Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of miscellaneous.

Welcome to the miscellaneous reference desk.
Shortcut:
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
 
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


May 20[edit]

Virginity taboo in the West[edit]

Why do western cultures often see being a virgin a taboo. To the point of using the term virgin as an insult. That is despite Christianity for which many western cultures originate advocating for centuries no sexual relationships before marriage. Even if that results in life long celibacy. In fact, Catholic priests (not sure about other denominations) prohibit any sexual activity at all (pre-pubescent boys, I know, I know but lets not get into that one bit OT)

And also, why does this term tend to be used against men more than women. Do other cultures have such stigma for virgins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.218.237.191 (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Many teenagers cannot hold livable jobs, cannot drink or smoke, and cannot afford their own house or car, but sex is something that they have (some) access to, are often told to stay away from, and potentially the most fun of those marks of adulthood. That doesn't make it right (sexual activity and personal maturity are about as related as one's ability to ride a bike and one's hair style), but immature people (teens or adults) view adulthood in terms of the things they have (house, car, babies) rather than responsibilities they put up with (mortgage, car payments, whiny brats). In some ways, many people don't grow up after high school, they just adjust their "class schedule" in a way that resembles mature adulthood.
Hell, a lot of retail customers don't seem to have grown up since elementary school, they just throw the tantrums at the employees instead of their parents. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that virginity is a "taboo"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe from that old (and not very funny) joke: "What's the definition of a virgin? A six year old who hasn't been fucked very much". I'd say the OP is using the word "taboo" inappropriately. That usually refers to things that must not be touched or places that must not be visited or actions that must not be performed. The state of virginity is none of these. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No, it's quite the opposite. That's what makes it "uncool", at least for kids. High school has a reputation for being where they put aside childish things. Only babies who are afraid of their mommy getting mad don't drink, smoke, fuck, swear or use the right social media site, at least according to the cool kids.
After we put aside those childish things, the pressure is less acute and direct, but you may notice all the previously various advertising in the world seems to only repeat "OBEY", "CONSUME" and "MARRY AND REPRODUCE". The cool dudes are gone, and THIS IS YOUR GOD now. Sex equals kids, eventually, and kids require stuff, which requires employment. Single people are a passive danger to the economy, and virgins are more likely to be single. No harm done in sacrificing them, even if it doesn't actually bring a bountiful harvest. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
Girls aren't held to the same standards, because they're traditionally not expected to "man up" and bring home the bacon. Googling "slut vs stud" finds much more written about the double standard. I'll let you find your own piece on that, and just single out this story, because it's more interesting. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
There is a ginormous difference between "uncool" and "taboo". Things that are "taboo" are "forbidden" and often illegal. There's no law against virginity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a written law, but in El Salvador (geographically "the West") and other places, an expected rite of passage. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't make virginity "taboo". The OP is misunderstanding the word. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. If your dad, uncles, older brothers and friends say having something precludes you from being a man, it seems like the sort of thing men aren't allowed to have. There are fathers, fathers and fathers, but then there are fathers. Their house, their rules. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't qualify virginity as a "taboo", but merely something to be lost eventually, via a "rite of passage" or whatever. And that sounds more like something some primitive jungle tribe would do, not something that would be part of the typical American upbringing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The Cracked article noted several All-American boys, like Ben Franklin, JFK and Oliver Stone, paying to lose it. It's almost as if it made them cooler or something. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of ginormous... InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
As for Christianity, that's been going the way of the dodo for a while. But fear not, there are still more worrisome things. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
"If you follow Jesus, you already have a pretty good idea what giving it all away looks like." InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed nobody has linked taboo yet. DON"T CLICK IT! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
Very funny. Like I said, a "prohibition", specifically a prohibition of an action. Being a virgin is not an action. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence of a Wikipedia lead is well and good, but also see the "has been somewhat expanded" part of it, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
A taboo is the prohibition of an action. No action is required to be a virgin. You're born that way. And no action is required to stay a virgin, either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Is Nazism an action? Is pedophilia? Or single motherhood? There are other generally taboo subjects. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it's the action of talking about or identifying with these nouns that's taboo, not the nouns themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Those subjects are certainly not taboo. Not as subjects of discussion, anyway. You'll find vast amounts of wordage about all of them. But actually engaging in child sexual abuse or kiddie porn is a no-no. So, by the way, are murder, rape, bank robbery, kidnapping, drink driving, tax evasion, speeding, lying, being a dick, being a racist bigot, being a homophobe, having foul breath or body odour, and worst of all, being a bore. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It's the "being a" sort that being a virgin falls under. Being is an action, though a passive one. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Existing is not an action. Passive is the opposite of active. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Be is a verb. It's not something the person that's being tries to do, but it still happens. The first sort of passive. The opposite of active is inactive. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, May 23, 2015 (UTC)
Within a given context, passive and inactive are equivalent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes. Sometimes hot and cool are, too. English is notorious for casually screwing its (not it's) users. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, May 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should have an RfC? I could talk about teaching people how to masturbate and hire prostitutes, or having advised them to try heterosexual sex when they were exclusively homosexual. I just wouldn't want to go into detail unless that is the agenda here. If we're just looking for the word, and it's not a religious choice, I would think pitiful for college grads would be a lot better than taboo. We did just have a discussion on the fact that the purpose of college is for people to lose their virginity. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Not just that. Also fulfills OBEY and CONSUME obligations. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

Repairing veneer on an electric guitar[edit]

I have an Epiphone Dot semi-hollow-bodied electric guitar - like this one. The top is laminated maple with a "vintage sunburst" finish - a graduated, transparent colour leaving the wood grain visible. While modifying the electronics, I was clumsy with a drill and knocked off a small piece of the finished veneer, about two centimetres by a centimetre and a half, but irregularly shaped, between the output jack and the tone knobs. It broke off in one piece and I was able to retrieve it and glue it back in place, but because of the way it broke there's a slight gap, only a couple of millimetres, between one edge of the broken piece and the rest of the veneer, through which you can see the unfinished wood, and there are visible cracks. Any suggestions on how to repair it a bit less obtrusively? --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately, such a repair is less likely to affect the sound than in an acoustic guitar. Unfortunately, I doubt if the repair can ever be made invisible. Replacing the entire veneer might be the only way. Or, if you have the money, you could replace the guitar, and just use this one for practice/backup. StuRat (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
It's got character now. People are paying good money to by brand-new, factory-fresh guitars that have been "artifically" aged.[1] You now own one that has legitimate aging on it. --Jayron32 16:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I think replacing the entire veneer might be a little drastic. If it was a solid, opaque colour I could just use wood filler and paint. As it is, I'll just have to resign myself to it having character. It's probably something nobody notices but me anyway.
Oh yes, the peculiar fashion for deliberately ruining perfectly good instruments. It's apparently called "relic'ing". Here's a service offering to put your guitar through not only physical but psychological abuse. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Nothing as bad as Jimi Hendrix did to his, I hope. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Best website to find new friends from other countries[edit]

Hi, I'm a philatelist who love to collect new stamps from different countries. Can anyone suggest some good online ways for finding new friends from other countries who are interested in philately other than facebook (which only allows to befriend people you know well)..??--Joseph 14:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe contact These people? --Jayron32 15:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
What about https://www.postcrossing.com/ ? -- Metrophil44 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've made plenty of friends here: http://www.sendsomething.net/ :) 202.153.41.162 (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't bad. I don't believe in online "friends", but had some fun (and productive) international chats. You might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Or check out their participants list. It's not stalking or soliciting if you're friendly about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
You mention Facebook. In fact, you do not need to know people at all to start a group there, so there's no stopping you from making a philately group - or joining one already existing (I assume there are several). Many groups are closed, but only in the sense that you need to ask to join, which in turn allows you to follow and post threads. Our WikiProject is not the place to solicit friendships. Matt Deres (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How long was the IRT Third Avenue Line?[edit]

I wondered how long this line was, but I can't find the length in the article. -- Metrophil44 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Given the longest the train run was from City Hall (Manhattan) to the Bronx Zoo, it was less than 14.1 miles, which is the slightly more circuitous route one can drive, which takes more east and west jogs than the train up 3rd would have. See this at Google Maps. For a better number, contact the MTA and ask for the number to the museum curator, who will certainly know. If you're in NYC, call 311 and ask for the main MTA directory or museum number. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As the linked page says, the line used to run south to South Ferry and north to Gun Hill 241st St., not as Medeis indicates. I haven't found a source for the actual length but have asked a knowledgeable friend. Stay tuned. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC), corrected 21:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC).
Then you simply use google maps and find the distance from South Ferry to 241st and Gun Hill. (Given 240 turns into Gun Hill Rd, this probably means somewhere by Manhattan College. This is not rocket science, unless you want an exact number, in which case call the MTA museum (which is also not rocket science). μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You can reach the New York Transit Museum at 718-694-1600. The MTA is a state agency, so 311 may be clueless. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned 311 because they not only might have the museum number, as I know it's in the five boroughs, but they would definitely have a main or directory number for the MTA. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Using "accumulate" as a noun[edit]

  • Please respond at thread on the language desk here - [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

May 21[edit]

Dead/Dirty Skin[edit]

List of ways I could peel/remove dead/dirty skin off of my body?

Any idea friends?

Mr. Prophet (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see Exfoliation.--Shantavira|feed me 07:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Smile.gif -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Did I ever mention this: You Wikipedians are AWESOME! 💓 -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You may have mentioned it - but without references, we're not going to accept it as fact. :-} SteveBaker (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Lightbulb.png How about the trust based factor that we have and use while editing articles, advising...virtue... Face-tongue.svg -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Famous single people?[edit]

Presidents, celebrities and almost anyone of public or corporate significance is married, and usually with kids. Like, defacto.

Aren't there any famous names who don't fit into the above? Or is it somehow culturally unacceptable? Why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.4 (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, we could start with John Browne, Prince Harry to name just two.--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It depends what you mean. Firstly there are obviously plenty of young people who have never been married, I presume you're more thinking of older people, although nearly anyone who isn't currently married and is of sufficient age could probably marry in the future if they aren't already dead (but not necessarily to the person they want to marry). Even so, there are plenty of people who fit the above who are not currently married, but may have been married before and may have had kids, whether from or outside of marriage. There are people like Oprah Winfrey, Ricky Gervais and in many countries plenty of people who are in a same sex relationship who have as far as we know never been married for various reasons, but have been with the same partner for many years. There are people like Hugh Grant and Al Pacino who have as far as we know never been married but may have been in long term relationships and do have kids (whether they came from these relationships or not). I can't think of any off hand, but there are obviously some who've had kids but have never been in a long term relationship (there may be some who are forthcoming about it, but there are also obviously plenty of people who've don't talk about it and many who aren't even asked). Then there are people like Condoleezza Rice who may have been engaged but never married (who may or may not have had long term relationships). Finally there are obviously people without kids (as far as we know), who've never been married, enganged or in a long term relationship. As with my earlier point, knowing precisely who is in this list is difficult since people may not talk about their relationships but Ralph Nader possibly fits in this list. I presume you're excluding modern popes and other religious figures like the Dalai Lama who say they are celibate. Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The singer Morrissey, who has had a handful of romantic relationships here and there, has some interesting perspectives on his own sexuality and sexual identity. For a large part of his life, he claimed he was asexual, and uninterested in sexual or romantic relationships (that has changed somewhat since those earlier mid-1980s statements), and as such, perhaps fits the OP's requirements. Also, there are the majority of the list of Popes, almost all of whom are officially single and celibate, and the majority thereof also probably meant it. There was the U.S. President James Buchanan, who had been engaged at a young age to a woman, but after breaking off the engagement, showed no public interest in romantic relationships at all. There's some speculation that he had a semi-open homosexual relationship with William Rufus King, and yet still others who claim that both men were asexual and celibate, and that the insinuations of homosexuality between them were political smears; we'll likely never know, but at best we can say that we had one U.S. President who was never married. Just some ideas off the top of my head. --Jayron32 13:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty. J. Edgar Hoover and Katharine Hepburn to name one odd pair. And of course any famous Catholic priest, bishop, cardinal or pope. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hoover yes, Hepburn no. As noted in her article, she had been married for 6 years, and had long-term romantic relationships with several men, including Howard Hughes and Spencer Tracy. She did intentionally decline to get married a second time, but strictly she was a divorcee and not single. One that should rather obviously fit the OPs requirements as a famously single historical figure would be Queen Elizabeth I of England. --Jayron32 15:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Ted Heath. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It's pretty much been taken as a given until recently that the cursus honorum for anyone who wants to become US President includes joining a suitable (Protestant) church and having married, happily, only once. Hence the controversy over Kennedy's Catholicism, and Barack Obama's actual church, as well as his alleged atheism and muslim faith. Reagan was also criticized for some for having had been Catholic and divorced and remarried. Obviously that's changed somewhat, but voters highly dislike infidelity, see the careers of John Edwards, Newt Gingrich and Jim McGreevey. (Anecdata: I also actually know someone who was an atheist in high school who confided he was going to choose a church and join the ROTC as a prelude to entering politics, although I suspect he actually went into intelligence work, given his real aptitudes.) μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • James Buchanan (president 1857–61) never married. Grover Cleveland was unmarried when first elected president in 1884, but got married in 1886. More recently, in Canada, Pierre Trudeau was unmarried when he was first elected prime minister (see note) in 1968, but he got married in 1971. (Note: in the Westminster system the PM is the leader of the party supported by a majority of the House of Commons. Trudeau first became PM on the retirement of the previous Liberal Party leader, Lester Pearson, but there was an election soon after, won by the Liberals, so he was elected PM that year as well.) --174.88.135.200 (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is a "Bachelor's A-List". Jesus Christ is probably the most famous, if not André the Giant. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Buchanan's widely considered one of the worst presidents, so now we know why. As for Jesus, there's good speculation that he was married, given a man in his position being unmarried would have been borderline scandalous. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Good speculation is about as convincing as bad speculation. But if it helps put André over, I'll buy it. In fact, maybe he married all the Marys, except for his mother Mary, who made him marry Mari-Mac. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Swoosie Kurtz has never married or had children. Dismas|(talk) 21:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Or Sheryl Crow. All she wants to do is have some fun. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Here are some famous bachelors. Some were "confirmed" bachelors; others just never met the right girl. Spinster doesn't have a corresponding list. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Cliff Richard. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 05:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Bill Maher's lawyers publicly confirmed him a "confirmed bachelor, and a very public one at that" in Los Angeles Superior Court. That's about as officially single as a living person gets, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, May 23, 2015 (UTC)
If you search WP for "never married", you'll get over 61,000 hits. At least the first 1,000 or so are productive for this question. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
For many years, Stephen Fry was celibate, apparently. He's now married. As an aside, on Monday, he'll hopefully be celebrating something else. --Dweller (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Which Stephen_Fry#Sexuality are we talking about? How does one whose celibate struggle to keep his sexuality secret? (In any case, any reason to mention Stephen Fry is a good reason.) μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Cecil Rhodes was famously, if not notoriously single. IIRC, he would dismiss from his staff men who wanted to marry. --Dweller (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Elizabeth I never married. Nor did Edward Heath, who was Prime Minister in 1974. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Did they never marry twice, or is there an echo in here? --Jayron32 14:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of people who aren't married but have children. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW, there is some truth that in a number of countries and particularly historicly, not marrying was far less accepted, particularly for a couple or a woman. This had an effect on people where it mattered, especially politicians but also to some extent business people so you're probably more likely to find them having been married. (Of course proportionally, the number of people who lived to a resonable age, weren't someone expected to be celibate like a religious figure but never married was generally AFAIK under 50% although depending on the time and country, you'd need to include less formal marriages.) Some may argue beyond the public acceptance, marriage makes people more likely to succeed in those fields, I make no comment on that matter. There is the case of Helen Clark, who at the time of her marriage didn't really want to marry but felt she had to [3]. If we're talking about historic examples Michael Joseph Savage is another Prime Minister who never married and according to [4] never had a serious relationship with a woman. Many of the more artistic type may also fall in to the never married category. Vincent van Gogh didn't although died relatively young and clearly wanted to marry a few times. Ludwig van Beethoven was I think somewhat similar although lived to a more resonable age. Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

chicken blood or gut meal71.196.51.61 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Under what name the rendering industry produces the chicken blood or gut meal, or if it forms part of another named meal?71.196.51.61 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Blood meal ? Seems to normally be from cattle blood or pig blood, though. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you're asking about Poultry_by-product_meal. You might also be interested in our articles By-product#Animal_sources and animal product. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

May 23[edit]

Is it alright to finish your online, second undergraduate degree while taking up law?[edit]

Let's leave the issue of practicality aside. I was just wondering if this is possible and if anyone has done this before.49.144.249.71 (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You would need to check with the institutions concerned whether they allow it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
You won't be able to do so in the U.S. You'll have a full load of lockstep courses the first year and will not be allowed to take additional hours at any institution beyond that. GregJackP Boomer! 05:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there much value in a second undergraduate degree, especially when you intend to pursue law? —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Interracial relationships[edit]

Is there any general explanation towards the trend of white women marrying / having relationships with black males. Influence of popular culture? Is it seen is unacceptable for a white male to have a relationship with a black female, but not visa versa? With all things being equal, and the previous statement being false, I would expect a similar number of white males to be with black women, but this just doe not seem to be happening.

Further troubling questions raise out of this. Are men naturally more racist then women?

This is an area that should be ripe for study, are any papers available yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This QUESTION looks racial because of the colours of skins, but could it rather be a social QUESTION..? Akseli9 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Confirmation bias.--TammyMoet (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Since your IP address geolocates to London, I assume that you are asking about the situation in the UK. Do you have any references (such as newspaper stories or magazine articles) which support the premise of your question -- that a disproportionate fraction of heterosexual black / white mixed race relationships involve a black man and a white woman -- or is this based on your personal observation? The United Kingdom Census 2011 collected sufficient data to test you premise, but articles I have seen, such as the Independent's One in 10 relationships now cross racial boundaries, do not address any gender imbalance. -- ToE 15:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There is some evidence from the US which may support your premise. The Pew Research Center's 2012 report The Rise of Intermarriage says:
Gender patterns in intermarriage vary widely. About 24% of all black male newlyweds in 2010 married outside their race, compared with just 9% of black female newlyweds. Among Asians, the gender pattern runs the other way. About 36% of Asian female newlyweds married outside their race in 2010, compared with just 17% of Asian male newlyweds. Intermarriage rates among white and Hispanic newlyweds do not vary by gender.
I've run across a few blog posts and opinion pieces which propose reasons for this, but haven't located anything which rises to our WP:Reliable Source standards. -- ToE 15:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
As for pop culture influences (movies in particular), black women with white men is generally acceptable, but white women with black men seems to mainly be a thing in movies about interracialism. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, May 23, 2015 (UTC)

Why are the coasts more liberal in the US ?[edit]

I knew that coastal states tended to be more liberal, but here's a map also showing that the most liberal towns in each state tend to be on the coasts (the only exception to the pattern I see is in the highly conservative "Deep South", although FL, LA, and TX still have their most liberal towns on the coasts):

[5]

So, why is this ? I can think of a few theories:

1) Those living in coastal communities would naturally be more concerned with global warming and rising sea levels, as it will directly affect them.

2) Immigrants tend to settle down in coastal areas, or at least influence those areas before they move on. So, immigrants themselves might tend to be more liberal (certainly regarding immigration policy and benefits for immigrants). Less certain would be the effect on natives living near those immigrants. They might tend to sympathize with all the immigrants they know, but, if they lose their job or have lower wages due to all the immigrants, they might resent that.

3) Do liberals tend to move to coastal areas ?

So, has anyone studied why this pattern exists ? StuRat (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

NAC:Opinion and political commentary. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While waiting for the opinion-based discussion here, you might wish to do some browsing here (mostly opinion-based as well, most likely). ―Mandruss  21:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Wait no longer! In my non-expert opinion, liberals generally want personal freedom, so they try to flee the heartland (AKA flyover country), but are stopped by the enormous moats on either side. The more crossable north and south borders are guarded by ice and fire, respectively. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, May 23, 2015 (UTC)
Given the choice, most jump in the fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, May 23, 2015 (UTC)
Here's how oceans make folks calmer and more creative, at least according to "the liberal media", as some uptight and destructive folks call it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, May 23, 2015 (UTC)
1) What does being "calm and creative" have to do with liberal/conservative? 2)IMHO the HuffPo and its readers are the destructive ones and are so uptight as to presume to know how to spend my money better than I do. But then again, this isn't the place for veiled insinuations, opinions or attacks...if you strike yours, I'll strike mine.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 23:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Creativity is about making new things, like they do in liberal arts. Conservatism is about keeping things the same. Liberals want the world to chill out with the oil spills and war and whatnot, and fiscal conservatives want steadily increasing profit. Content people don't replace or desire things, so conservativism is about destroying things and agitating desires. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, May 24, 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Please avoid any discussion of the validity of liberalism and confine your answers to why people living on the coasts appear to be more liberal. StuRat (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Appear to who, Stu? You're a long term regular. You know you've posted a request for what can only (appear) be opinion. You take liberal as if it has a well-defined uncontroversial meaning. Beyond that you certainly know that 99% of the world's population lives within 100 miles of the coast. Hence those areas will tend to be more urban. And the ability to live on state subsidized housing, transportation, and so forth is much easier where there are trains and bus routes and tenements. I am sure you are aware Amtrak desperately wants to cut service to rural areas.
Hence the political patronage of such constituencies. Whereas rural areas can't afford to support a welfare state, and people who live there need to have cars and homes and small businesses to support them. Look at the most recent election map of Great Britain. England voted labour in London, Liverpool, Manchester, York, and the Detroitified areas of Wales. The rest of the country wen Liberal/Conservative/UKIP, and Scotland went Scotlish. The cities voted what we in the US would call liberal. All of this is common knowledge and the subject of a huge web inkspillage. But to summarize, Coast=Urban=Socialist. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
City size is one possibility, but many of the most liberal cities in each state aren't the largest, yet are on the coast, so apparently that's not the only factor. (Also note that many rural areas do rely on government handouts, in the form of farm and gas/oil subsidies and interstate highway funds.) StuRat (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Coastal areas are more likely to have outside influence, they may be sea ports or international airports. This would predict not only immigrants are there, but also people that travel and get exposure to different ideas. It would also suggest that x-ports may have different kinds of people to other more isolated coastal communities, say in Alaska. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand that last sentence. What are "x-ports" ? Exports ? "Have" seems to be the wrong word for that part of the sentence, too, or some words are missing. Please clarify. And in Alaska the interior is isolated, while the coastal areas are connected to the outside world (with the possible exception of the north coast, which is still iced-in for most of the year). StuRat (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I think GB meant ex-ports, meaning places that were ports (and either aren't any more or maybe are but where it's not particularly significant any more). Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Your question is for the US only and that's quite right. In the rest of the world, coastal does not especially mean liberal/labour/socialist. Quite very often indeed, coastal at the contrary means conservative or far-right reserved areas, made very expensive and unaffordable for the average people (middle class), except for the new lumpen who lives there in ghettos (on the windy and dry hills far from the beach/coast), who don't vote anymore thus will never make it turn liberal. Akseli9 (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
If the effect is limited to the US, then that implies something different in US history happened. Perhaps the suburbanization of the US, primarily as a result of the GI Bill, is responsible, as it left cities, including coastal ones, populated by mainly poor people, who tend to be liberal. However, there are some very wealthy beachfront suburban communities, too, such as Pebble Beach.
Perhaps the initial white flight out of cities in the US was mainly conservatives, who didn't want to live in a multicultural city, while the current gentrification of cities is by liberals, who do want to live there. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

May 24[edit]

football[edit]

how come england gets to enter 4 different teams in the world cup, when every other country only gets 1? that gives england an unfair advantage of winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.146.34.58 (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

They don't, England sends only one team - the England national football team. Nanonic (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Right, the UK has separate teams for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Only England has a realistic chance of winning the World Cup so spreading the UK players decreases the chance of winning. History of association football#First International was Scotland vs England, and the International Football Association Board is older than FIFA. The UK wanted to keep their separate teams and I don't think FIFA objected to that. There is a Great Britain Olympic football team since the UK only has one team at the Olympic Games. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
But the Great Britain Olympic football team only rarely competes, since getting the Scottish FA to join in nicely seems to be a difficult trick; see Scottish FA opposes Team GB for Rio Olympics in 2016. Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note also that presuming you mean the FIFA (football) world cup, Scotland haven't qualified since 1998 and never advanced past the group stage, Northern Ireland have only qualified for 3, 1958, 1982 and 1986 amd Wales only qualified once in 1958. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
And, it should put the United Kingdom at a disadvantage to have their top players spread out over 4 teams, versus all in one team. You don't win the World Cup with quantity of teams, but with quality. Having more, but weaker, teams would only be an advantage if the winner was chosen at random. StuRat (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The OP geolocates to Brazil. It is a common misconception that UK = England, when in fact, the UK is four different countries. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 16:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Or 5, depending on how you feel about Cornwall. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's common. Just as we don't see the US as 50 different countries, just as we don't see Germany as 16 different countries, just as we don't see USSR as 15 different countries, we see the UK also as one country, and just like the Netherlands are often called "Holland", the UK are quite commonly called "England". Akseli9 (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
In much the same way as the USA are commonly called "New York"? DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Sort of, when everyone from the USA is called Yankees. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course both the use of England for the UK and Holland for the Netherlands is not only incorrect, it is also deeply offensive to a lot of people, a fact that is often missed by foreigners. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that the UK has it both ways. Sometimes it wants to be considered one country, such as the Monarchy of the United Kingdom (you'll look in vain for the Monarchy of Wales or the Monarchy of Northern Ireland; you will find Monarchy of Scotland and Monarchy of England but these both ceased to exist centuries ago). But sometimes, it wants to be considered many countries (such as the 7 teams that compete at the Commonwealth Games). Is it any wonder that many people are confused, as exceedingly amply demonstrated at Terminology of the British Isles. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Fairness is a tough call here. The US team has a pool of 320 million people from which to draw it's team - France has only 66 million. There is a good argument that the US should have to divide it's best players amongst five regional teams in order to make a fairer game. Or since Ghana has a population of just 20 million, perhaps the French should send three regional teams and the USA about fifteen or sixteen of them?
Clearly population size can't be a determining factor here. But the UK is in fact just a grouping of four separate countries - and who is to deny the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern-Irelanders their chance to win? SteveBaker (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
... the UK is in fact just a grouping of four separate countries. Maybe, but in a very different way from how NATO, for example, is just a grouping of 28 separate countries; or the OECD, or OPEC, or the Warsaw Pact, or ASEAN, or the G8, or many other examples. Reducing the UK down to that simplistic grouping is very misleading. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Annoying pony videos[edit]

Lots of annoying pony videos show up on my YouTube recommended videos and it's so embarrassing since i don't even watch that sort of cartoons. Could any one of your kind souls work this out for me...? I don't fancy when I am in the middle of a power point me clicking on YouTube and pony videos popping up. That would be so embarrassing and it would be the worst possible thing for me for social stuff and getting teased.

If this doesn't happen when you are using private browsing mode and aren't logged on to your account but only happens with your normal browser, then it's likely Google has decided these are the sort of thing you want. In that case, if you aren't logged in to an account, clear your cookies. If you are logged in to your account, you'll either have to delete your history, or open and subscribe to enough other stuff that it will start showing different stuff. However this may not work, or won't work long term if the reason this arose in the first place keeps occuring. If it's not an account problem but it is a shared computer, you should create seperate OS or browser profile for youself which only you use. If it it's an account problem, are you sure you are keeping your account secure? Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes I am keeping my account secure. Why would Google decide that though....? I don't have any younger sisters or brothers to do that so I am stumped. I don't fancy deleting my history because someone might get the wrong idea. I've got different accounts for each family member so no one could have made a mistake. The videos show mostly the Mane 6 with some Princess Celestia and Princess Luna to boot. No fun indeed. I know about that because of pony spamming on forums and stuff. 78.148.88.75 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If getting caught with ponies would be the worst possible thing for you, giving someone the wrong idea by deleting history should be the relatively safer option.
Remember, Google doesn't just build your demographic profile from YouTube videos you watch, but anything you do on any site it has trackers and widgets and whatnot in. For instance, MLPForums.com launches scripts from googlesyndication.com and ajax.googleapis.com. If that's not the forum you've learned about how friendship is magic at, it probably also applies to the one where you did.
If you Google something like "why is my little pony in my recommended videos?", you're just associating yourself further. But when I Googled it (protected somewhat by NoScript), I found this, which suggests you're not alone. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, May 24, 2015 (UTC)
You can check here to find out what Google thinks you like, and tell it to stop guessing, if you'd like. If it doesn't suggest you like ponies, it might just be that the brony community has an effective viral marketing strategy, and you've been touched by it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, May 24, 2015 (UTC)

May 25[edit]