Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 January 16

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.

January 16

Stigma around things that are a part of life

Why do societies develop stigma around things that are a part of life - like sex and money? This is no way near an innocent taboo like not eating pork, which for all practical purposes, doesn't matter. But, you will always have to deal with such 'dirty' things. Couldn't some moralists/philosophers/whatever take a more realistic approach to sex and money and stop seeing it as a necessary evil, but as the root of everything? Quest09 (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Until we start cloning ourselves, sex will be necessary. Money is a relatively recent invention. On that basis, I don't see money as 'a part of life' at all. Or are you talking about 'sex and money' in combination - i.e. prostitution? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not in combination. And what do you mean by recent? According to money, some barter-like method has been around in some form or the other for 100,000 years. Don't you see money as part of any civilized society? Quest09 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sex and money are desirable things, but I don't think they're particularly similar in terms of their being a stigma attached to them. It's not good to be greedy, but having and using money doesn't really have a stigma attached to it, like sex does. Sex is a powerful force in human nature, all the more because it's rife with double standards (everyone is the product of it and almost everyone does it, but it's usually considered the height of bad taste to talk about it publicly - if at all). In that sense, it's a bit more like defecation - universal, but taboo. I wonder if part of the reason ties in with human's hidden sexual cycles - most animals have an "open" period of estrus, where the females are sexually receptive and everyone knows about it. Humans are weird in that they keep their ovulations hidden - even from themselves. Perhaps that led to a more general feeling of secrecy about it. Matt Deres (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"In that sense, it's a bit more like defecation - universal, but taboo." Except defecation isn't exactly seen as something fun & exciting... 24.189.87.160 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as your response, Quest, where you say "some barter-like method has been around in some form or the other for 100,000 years..." I wanted to point out that bartering and money are not the same thing. At John_Locke#Limits_to_accumulation the article notes that "Money makes possible the unlimited accumulation of property," which could be either good or bad. Money was a culmination of the evolution of trade, so the stigma attached to it may be a nostalgia for the bartering system, i.e. the good ol' days. schyler (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this mythological situation might arise some fake feelings of nostalgia on some, but no living civilized human being knows a money-less society (excluding some social experiments). That makes it a fact of life for me. Of course, it implies the possibility of accumulating an unlimited amount of it, but most people are certainly not moving in that direction. (Quite in contrary, they are accumulated an unlimited amount of debt.) Anyway, people seem to have more reasons to stigmatize money beyond the simple unlimited accumulation (and the consequences of it.) Quest09 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bible approves of sexual relations (http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/5-18.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/5-19.htm), but disapproves of sexual immorality (http://www.multilingualbible.com/hebrews/13-4.htm).

The Bible approves of money (http://www.multilingualbible.com/ecclesiastes/7-12.htm), but disapproves of the love of money (http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_timothy/6-10.htm).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly my question: why do we attach strings to it? Why don't accept all forms of sex and all forms of relation to money (which is, as a part of life, not the root of all evil)?Quest09 (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well... most societies have a taboo about sex with children (probably because we have an instinctive desire to protect the young of our species). Most societies ban incest (in-breading can cause birth defects). Adultery, and sex before marriage is was considered a form of theft in societies where women were considered the property of men (either the girl's father or her husband)... and in the eras before reliable contraception, there was also the natural desire to know who the father of the inevitably resulting children was. Homosexual sex has been accepted in some cultures, but rejected by others... so that is more a cultural/religious taboo than a universal one.

I don't think there is a stigma attached to money... just jealousy on the part of those who don't have it, greed for more on the part of those who do, and snobbery on the part of those who have had it for a long time (ie "old money" vs "new money"). Certainly in places where money is in short supply, society tends to quickly adapt and shifts other systems (such as barter). In fact, money is essentially nothing more than a form of barter... we simply agree as a society that a certain number of stamped chunks of metal and colorful bits of paper can be traded for a certain number of eggs, etc. ... Money is really just another commodity to trade. Blueboar (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You forgot about the people who have it since a short-time (the new riches).Quest09 (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For people who believe that the Bible is inspired by God (http://www.multilingualbible.com/2_timothy/3-16.htm), the restrictions were attached by God for our benefit (http://www.multilingualbible.com/isaiah/48-17.htm).

—Wavelength (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Greek text for the passage "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, ..." is analyzed at http://biblelexicon.org/1_timothy/6-10.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

---

It's a very old question, Quest: what is right, and what is wrong? The why is a little bit deeper question, indeed, but the answer is simply because it is (un)ethical. It requires a whole level of thinking that many people don't care to question. The inevitable question then is 'is there a better right and wrong?' This question is answered empirically: the inferred or implied Eudaimonia is the data and the depressed soul is the control. Therefore, whichever particular right or wrong leads to the maximum eudaimonia, or GENUINE PERMANENT HAPPINESS, is the true right or wrong. Religion attempts to answer what is right and what is wrong. Therefore there is one true religion. QED. schyler (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Erm, how exactly does that answer Quest's question of: "Why is sex regarded as taboo, when it is a natural occurrence?" TomorrowTime (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also: There is four more days to the FULL MOON. Therefore, the one true religion is obviously Zoroastrianism. QED. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In answer: 1) Because taboo is a possible negative, and falls into the set of 'bad.' So the question becomes 'why is sex possibly bad?' 2)Your logic falls into Post hoc ergo propter hoc. schyler (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A taboo is not a "possible negative", it's a topic or act or place that a given society agrees to avoid. So Quest was asking "Why do we agree to avoid discussing sex/money", not "Why is sex/money bad?" I think you just stretched the definition, so you could post your strawman question and answer it. As per 2.: I certainly wasn't going for Post hoc, I was primarily mimicking your conclusion and going for Non sequitur, which is basically what your conclusion is. QED. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are there cultural taboos about sex and money? Because both can engender jealousy, envy, anger, and other emotions that can (and often do) result in arguments, theft, fights, and other disruptions to the peace of society (even murder). So, various societies have come up with rules (be they cultural taboos, religious strictures, or laws, etc.) in attempts to lessen such disruptions. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Erich Fromm argues somewhere (I think it is in To Have and To Hold but it's a long time since I read it) that the Christian Church, finding its control over people challenged by their sexual urges, reacted by demonising sex and making it dirty. I don't recall whether he adduced any direct evidence for this. --ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a very old saying which captures, itself, some of the reason for the stigma, and it goes something like this:

“ Sex, money, and religion are the three things that, if you have them, you don't talk about them. ”

The key part being "if you have them". It's rude to lord over people that don't have money, as though having money (or sex or religion) somehow makes you a "better person". So, since you don't want to make other people around you feel bad for being poor, or not getting laid, or not worshiping the way you do; you simply don't discuss such matters in open company. --Jayron32 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Great Commission involves the discussion of religion.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the Great Commission tells all Christians to make disciples of all nations; it does not say "be rude and make people who are not Christians feel bad." That's actually not a great method of making disciples as people who are made to feel bad about themselves generally don't want to listen to you any further with regards to becoming a Christian. So, if your goal is to convert people to Christianity, making others feel shitty about not being Christians is decidely AGAINST the Great Commission. --Jayron32 20:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Culture trickles up?

The upper classes are traditionally associated with culture and refinement (because everyone looks to them to define it). But it seems to me that the upper classes just copy off the lower classes of past ages. For example, the Italian and French cuisines found in snobby restaurants were only peasant food; Latin, the language of learning of the middle ages, was the language spoken by Roman commoners (Caesar and his kin spoke Greek). Is my observation that culture seems to "trickle up" right? What are some more examples? 24.92.70.160 (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of Cicero ? That's who Caesar was speaking to, or sometimes against. Caesar may have known Greek, but only in the same way that a lot of educated Englishmen in the 19th century (and the 20th) knew French. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your point about food, however, is valid. People claiming to be cultured by eating "authentic" local food, often find themselves eating fish dishes that are only "the dish of the region" because they were the cheapest thing available in older port cities and coastal civilisations. You might make your point better by pointing out how many of the ruling class delighted in rather vulgar entertainment, in times past. Shakespeare was a genius, but was he really highbrow? Not much. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In recent times, fajitas originated as a way to use a quite cheap cut of meat... AnonMoos (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Using the fingers alone to eat chicken, pizza and some other things, and break bread, was once something only the lower orders did. But now, it's become de rigeur for everyone. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not 100% true of food either. Sure, regional peasant food will remain a stable of many high class restaurants, but such concepts as nouvelle cuisine and molecular gastronomy are entirely new creations, and has nothing to do with peasant food. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly much of American popular music over the past 100 years has "trickled up" from poorer people. Jazz and blues originated with poor African-Americans, while country came from rural whites. One day, a black guy from St. Louis tried to write a country song, called it "Maybellene", and rock and roll was born. In 2002, the average listener to jazz on NPR had a household income of more than $80,000 ([1]). I don't know if this pattern has always been the case. In the 19th century, ramshackle frontier towns built opera houses so they could imitate the musical tastes of the urban upper class. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I might argue that most art "trickles up"--after all, nearly all artists, with a very few notable exceptions, were/are poor. Musicians perhaps more than most other artists have long been associated with the "less refined" aspects of society. Even those who served upper class patrons, like Bach for example, led relatively frugal, lower- or lower-middle-class lives. Or take Joseph Haydn, who for most of his life was essentially a "servant". Even musicians who achieved international fame in their lives, like Mozart and Beethoven, died poor or in poverty. Likewise for those artists now famed in the visual arts, like Vincent van Gogh. There are a few exceptions, of course--but very few, relative to those remembered as great. Basically, if you can make a living--any living--as an artist, you are a success! Of course there is more to culture than art (isn't there?) Pfly (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is however a distinction to be made between the social background of the artist and the social origins of the art they practice. Bach and Haydn may have had low social status, but, unlike blues and jazz for example, they played a music which was part of and originated from upper class culture. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. To be fair, jazz acquired an upper class audience fairly quickly, no? Look at someone like, say, Cole Porter? Pfly (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The H-dropping of cockneys during the 19/20th. centuries is said to originate from imitating the french accents spoken by the upper classes in Britain many centuries ago. The kitsch taste for elaborate fussy decoration by many working-class people may similarly be a distant echo of the Baroque style of centuries ago. So its a two way street. Ideas have diffusion across society from any source, and this diffusion is studied by sociologists. I expect that those ideas that diffuse most have prestige, pleasure, or use associated with them. See Diffusion of innovations. 92.29.122.203 (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for that suggestion about cockneys? I've read a lot of linguistics, both popular and academic, and have never heard this suggestion before. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I probably heard it from BBC Radio4, in which case it's Gospel. Regarding the kitch taste of the working-class, the ideas from Ornament and Crime may not have diffused to them yet. Conv92.28.254.64 (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It happens all the time that a foreign ruling class adopts the language and culture of those being ruled. Consider the Norman conquest of England; after several generations the ruling Norman elite began to speak English and think of themselves as English and not Norman-French. The Kievan Rus was named for a Scandanavian ruling class which ruled over a Slavic underclass; the rulers soon became "slavicized" so that Russian became a term for a "slavic" people, not a scandanavian one. The Yuan and Qing dynasties that ruled China at various times were non-Chinese peoples; (Yuan = Mongolian, Qing = Manchu/Jurchen) and yet they quickly adopted the Chinese culture of those they ruled. The Ptolemies were a Greek dynasty that ruled Egypt, and they also adopted Egyptian dress and religion. It happens so frequently that such "tricklings up" of culture should be seen as the norm, and not the exception. --Jayron32 20:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about culture, but oysters used to be cheap and mainly eaten by the working class. They are now seen as an expensive delicacy (though I find them quite disgusting). Astronaut (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That was due to economic considerations. As the Oyster article says, the supply diminished due to over-fishing, the bigger population increased demand, so prices rose and only the well-off can now afford them. 92.24.183.183 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Same with lobster. It was "slave food" in the 17th and 18th century... now it is a delicacy. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In 17th century England at the court of Charles II, it was the fashion to use vulgar swear words. Another popular pastime of the upper-classes was to visit prisons and insane asylums to observe the inmates. In those days, stage actors and actresses were considered low-class and plebian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure "being obnoxious pricks" is a cultural borrowing by the rich from the underclass. I am pretty sure the rich have been good at that for a long time all on their own. --Jayron32 02:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is expected to appeal to the intellectual. Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese poet Li Po's biography

I am aware of a legend: Once Li Po was summoned to the court of an emperor against his will. He is said to have appeared at the palace riding backwards naked upon an ass. Should this be included in his biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocodog12 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable source for it (preferably one telling us how the emperor reacted!). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this where "ass backwards" comes from? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan African Admixture of Black Jamaicans

What is the average percentage of Sub-Saharan African admixture of black Jamaicans today? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently 58% African. With European males making up most of the remainder but European females and Native American of either sex contributing very little.[2] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. St. Lucia's blacks have way less African percentage than Jamaicans, but St. Lucia's blacks still look very African. Why is that? Is this report accurate? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

J. B. Herr

I need to find information on a man named J. B. Herr in colorado state in the period 1860 to 1910. He scratched his name and state on a shotgun in my possession. The shotgun is adorned with burned branding and brass shield that states Property of Wells Fargo. If I can verify that he was a lawman or an employee of Wells Fargo this shotgun will move to museum grade in rarity. Since less than 100 documented Wells Fargo firearms exist this would make it a major find. I've learned that at least 93 of less than 100 weapons now reside in museums. Thank you so much for any help you can provide. A successful search and documentation will earn my sincere thanks and a financial bonus once the firearm is sold. harley bissell <contact details removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.88.219 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your contact details to prevent them being harvested by spammers or scammers. As it says at the top of the page, any answers to your question will be posted here. This page makes it clear that Wells Fargo employee records are few and far between, and this section of that page explains that they don't do appraisals themselves, but they recommend a book which might be helpful in establishing whether your gun is likely to be genuine (they do warn that there are faked WF artefacts around). Other than that, perhaps Ancestry.com or one of the other genealogy websites might help you find Herr's records; it's possible there might be some evidence of his employment there somewhere. I have a UK Ancestry membership but it doesn't extend to the USA. There seem to be plenty of Herrs in Colorado at around the right time, and a fair few J. Herrs among them, but my membership doesn't permit me to see further detail, I'm afraid. Karenjc 09:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Congressional plurality?

Suppose the US House of Representatives votes on a bill, and there are 135 votes in favor, 100 opposed, and 200 abstentions. Does the bill pass because the ayes outnumber the nays? Or does it fail because it didn't get a majority? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This document covers current voting rules for the House of Representatives. There are several methods of voting; there is a "voice vote", whereby everyone just says "aye" or "nay" and the speaker just anounces the result. There is a "vote by division" whereby the speaker first asks the "ayes" and then the "nays" to stand in turn, and counts each "division" while they are standing (the abstentions would presumably not stand for either). Finally, there is a "vote by the ayes and nays" which involves using electronic voting machines, which records each vote by member; each member has three colored cards: a green (aye), a red (nay) and an amber (present, aka abstention). If you read section H of that document, it makes it clear that passage of a measure requires a majority of those voting, not just present. Thus, abstentions (present votes) only count for determining a quorum (quorum being 50% +1 members) on a vote; however passage only requires 50% +1 members who submit a vote; a "present" vote is not actually a vote. If it were as you describe, then there would be no distinction between a "nay" and an abstention; all abstentions would count as nays. So in your specific example, the measure would pass. --Jayron32 20:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic, Jayron. I agree with your conclusion, but the way you get there is ... bewildering. If it's true that "an abstention (present vote) is not actually a vote" - and it is true - then abstentions are fundamentally different from "nay" votes, because they're not votes at all. Hence, an abstention cannot possibly count as either a "nay" or an "aye" - it's in a different category altogether. The only votes that have any bearing at all on the decision are the "aye" votes and the "nay" votes. There were 235 votes cast, of which 135 were "ayes"s, way more than 50%, so the motion passes. But if as you say "all abstentions would count as nays", then the count would be 135 in favour and 300 against, which would result in the motion failing. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you see, there's a word in the English language, "if", which is used to introduce a conditional statement. It does not represent reality. So when I say "If it were as you described", what that means is not that the OPs description of abstentions counting is actually correct, the word "if" is just setting up the conditional. It does not say it actually is true, it merely holds that it is true, in this case to demonstate the contraditction in the presumption that abstentions count in the vote. The truth, which I layed out beforehand, is that abstentions do not count, because if they did count, then abstentions would be equivalent to "nay" votes, which would of course make abstentions a superfluous vote. To retate this, if abstentions counted, they would be the same as "nay" votes. However, because abstentions do not count, the vote described by the OP actually passes. If. I know it is a small word, but sometimes the smallest words are important. --Jayron32 20:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32, Perhaps if you took a moment to calm down re-read your post you'd realize that it was very ambiguous. To me, the obvious reading is "If it were as you describe (135:100 in favor, with 200 abstains.)...", referring only to the question's supposition, not the either-or question. After you clarified, I see now that you meant to say "If it were as you describe (Where a true majority was needed)..." referring arbitrarily to one half of an either-or question without clarifying which. APL (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, up until the last sentence of your original post, you were talking about what would be the case IF abstentions were equivalent to "nay" votes (which we all agree they're not). But I now realise that your last sentence switches back to what really is the case in actual reality. But there was no way the reader could possibly have known you were making that switch between hypothesis and reality. Read it again and you'll see that it reads as if, in the IF scenario, 135 votes in favour somehow outweigh 300 votes against. Even for a hypothetical scenario, that’s a very weird outcome, one which abandons all notions of logic. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my ambiguity in answering the question. I should have made it more clear that I was refering to the exact illogicalness that Jack mentions in is last sentance, I was trying to point out that exact silliness that Jack does directly above. I also apologize for my rudeness as well in responding to Jack. You did not deserve that. --Jayron32 13:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, 'twas but a fleabite. They don't call me "Thick-Skinned Jack" for nothing.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

new old cars

A question some way above asked about building a new car from scratch and regulations related to that, which left me wondering, if I were to buy an old car that was falling apart and replace almost every part of it, until barely anything of the original remains, would it still be classed as the original car, or would I have a similar problem to the one they discussed?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Try Vintage_car#Safety_issues and Ship of Theseus. 92.29.122.203 (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be based in the UK. The DVLA [3] publishes rules on which parts of the car must be original for the car to count as "repaired" rather than "rebuilt". See this search, and this result (PDF). However, IANAL, so ask the DVLA / Vehicle Inspectorate for specifics before embarking on a project. CS Miller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

The Case of the Old Bentley Number 1. Sometimes, there's no way to tell what the law actually means until you go to court and a judge tells you explicitly. Usual advice about legal advice, lawyers, blah blah blah. Buddy431 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Drug laws, state by state.

Hello all! A friend is doing some university work on drug laws and social policy, and was just wondering about the good old American approach. Am I right in thinking that while some crimes, mainly to do with large-scale drug dealing and trafficking are federally regulated, it's mostly on a state-by-state basis? How does the federal government, if at all, influence a state's drug laws and prison sentences? Also, can somebody give an example of a few states which have horrendous drug policies, with no rehab and just punishment, and a few states where it is largely rehab focuses. I'm sure she can find the academic sources when she researches it properly, but I was thinking you guys would be a great starting point. Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.89.66 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If we were, we would have finished off the Category:Drug policy of the United States by state.Perhaps when your friend find the answers s/he could help furnish some new articles.--Aspro (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

See actor Tim Allen for an example. He avoided a mandatory life sentence by turning state's evidence while another prisoner arrested the same month of the same year with the same amount of drugs still remains in prison - because she had no drug dealer friends to rat out and the judge had no legally allowed discretion. [4]. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a ton of information on this topic at Erowid, specifically http://www.erowid.org/freedom/government/government_state.shtml. Pfly (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

College education

What percentage of Americans hold any type of degree (Associates or higher) or have formally completed any higher education (i.e., not just went to college but dropped out)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.70.160 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

27.2 percent have actually obtained a degree. Quest09 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

54.7 per cent of people are prone to quoting statistics without a citation.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

99% of people wouldn't know whether any of these figures are accurate or not. Dbfirs 20:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

But 74.23% of them would have greater confidence in the figures if their source is provided. Or at least mentioned. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

100% of educated people distrust statistics, unless a reliable source is provided. From Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States:200px|right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That graphic is horrible and uncited; I've updated it with a table. According to the 2009 census, 38.54% of Americans 25 and older have at least an Associates or Bachelor's degree. Source; or you can go here for a summary (since the raw data requires a little processing to get percentages). 55.6% have "some college". The difference of 17% between those two statistics does not necessarily mean drop-outs, because there is an age cutoff in the data (if you are 23, you will have "some college" but no degree, but not necessarily be a drop-out). This article from the Christian Science Monitor (which is a pretty reliable source, on the whole) says that the US dropout rate is more than 33%. Googling around other articles, I've found numbers ranging from 40%-60%, depending on the year. It seems to have a lot to do with how the economy is doing, as the majority seem to drop out in order to work. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with the graph? Doesn't that palm-tree make it beautiful? Quest09 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's beautiful. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)