes the more loosely attached Canton and Akron) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of it is that some of the most heavily populated areas (KYOVA and points west of metro Pittsburgh) are both split between three states: you have a lot of smaller communities that can't annex each other because they'd have to cross state lines. For example, the city of Weirton, West Virginia extends the entire width of West Virginia, both bordering Ohio on the west and Pennsylvania on the east.  Similarly, even if you merged Ashland and Catlettsburg, they couldn't expand farther east, because they'd have to be expanding from Kentucky into West Virginia.  So while you have significant population centers, all the cities are comparatively small because they're more fractured.  Moreover, the topography doesn't work as well: both at Cincinnati and Pittsburgh you have big enough areas of flat land above the river to form the bases of cities, from which they expanded out into the hills, but in much of the region you have either steep bluffs along the river (so it's hard to form a river port and a city; look at the map of Pomeroy, 39.02806°N, -82.03194°W, which has zero four-way intersections) or wide areas of floodplain (so it's hard to establish a city that won't flood all the time).  Furthermore, several of the existing population centers in this region, especially Portsmouth, Steubenville, and Wheeling, have experienced significant postindustrial population declines, faring a good deal worse than Pittsburgh or Cincinnati, so their whole regions are a good deal less significant than they were 40 years ago.  Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)