Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• 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.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

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:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 1

Text question-answering services

Why do services (can't remember the company's exact name) exist that, when sent a query by text message, answer the question within a minute, if this Reference desk can do the same thing for free!? The markup for a text message is insane, so why not be patient and use Wikipedia? The Reference desk is probably the most trustworthy page on the site, no offense. 75.73.225.224 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Likely because 1. a lot of people don't know about the Ref Desk (it's not like we have an advertising budget), 2. time is a factor sometimes (e.g. if you are playing bar trivia), and 3. a lot of people are (incorrectly) more comfortable with the results of a "pay" site than a "volunteer" site, even though in this particular instance, there are factors which mean that the "volunteer" site probably is more reliable (there are more opinions than just one answerer; none of us are trying to cram as many questions in per hour as is possible; we are doing it because we find it interesting and fun, not because we're being paid minimum wage to do it; etc.). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Because they make money. Relatively few people know about this reference desk and answers rarely arrive within a minute here, if at all. That'll be $1 please.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

They may not actually make money. I suspect the margin of profit for such an enterprise is pretty low these days, when smart phones (that can just access the internet directly) are becoming extremely common. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone have internet access 24/7 (wifi/data plan/what have you), but a lot of people have 24/7 cell phone services. Royor (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Check the small print of that answer service when you remember it. It may be just mirroring Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That's very unlikely, although some might use something like trueknowledge which sourced a lot of its info from WP. (A list of services can be found here by the way). SmartSE (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the questions these sites answer are very mundane ones like "when does the next bus leave from X?" which the Reference Desk would consider beneath its dignity (and as an aside, questions about bus times often require reading PDF timetables, which many phones cannot do very well). These also services answer much stupider questions like "will I ever find true love?" that the Reference Desk would reject even more forcefully. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what's on the TV in this picture?

I was flipping through the Times photos of the week, and was wondering about the picture on the TV in the background. Does anyone know what it's about? It looks like a soldier dressed in furs, but standing in the desert. Is it an ad? Here's the link to the page:

http://www.time.com/time/picturesoftheweek/0,29409,2040239_2222682,00.html Snorgle (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He's wearing a Ghillie suit. Dismas|^(talk) 18:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well that explains about the suit! He must be a sniper then. Anyone else know what he's advertising? Is it to encourage people to join up? Snorgle (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

From the context (green headbands with Arabic script), it looks like a Hamas press conference, and perhaps they are publicizing their ability to use snipers to murder Israeli civilians. (Looking at the caption, it confirms that it's Hamas.) StuRat (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of press reports of the 25/12/2010 press conference pictured - such as this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The text on the banner behind the guy to the left reads "Conference of the Martyr Izzuddin Qassam Brigades 25/12/2010" --Soman (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, and that's the military wing of Hamas. (Is there a peaceful, rather zen-like wing ?) StuRat (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a political wing, which is why it's necessary to make the distinction. Buddy431 (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The blockade of Gaza has led to shortages of everything except microphones. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2

Jets/Giants

Can anyone give me a good breakdown of which areas of New York City/New York state/New Jersey tend towards the Giants, and which towards the Jets? A few observations I've made on my own:

• Giants fans are more numerous almost everywhere.
• Giants fans also tend to root for the Yankees (baseball) and Rangers (hockey). Jets fans tend to root for the Mets (baseball) and Islanders (hockey).
• At one point, the Giants and Jets played in different parts of the city, which might have affected loyalties at one time. They no longer do, but some of the old loyalties might be in place.

Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe your breakdown is roughly correct. Jets fans tend to be concentrated on Long Island and Queens; the Jets once played at Shea Stadium and for a very long time the practiced and had their official headquarters at Hofstra University on Long Island. --Jayron32 03:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but Queens is on Long Island. I know little of NYC culture, so speak to me as to an idiot. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal recently did a survey of Jets and Giants fans. While the Giants have more fans in New York, Jets fans tend to be older, wealthier and less liberal. This probably reflects how the Jets used to play out in Flushing and thus had a fan base in the suburbs of Long Island and adjacent eastern Queens. ("Long Island" generally refers to the suburbs of Nassau and Suffolk counties and not to the geographic Long Island, which includes Brooklyn and Queens.) The Giants used to play at the Polo Grounds and then Yankee Stadium, so they have a strong fan base in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Titans (as the Jets were originally known) played their first 4 seasons at the Polo Grounds and didn't draw flies, so presumably the move to Flushing worked very well in their favor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hat type

What is the name of this style of cap? Thanks. LANTZY^TALK 09:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Karakul. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks, Sluzzelin. LANTZY^TALK 10:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

StuRat (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks similar to a garrison cap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP was asking for the name of the hat, not what it is similar to - which is obvious. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the similarity of a garrison cap to what's sometimes called a "Nehru cap" or "Gandhi cap" could be relevant, as a token of the uniform worn by Indian nationalist political prisoners in South Africa (where Gandhi started his political career). —— Shakescene (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ref desk meta-question

Shouldn't we add to the rules of the page for innocent readers the implicit policy that any comment given in small text is meant tongue-in-cheek? Not everyone knows that. Finalius (Say what?) 16:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, discussions about the Reference Desk's management should take place on its talk page: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk (shortcut WT:RD). In brief, though, anyone who doesn't immediately 'get' that the change in formatting denotes a tongue-in-cheek remark probably isn't the sort to read through the instructions at the top of the page, and definitely isn't the sort of person who will follow the links there back to our detailed guidelines pages. There are an awful lot of different discussion conventions that we don't mention or discuss in detail at the top of the page: indenting, formatting, use of ALL CAPS, how to link to pages and images, etc.; I'm not sure that this one would be the one I'd add an explanation for. That said, if you feel that there are editors who are making this page too confusing or distracting to its users by taking us off on a lot of irrelevant semi-humorous tangents, then you should definitely bring the matter up with them on their own talk pages (or ask for the assistance of other Ref Desk editors on WT:RD.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true that people who don't "get" the change in formatting are people who aren't paying attention. Many people may be well meaning, but not internet-savy people. Such people may assume a level of professionalism (This is the Reference Desk provided as a public service by The World's Largest Encyclopedia, after all.) and not catch the meaning of the change in formatting. Especially as some of the "jokes" are almost-plausible sarcastic suggestions.

I also wonder how the small text renders on screen-readers and other unusual browsers. APL (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The "rules" list is almost certainly read by almost nobody. It's a nice thing to be able to point to when someone does something wrong, but other than that, I wouldn't put much faith in its educating ability. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I use small text a bit differently, for any comment that's not an answer to the Q (and not designed to help get to the answer). Jokes could qualify, but some jokes are actually answers, as well. However, for the most part, I do put jokes in small text, for those find my tiny bits and pieces amusing. StuRat (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(Catholic Saints)

How did Saint Kilian Die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.118.18 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

He lost his head. See Saint Kilian. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

More precisely, his head was forcibly removed from the rest of his body. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He could be the patron saint of the straight-razor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Garlic Paste Problem

Hi guys. I'm a bit of a funny eater - I'm always looking for that next extreme taste hit, and so go through intense phrases where I binge on strongly flavoured foods - blue cheese one week, pomegranate molasses the next, fresh chilis the one after. Now, the problem is that I've recently started to consume large quantities of those tubes of garlic paste - basically pureed garlics, and I can't get enough of them. My wife, however, objects, and it definately seems to impede our attempts to make out. I've tried brushing my teeth until my gums bleed, but that won't work. Does anyone have any tips so I can keep eating mountains of garlic paste whilst keeping my marriage on the track? Great Green Gourd (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Persuade your wife to eat it too. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Chew vast amounts of parsley afterwards. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hay Bro... an' listen here. Women are more subtle than that. Forget trying to mitigated the garlic. Yeah, really! She is say whats next? ... So... Yummy mummy!! Take a looker here: [1]. Also, a pinch of Ammonium chloride for seasoning, adds a little je ne sais quoi. Enjoy! --Aspro (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia has an article on Stink Heads. All of a sudden I have an urge to explore my fridge again! Boy; am I going to have to stick to my new year's resolution to diet.--Aspro (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, the only thing that will work is if your wife eats garlic too. Nothing you can do will supress the smell of garlic, which will be coming out of your pores as well as your mouth. If she eats garlic when you do, she will also have the smell and will find it less overpowering from you. 86.162.68.52 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And the smell coming out of your mouth is not because of tiny bits of garlic stuck to your teeth that you could just brush away. (Well, that could also be it, but you say you brushed) it's coming from the blood vessels in your lungs. (Alcohol does the same thing. This is why no amount of brushing will fool a sobriety test.)

Consider skipping on to your next food fad. Or even going back to blue cheese. That's worth a second go. (especially melted over a bacon sandwich!) APL (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

From the WP garlic article "Due to its strong odor, garlic is sometimes called the "stinking rose". When eaten in quantity, garlic may be strongly evident in the diner's sweat and breath the following day. This is because garlic's strong-smelling sulfur compounds are metabolized, forming allyl methyl sulfide. Allyl methyl sulfide (AMS) cannot be digested and is passed into the blood. It is carried to the lungs and the skin, where it is excreted. Since digestion takes several hours, and release of AMS several hours more, the effect of eating garlic may be present for a long time. I concur with APL. You need a toothbrush with a much longer handle. The unholy smell, to a lesser extent, also comes out in your sweat. Hmm, what price your marriage? Richard Avery (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The sense of smell is apparently very important to sexual attraction and response. Some people find the smell of garlic on a person unobjectionable or even appealing, but apparently your wife is not one of these people. I agree that if you value the relationship, you will want to cut back on the garlic. Marco polo (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

January 3

How does this quadruple-amputee do the required rituals in life?

Watch from 15:10 of the 59:31 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crga3tjF5bQ&list=QL&playnext=17

He has no arms and legs.

How does he brush his teeth? I saw his teeth, and it looks GREAT. It's white, and appears to be well taken care of.

How does he feed himself?

Most of all, how does he wipe?

The last question might be morbid, but I really, really need to know here because I hate to make people uncomfortable by asking them this in real life.

That's why I must use the anonymity of my IP address (which changes every few days here, where I'm home for the holidays), so that there is no mutual discomfort between myself and the users here.

Thanks in advance! --68.95.73.128 (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he has people who help him perform these tasks? --Jayron32 03:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Many disabled people have others to help them perform the tasks "normal" people can manage for themselves. Heck, I'm (relatively) normal, and I have a mechanic who maintains my car, because I cannot. I depend on utility providers to take away my sewerage and bring me water. We all depend on others to different degrees. HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Helper animals are quite common, and for this case a helper monkey would be indicated, which possesses the intelligence and dexterity to perform those type of tasks. StuRat (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A monkey would help wipe? Besides, since I think the last time we needed help wiping was in preschool, I'd feel epicly humiliated from needing help wiping later in my life. (At least I have my BioBidet/bidet seat/washlet. I'd rather have a machine help me than another warm body.) --65.64.191.135 (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Here in the UK, and I suspect many other countries in the world, we have a care system which includes 24 hour care for people who need it. It is often paid for by the National Health Service but not exclusively. It is very likely that this person has a similar arrangement. So you "really, really have to know" so that you don't make the person uncomfortable? No, it is you that feels uncomfortable asking about something that is actually none of your business! Richard Avery (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick Vujicic was born limbless so he is not an amputee. That see this article is an extreme example of the kind of birth defect that occurred when mothers took Thalidomide during pregnancy. The OP should get to know some disabled people and thereby find out that they all have names, many are more resourceful than one would expect, and they need human assistance in ways that vary with each case and should be obvious, You do not help anyone asking your personal questions covertly. BION Shit happens, that it does so is healthy not "morbid", and even uncomfortable IP users likely filled these at some time for someone else to remove. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I would think the same question could be asked in reference to quadriplegics, of which I would guess there are more of than there are of folks physically missing all their limbs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not only persons missing limbs, but a vast number of the elderly with senile dementia or Altzheimers, or physical impairments, need someone to help them brush their teeth, to dress and feed them, to bathe them and to clean them up after using the toilet, or e to change their adult diapers. I thank all the low paid, and hard working nurses or assistants who do this work for millions of people who once led independent lives. Edison (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What a gross endeavor. I'd rather work on children, in whatever is their equivalent of a nursing home! Somehow, everything about children is much cleaner than the elderly... --68.95.116.192 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that I'm officially a senior citizen, I resent that remark. :) Have you ever had to deal with a baby's nappy/diaper after a particularly nasty ... defecatory episode? It ain't no fun. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not babies; children aged 5-12. Wouldn't they be easier to deal with in their analog to the nursing home? --70.179.178.5 (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Arachnology

I have a Collins field guidem to Spiders of the UK and northern Europe, but it is not what I need I am looking for a comprehensive spider guide with as many colour plates as posible for identification, my criteria is specifically for as many colour pictures for identification of as many spiders as possible, any sugestions please? Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.2.26.146 (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you still concentrating on the UK, or are you looking for a guide covering a larger region? Googlemeister (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Uk mostly but if it covered Europe too great, I dont mind buying a second book to cover the rest of europe. (same guy diff PC) My priority is for UK, and pictures. Much like a common bird book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the Amazon "reviewers" of your Collins field guide makes the same point as you. They write: "this may not be the ideal book if you want to have an attempt at identifying the more obvious spiders in your back garden - if this is the case you might be better with the Field Studies Council laminated card guide to house and garden spiders." That FSC guide sounds like what you are looking for. It can be purchased here or there is another one here which looks more comprehensive. --Viennese Waltz 15:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Song Sample

What song is sampled that the beginning of this song? I'm not talking about the electronic breakdown at the very first, but the rhythmic (violin?) sound right before he begins rapping and then throughout the entire song. I've heard it before, but I just cannot remember it. I hate to ask this here, but it's driving me nuts. link to song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhIsdykpML4 72.173.160.50 (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• The comments on that video refer to Fort Minor 'Believe Me' video here. Sussexonian (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Skimming foam from lentils

When boiling lentils some foam often appears on top of the water. Many cookbooks advise skimming and discarding this foam, but rarely give any reason for doing so. I'm wondering if there's any legitimate reason for this skimming and discarding of lentil foam? I've run across one claim that removing the foam will reduce the gas-causing constituents in the lentils, but I wonder if that's really true or if it's just an old wives' tale. Anyone here know the facts? -- noosphere 22:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

For some people it is unappetizing. The foam (or scum) often appears when boiling any protein-laden foodstuff, including (but not limited to) beans and lentils. I'm not sure it is harmful or bad for you, but if you are serving a dish to mixed company, it may be nice for presentation if your lentils didn't have it. --Jayron32 22:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The advice in the UK is to always vigorously boil lentil for ten minutes, simmering afterwards to complete the cooking, The vigorous boiling is to remove some poison found in them. During the vigorous boiling you get a lot of foam appearing, but after a while it disapears. 92.15.22.77 (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This page suggests the "poison" is Purines which some people are sensitive to. Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The linked pages I've just read say that cooking increases the amount of purine, so it's unlikely to be that. 92.29.123.173 (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he was thinking of phytohaemagglutinin, which is "is present in many varieties of common bean but is especially concentrated in red kidney beans." Look herefor more info. I'm not sure if phytohaemagglutinin is present in lentils, though. Of, if it is, if it's present in enough quantity to be worrysome. -- noosphere 01:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the coldest major city in Canada?

by major i mean it has 50,000+ people or it has an NHL team! :-D--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

My guess would be Winnipeg. What do I win? --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing, I'm afraid. We actively discourage guessing around here, this being a reference desk and all.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I googled [canada cities temperatures] and this[2] is the first item that came up. It appears that Winnipeg is indeed the answer, at least among NHL cities. Yellow Knife is much colder, but it's in the NWT, and lacks an NHL team. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Winnipeg doesn't have an NHL team either. Phoenix stole it. Aaronite (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. They used to, but the team moved to a well-known hockey hotbed. But I think they qualify on the 50,000+ option. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

To judge by the data in our articles, there's not much difference between Winnipeg, Saskatoon, and Regina with regard to winter temperatures. The latter two have populations well over 50,000, and the record-lowest temperature of each is colder than that of Winnipeg. Deor (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Of course Winnipeg is quite a bit bigger than either of them. 50K seems a little small for "major city". --Trovatore (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are some statistics, and here is a more personal opinion Winnipeg Is a Frozen Shithole meltBanana 04:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by coldest? Do you mean yearly average or coldest ever recorded? Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that Fort_McMurray is colder then the others, and has a population of 60-70k. However, I don't think it is technically incorporated as a city. Googlemeister (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, Vancouver is the smallest city in Canada with an NHL team at around 600,000 people. Googlemeister (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Surprised to hear that vnacouver has an NHL team. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying that Vancouver only has 600,000 people is misleading because many the cities that we would be comparing Vancouver to have merged with the first level of their suburbs. For the sake of comparison, we should either count Greater Vancouver as one city or only count the downtown population of the other cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.96.10 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if it is misleading, it is because that is how the Canada Census Bureau counts the populations of cities, and I did say city, not greater metro. Googlemeister (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If we are talking about the population base of an NHL team, I would count it in one of two ways. First, we could count everyone close enough to the stadium to go watch a game as a day trip. Second, we could count it the way we count mountains: include every person on one side of the low point between summits (summits being teams, in this case). 205.193.96.10 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal Hygene

It worked for this guy. I think you had better give it a try.

A friend recently told me that a man should shave under his arms. I laughed at first, but soon realised my friend was being serious. She stated that many man prefer a woman to have shaved underarms, this I agree with, she stated that for exactly the same reason women generally want their men to have clean shaven underarms. She stated that it is a matter of hygene, and that when a woman is lying on your shoulder she does not want to see hairy armpits. I did not beleive this atall! We then asked a female friend who said that 90% of the men she has slept with, (thats alot!) had shaved most body hair, groin as well as armpits. I have never heard of this before. Is this a new development? Is this a European thing? Is it more hygenic? Do most men do this? Is this something to do with sportsman? If this is so common, and such an accepted thing why would I have never heard of this before. She wants me to shave. But I think I would feel femenine. what would my friends think if they saw this? Or are they doing it already? My father does not shave his armpits, and never taught me to. My mother does, but I am a man. Are my friends trying to trick me into some sort of practical joke? Or is this the new Black? I noticed in porn that in the 70's most actors and actresses had hair, and that now days they do not, I always assumed this was to get a better view of the action. But this is in pubic regions, what about under the arms? Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've not heard of large numbers of men shaving their armpits. It's not the norm in Britain, certainly. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It would depend on what the woman likes. I think competitive swimmers tend to shave their entire bodies, but that's for "hydrodynamics". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

BB pretty much beat me to the punch. I was going to say it all boils down to personal preference (for both parties) and then in a lighthearted tone suggest that maybe your friend's friend just really likes professional swimmers and that's why most of her men were shaved. But no, as far as I'm aware it's not a major thing, no. TomorrowTime (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What I am about to type is beyond the usual ambit of the Reference Desk, and the only reference I'm going to include is that picture there; but have you considered that she is plotting to get you to shave your armpits so that she won't have to be near a hairy armpit after she sleeps with you? Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha. That pic looks to be from the 40s or 50s, when the "muscle beach" types did indeed shave their chests and pits in order to better show off their overdeveloped musckles. In fact, I'm thinking it was a Hays office standard that men could be "topless" in movies provided they were hairless. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He appears to have shaved his legs as well. --Trovatore (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In Japan it is pretty common for young men (20s and under) to shave all of their visible body hair. They don't tend to have a lot anyway, but it seems to be considered nicer-looking to have none whatsoever. But that is Japan. And so is this :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's what it boils down to: If the person (or people) you wish to have sex with want your pits shaved, you shave them. If they do not, you do not. Same for both sexes. Men and women will do what is necessary to land and maintain a mate. Once you have found what works for you, go for it. Hairstyle is still just hairstyle, even if its pits hairstyle. To each their own, whatever floats your boat, eye of the beholder, etc. etc. --Jayron32 01:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a common practice for Muslim men. More at Underarm hair and here's a how to. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The section title is misleading. This issue has nothing to do with hygiene. It's all about whether people want their partners to look pre-pubescent. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with looking pre-pubescent. Hairstyles and bodyhair styles are a matter of personal taste; implying that those with different taste than yours are into people who look "pre-pubescent" is ludicrous. --Jayron32 05:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Is it more hygienic?" is a question about hygiene, so the section title is not misleading. --Anon, 07:27 UTC, January 4, 2011.

That would be in the same way that men who shave their beards do so in order to appear prepubescent? And don't get me started on the men who shave their heads entirely.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, on the beards. You've heard the phrase baldface lie? That's because, if a guy'll scrape all the hair off his face trying to look like a little boy, you just can't believe anything he says. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And you trust that reference? Why, the writer probably didn't even have a beard. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Barefaced on Etymonline shows 'shameless' as a nuance. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you can be perfectly higienic with or without amrpit hair, you just have to wash frequently in both cases. It does make a big difference to how you look when topless, however. Oh, and there is a health question regarding the use of a razor in places where the skin is very sensitive. --Lgriot (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

January 4

place in connecticut

I'm going to connecticut in 8 days, and am told to go to some multy purpose building, 3 floors tall and about the size of a mall called Pod View Place. Does anyone here know where i might find such a building? I was also told a description of the place: there is a busy dot matrix printer in the lobby on the 2nd floor, and a bank machine with a coin machine and a vending machine next to it. It has a few tables and a small balcony overlooking the 1st floor, and has a vary nice elevator. The 1st floor is a large hallway and a few offices, and in the basement is a small place where you can buy food, then take it up to the 2nd floor lobby to eat it, and there is also a boaling alley and a shuffleboard table on the 3rd floor, with an emty space with a balcony overlooking the 2nd floor. Does anyone know of such a place in connecticut if it exists? Remember, i was told it is called "Pod view Place", don't know why, what i gave you was all that i was told about it. Oh, and another thing, the said printer is the only one they told me was in the building, and there's one bank machine (see above). Please don't quote me on this stuff, i'm just asking if such a place exists, and where in connecticut? N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 04:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Google turns up absolutely nothing on any place named "pod view place", so perhaps you have the name slightly wrong. Could you reconfirm the spelling? Also, where in Connecticut? It may be a small state, but there are several major cities there, so narrowing down where such a building was would help. --Jayron32 04:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They don't know, only that it was in southern connecticut, i just contacted them and they said they haven't been there for 4 months. Even if it's not the name, is there a place similar to what i described? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nissae Isen's Man (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• What you described sounds like any common business building, I would posit there are likely hundreds of them spread around Connecticut. Aside from Hartford, most of Connecticut's population lies in the Southeastern corner, so "Southern Connecticut" doesn't really narrow it down much. I tried some google variations on the name, and found that there's only TWO places in Connecticut that contain the phrase "view place", one is Harbour View Place in Stratford and the other is View Place in Guilford, and I looked at them in Google Street View; they are both residential complexes and don't match at ALL what you described. I would ask again about the name and address, and get them to spell it, just to be sure. --Jayron32 04:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Maybe found it. Could it be Pond View Corporate Center in Farmington? Farmington isn't really in Southern Connecticut, it's a suburb of Hartford near Bristol, but from the pictures I see at this page it looks like it might be three stories. --Jayron32 04:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You're pritty close, the 3 floors is right. They admit that they don't remember the name, they thought it was pod view place because they remember hearing the name down there. But she says that the description is pritty much acurate, and remember, it is 3 storries tall, she says it might be in hartford, i don't believe what she says about a town near hartford called Poddleville, so i would assume she is refering to hartford. Remember, nearly the size of mall, 3 floors and basement, and is a multi-purpose building. It was in a city so i believe Hartford might be it. Is there something similar to the building i mention? and if anyone's been to connecticut and saw a building with those features or similar to what i described (both inside and out), then let me know. I'd really like to hang out there when i go to Connecticut. Remember a few features i mention, just to recap:

• basement has a minni restoraunt and boaling alley and i'm sure other stuff
• first floor is mainly hallways and offices, with a big open area.
• 2nd floor is another open lobby with a balcony, a busy dot matrix printer in the far corner of the lobby, by the elevators is a bank machine, bill coin exchanger and a drink vending machine, as well as a few tables and chairs. *3rd floor has a shuffleboard table, as well as an open area with a balcony.

Even if a building that you know of near or in connecticut is vary similar to the building that i described, that will be good enough. remember, that's just what my friend remembers about when she was in connecticut, and i have permission to give her name, Kerri. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 04:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Well, looking at the interior shots at the webpage I linked above, it roughly matches your description; it has a two-story open lobby with a second floor balcony. I have no idea from the pictures provided if there is indeed a dot-matrix printer on the second floor anywhere. The complex appears to have two roughly identical buildings, I have no idea either about the layout or occupants of the building. But its the closest match to your description I can find using Google. --Jayron32 05:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, hopefully there's a bank machine there, i'll need some money for the restoraunt in the basement. if you have anymore ideas on the said building, just let me know, i'm gone in 8 days for a 4 day trip, as well as my plans turn out right. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 05:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Kerri remembers more about the building: Just off the lobby on the 2nd floor is an arkade with a few pinball machines. Supposing that's why they have that bill to coin exchange machine. There is a bingo room down in the basement, assuming that older people go an play bingo down there. There's a small fountain on the 1st floor that creates a watterfall, and where people drop pennies into it. The 3rd floor has a few offices, a lounge, and next to the shuffleboard room is a room with a pool table, and there is more offices after that, which is why Kerri and I describe it as a multi-purpose building. Yes the 2nd floor has a few offices, one right in the lobby, which i guess is why that dot matrix printer is in the lobby. Maybe the Pond View Corporate Center is what i'm looking for, possibly. If Kerri remembers more, i'll let you guys know to help narrow down this building. Has anyone on the ref desk been to Pond View Corporate Center ? or have they been to a building with features (inside features) that i mention? Thanks for helping by the way, and sorry if i appear to be annoying in any way. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 05:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would someone tell you to go to this place? It looks like it is just some random office building. 68.170.179.65 (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They said it is a great place to hang out, and i can see why, judging by the description. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 09:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Who hear lives in or has recently been to connecticut, maybe they have an idea. Just tried Kerri adain, she can't remember anymore. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 00:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean we are going to get a 4-day respite from NIM?? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, i'm just looking for a place i heard about from Kerri, and by the way, after trying to google descriptions such as the ones i gave, i found nothing, which is annoying. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 10:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

So lets get this straight... you've agreed to meet Kerri in a place you have never been to and where she has only the haziest recollections of what it looks like, and she can't remember the address or even the city - just "somewhere in southern Connecticut"? Can I suggest you meet somewhere easier to find, the train station, the airport, city hall? Astronaut (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it worse to be a 9/11 Truther or an Obama Birther?

which people have the weakest arguments? which people are more likely to do HARM TO AMERICA?--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

12 of one, a dozen of the other. Is "harming America" a positive good or something to be avoided? And how do you harm a continent? Take a dig at the plate boundary? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

To a non-American, looking into the causes of a major national/international incident like 9/11 seems a reasonable thing to do, even if it can lead to preposterous conclusions based on no plausible evidence. Questioning the origins of your own elected president, despite the overwhelming and conclusive evidence, just comes across as primitive and utterly reprehensible racism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I suspect that the USA is the only country in the world with such a weird law about their elected leader having to be born in the country, especially when it claims to have welcomed so many immigrants. (Can anyone confirm that?) Obama is clearly not a blatant non-American, like someone from, for example, Australia. (Now, that WOULD be a mistake!) Those playing that card really do look like racists. As for 911, I doubt if there was any massive internal conspiracy. It's very hard to manage such things. But it sure looks like there was a fair bit of incompetence. Worth digging into that as much as you can. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not about having to be born in the country per se. It's about having to be born an American citizen, which derives from having an American citizen parent, no matter where in the world one is born. (Or so the theory goes; it awaits a court to rule on this interpretation of the law, and they're not going to do that until a live case crops up.) But even that is asking too much, as it instantly presidentially disenfranchises all the people born citizens of other countries who come to the US, get naturalised, and strive to get to the top in the land of the free as they're promised they can. That promise holds true in every field - except for the biggest one of all. That's reserved for people who through an accident of birth were born American citizens, and who had no more say about it than those born citizens of anywhere else. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So first let me say that

1. I see no reason to doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii.
2. Even if he had been born in Kenya to an American mother, my understanding is that he would still be eligible, though as Jack says the point has never been tested.
3. I am in favor of repealing the requirement that the president be a native-born citizen; whatever justification it might have had at the time is long gone.

Just the same, to impute racist motives to people, you need strong proof. I don't see that proof here. If Obama had been born in Kenya, then even if he were nevertheless eligible on the basis of his mother's citizenship, it would mean that he had lied about it. That would be a legitimate gripe against him, if it were true. Therefore people who think they have evidence of it are entitled to present it, and should not be assumed to be objecting merely to Obama's phenotype, unless that motivation is independently demonstrated. --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As for arguments: I would say Birthers. It is basically a bald attempt to say "this guy is illegitimate" in a way that is tied to his origins, which looks a lot like racism at the very least. To be unsatisfied with the account of the 9/11 attacks given is, well, a lot more understandable by comparison, given the complexity of the whole thing. The 9/11 truther arguments are at least a matter of interpretation in some cases; the Birthers are basically just convinced of the existence of things that there is no proof for, and they are convinced entirely on their basis of not wanting to believe that a President who was rather solidly elected is actually who he says he is.

As for harm to America: I think it's kind of a toss-up, but I lean toward Birthers. The Birthers fundamentally believe there is a Pretender in the Oval Office, part of a larger cosmology of crazy that makes white America under siege by hostile outside forces. The larger cosmology is pretty dangerous, in my opinion; it's fuel for all sorts of real difficulties, not to mention ridiculous politics. But of course, believing that your own government would happily sacrifice a few thousand people in order to start a war or get oil or whatever the 9/11ers believe is pretty crazy too. But on the whole, ten years after, I think that movement has faded, so it's hard to consider it dangerous in the present tense. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"the Birthers are basically just convinced of the existence of things that there is no proof for, and they are convinced entirely on their basis of not wanting to believe that a President who was rather solidly elected is actually who he says he is."

I suspect there is a fair amount of overlap between birthers and IDers - change a couple of words in the sentence above and you have a perfect description for your regular ID follower... TomorrowTime (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I disagree. I think ID is pretty silly, too, but it's fundamentally rooted in something more rich than the Birther movement, which is really just rooted in this nutty "white America is under attack!" ideology. The Birther thing is entirely intellectually shallow — there's absolutely no "there" there. ID doesn't have to be, even if it is wrong — and arguing against ID has actually produced some interesting results, unlike the Birthers (because there is nothing there other than "these people are nuts"). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question (and end this forum-like thread), I would suggest that the original poster read the articles on the specific subjects, notably Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories, and to judge which arguments hold water (if any) for themselves. As to "doing harm to America," that's rather subjective and not something I believe either article cited above can answer. --McDoobAU93 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The "doing harm to America" bit was what I was partly trying to address when I spoke of the "natural born citizen" thing being unique to the USA. It means that anything done around that issue relates directly and exclusively to America, and hence America's image. An event like 9/11 would create conspiracy theories wherever it happened.

It depends what you mean by "unique". In the 2000 presidential election in the Ivory Coast, Alassane Ouattara (whom the international community recognizes as the winner of last year's election) was constitutionally disqualified from running because, with a mother from Burkina Faso (the former Upper Volta), he wasn't a "true Ivoirien". —— Shakescene (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. Happy to withdraw the unique. I did ask in my first post above if anyone knew if it was just the USA that felt so strongly about those evil foreigners. Now I know. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no definitive answer to this, of course, but I think the 9/11 conspiracy theorists "do more harm to America." It can't help America if the conspiracy theorists convince foreigners that the U.S. government is evil enough to commit a massive act of terrorism against its own citizens. And it's no good for the fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups if people think they aren't responsible for 9/11. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's reasonable enough, apart from the fact that the US administration used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, a place where al-Qaeda was unlikely to be active because of Saddam's nasty regime. Had they just gone after real terrorists, rather than creating more, there would have been greater credibility in the move. Mind you, I still don't go along with the 9//11 Truthers. They seem to be your regular nutcases. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've revised my opinion a bit. In the short term, the Birther thing strikes me as more pernicious, because it becomes a means of discrediting anything the current President proposes, no matter how good or bad or what have you. That's political kryptonite. In the longer term, though, I think the Birther thing will be just another stupid political fad with little consequence (like most scurrilous political accusations without merit) and will probably not become part of the long-term legacy of this period. On the other hand, if the 9/11 truth conspiracy theories gain any traction, they could easily become part of a longer, generation-shaping mindset comparable to the Kennedy assassination theories (which really became widespread in the 1970s, not the 1960s, and became part of a generalize lack of trust in the government). In other words, I think the Birther thing has a nasty short-term effect on political discourse in the US, but the 9/11 theories will probably have a nastier long-term effect. All of my response, of course, presumes that the Birthers and the 9/11 theorists are wrong. (If you suspect they are correct, then what's bad for me is good for you, etc.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

general secretaries of communist party of india marxist

can you list the names of all general secretaries of cpi-m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.130.238 (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Puchalapalli Sundaraiah, E. M. S. Namboodiripad, Harkishan Singh Surjeet and Prakash Karat. We have articles on all of them. Warofdreams talk 09:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cpimkerala.org/eng/conferences-6.php?n=1 has a list of the congresses of the party, and who has been general secretary and politburo members of the party. The list also includes CPI congresses prior to the split. --Soman (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

who are some famous people from the war-torn region of Darfur?

are there any famos celebrities from this region? I would also like to know if the names of any war criminals who did all the raping and the killing have been released and if there are wikipedia articles about these war criminals?--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anybody internationally very well known from this region, but see Category:People from North Darfur, Category:People from South Darfur and Category:People from West Darfur for people we have article on. Warofdreams talk 09:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

While not strictly from Darfur, the former NBA star and recently deceased Manute Bol was Sudanese, and born very near to Darfur; he was personally touched by the conflict and worked as a humanitarian to help those hurt by the war. --Jayron32 05:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Photograph

Missing: Photo of Ronald Reagan shaking John Wayne Gacy's hand at a fundraiser. Is that available? It did not appear in the article. This image does exist. (H8dogma (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

If the photo exists (I assume you're right, but have no idea), it's likely not licensed in such a way that Wikipedia can make proper use of it. We can make limited use of copyrighted materials, but a case would have to be made that the material is necessary for having a decent article - which is probably unlikely. Related to that is the point that the picture may have limited encyclopedic value - their meeting each other briefly was not a major feature of either's life story. Compare that with the Elvis-Nixon picture which is somewhat famous in its own right, is free of copyright, and was a reasonably notable meeting. Matt Deres (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Who is that guy in the photo? I mean the shifty-looking one. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

To C3: what guy and what photo are you talking about? To H8dogma: it wasn't Ronald Reagan who shook Gacy's hand, it was First Lady Rosalynn Carter. The photo of that meeting appears in the article John Wayne Gacy. --Viennese Waltz 15:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked about the alleged missing photo. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Viennese Waltz is right -- Gacy met Mrs. Carter, not Mr. Reagan. Are you sure you're not thinking of John Wayne the actor? He and Reagan were good friends. --M@rēino 21:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Themed days such as National No Smoking Day - who registers them?

I have tried on many occasions to search for the answer to this question, but have never satisfactorily phrased the question to receive an answer. Is there a general body whose job it is to register specific themed days and check they don't double-up with one another?

There are the obvious ones like National No Smoking Day but how was it possible to register National Talk Like a Pirate day which was reported on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme last year and have it recognised nationally?

Many thanks,

M Ewing UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.235.123 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no registration process, merely a need to get the press to bite. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

To make it official you can get the US Congress (or other government bodies in other nations) to vote for it. That's one of the few things they can do that won't hurt anything, and maybe debating whether one week should be rutabaga week or scallion week might keep them from doing something worse to us. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that is some smart thinking! HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can get enough people to call it "National Talk Like a Pirate day", then it is Talk Like a Pirate day. Actually, I suspect that Tuesday got its name for the same reason... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but to get them to declare such a day, you would need a strong ARGGGGGGument. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Or as Winnie-the-Pooh might say..."Twosday". Buster Seven Talk 05:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Which should be the day after Onesday, not before, but that's what we're stuck with.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

IIRW every day would be International No Smoking Day. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Suits me fine, that. Having to go outside the house to smoke is bad enough. I'd hate to have to go abroad to do it. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

International Talk Like a Pirate Day discusses how they created that. --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

January 5

Wrists

Closed Discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I recently returned from a trip to the LBJ National Grasslands. I woke in the middle of the night to extreme pain in my wrists. I took some advil and the pain has subsided. I just want to know what causes this (n.b. this means this question is not seeking medical advice). Is this what it means to be 'chilled to the bone?' Thanks Wikipedians. schyler (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Are you telling us it was cold? How cold? HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC) This question appears to be a request for medical advice. It is against our guidelines to provide medical advice. Schyler, from the information you provide this could be a lot of things. You need to consult a doctor about this question. WikiDao ☯ 04:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Responses containing prescriptive information or medical advice should be removed and an explanatory note posted on the discussion page. If you feel a response has been removed in error, please discuss it before restoring it. To answer the other part of your question, "Chilled to the bone" is usually just understood to mean "be very cold".[3] I've never heard or read it used to refer to a pain or to a particular set of medical symptoms except, perhaps, mild hypothermia. APL (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, if you were actually chiled to your actual bones, you would be suffering from severe frostbite as well as severe hypothermia. If you are so cold that your core body temperature drops significantly, you are in deep shit. The phrase is meant to be understood idiomatically, much as one who was very hungry would say "I am starving to death". --Jayron32 05:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I was asking if cold can cause pain in the wrists, NOT what I should do about it. This was not a request for medical advice according to Kainaw's Criterion. schyler (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, the personal experience you described means that your question is likely to fall foul of the "everything is a request for medical advice" crew. If you had phrased the question as "is it physically possible for exposure to cold to cause pain in the wrists?" and left it at that, you might have got away with it. But not now. --Viennese Waltz 14:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) While it may not be your intention, what you're asking for is a list of possible diagnoses based on a symptom you've described. If we say "Yes, cold can cause extreme pain the wrists", then you'll call it a day, and chalk your discomfort up to that. You might even be tempted to ignore the symptom in the future. If we say "No, cold shouldn't cause that symptom", then you'll be more inclined to seek proper medical advice. Whether you explicitly phrased your question as a 'what should I do?', the effect is the same. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Depending on the situation, pain could be caused in the wrists due to cold, but, if you woke up and felt like that, you probibly slept on your hands or arms wrong, though i'm not sure exactly what happened. You'll have to ask a doctor, but if you felt like that when you woke up, you probibly hurt your wrists when you were turning over in your sleep. that's the best i can do. and by the way people, the questioner clearly states that they are not seaking metical advice. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Without offering medical advice (other than, if you want medical advice, please see a doctor), I would say that it is possible you experienced symptoms of arthritis. But it is conceivably something more serious, and of course only a doctor who examines you could offer a diagnosis. Marco polo (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I'm closing this down. It is clearly a request for medical advice. Explanations of the causes of pain should be explored by doctors, not random people on the Internet. --17:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Presidential Silver Award

My son received the "Presidential Silver Award", during his 5th grade graduation ceremony. Please explain in detail what this award is and the critereia for which one is awarded on.98.249.226.125 (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's probably an award given by the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation. This describes it in more detail. For the silver level for 5-14 year olds, it says 75-99 hours of volunteer work is necessary. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

LGBT understanding

I have a general question about the acronym LGBT.

As I understand this, it's meaning is; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgenders. As I read the acronym though, I feel that it should read; lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgenders. The term "gay" is not gender specific term and in our dictionaries. The word means nothing more than homosexual. In fact, if I'm not wrong, there is no term associated specifically for gay male in our dictionaries, which one assumes "gay" in the acronym refers to.

I find the English language confusing enough and this type of assumption doesn't help. We should not be using the term "gay" as male gender specific. That is not the true meaning. It's just an assumption.

I'm just being picky, but feel that I have a point to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Bryant 1965 (talk • [[SpInsert non-formatted text hereecial:Contributions/Gary Bryant 1965|contribs]]) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

True, we do talk about "gay men and lesbians", while "gay people" encompasses both sexes. But equally, "homosexual" applies to both sexes. If there was any change to be made, it would be to drop the "lesbian" and just have "gay, bisexual and transgender", or "homosexual, bisexual and transgender". But individuals like you and me don't get to dictate that widely-used abbreviations like LGBT should be changed to what we think they should be. Language doesn't work that way. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And "man" means "human being". Oh no it doesn't, it means "human male". Oh no it doesn't ...

People who choose to be picky often seem to lose sight of the fact that words can have more than one meaning. --ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

All that really matters in communication is whether we understand one another. Is there anybody who thinks the "gay" in LGBT means "happy"? --Mr.98 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a word for a male homosexual, but that word ("faggot") is considered offensive. It does seem odd that the word for a male homosexual is offensive when the word for a female homosexual is not. (Then again, "sissy" or "mama's boy" are offensive while "tomboy" or "daddy's girl" are not, so I detect a pattern.) StuRat (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous offensive terms for both male and female homosexuals, and the implication that the one you've used is somehow a standard is even more offensive. --LarryMac | Talk 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In StuRat's defence, he didn't say it was standard. And he stated outright that it was offensive. His point was simply that it was unambiguous because "faggot" is rarely, if ever, used to refer to a lesbian. If you easily get offended by statements of fact, the RD may not be a comfortable place for you. Matt Deres (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And if reading comprehension is such a problem for you, then perhaps the desks are not the place for you, either. --LarryMac | Talk 21:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be over-reacting, Larry Mac. You say StuRat "implied" the f-word is a standard, but I don't see that. All he said was that such a word exists, which is indisputably true. Your inference =/= his implication -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A faggot is a bundle of sticks used for firewood, or as the symbol of the Fascist party and state. A fag is a ciggie. Just because Americans use a word offensively doesn't mean the rest of us can't use it in a civilised manner. DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for completeness, in the UK a faggot is also a kind of meatball made from offal, which is the word's primary current meaning here. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are equally offensive words for female homosexuals, some of which are unrelated to land reclamation projects in the Netherlands. Let's just leave it at "There's some words that are acceptable and others that are offensive". --Jayron32 20:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This place looks like it could have a couple of polders Going Dutch. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This question has a historical answer. During the early days of gay liberation, a number of organizations were founded with the word gay as part of their names. Most of these organizations were founded by men, and many of them intended to appeal to lesbians; however, they often had little lesbian participation because lesbians did not like that men dominated the organizations. Also, some women had founded separate organizations, such as the Daughters of Bilitis. Beginning in the mid- to late 1970s, many gay organizations added the word lesbian to their names in an effort to attract more female participation. Those that were successful in broadening their appeal also engaged women in leadership positions. It was only later, during the 1980s and '90s, that organizations began broadening their scope to appeal to bisexuals and transgenders. The LGBT acronym has been in common use for less than 20 years. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Both are homosexual. He is a Male homosexual. She is a lesbian. As you state there is no gender specific term for the male homosexual that is not negative. The term they (men) used to self-designate was "gay". The answer is to stop being confused by LGBT. As JackofOz said...we don't get to choose. Buster Seven Talk 21:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Languages aren't logical. But they do have common usage conventions. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde and his ilk used the word "Uranian" for male homosexuals, if you need a noun rather than the adjective "gay". That would lead to LUBT, which has a certain charm (if pronounced to rhyme with "love it", but is a little, er, suggestively lubricious if sounded like "lube it".  :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, they used the demonym for "Uranus" to refer to male homesexuals? Holy shit, I knew that Uranus jokes were old, I didn't know they were THAT old! --Jayron32 05:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Uranian is thought to come from the German word Urning, coined in c. 1864, which predated the coining of "homosexual" by about 5 years. In this meaning it doesn't appear to have any connection with Uranus, although it is also coincidentally the adjective denoting things from that planet. If there were any sentient beings on Uranus, I suppose there could be Uranian Uranians. I guess we'll never know, and we'll have to settle for Uranian Ukrainians Ukrainian Uranians. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The answers you are getting here have good historical and sociological meat to them, but if you would like more linguistic input, you might try asking again, after a suitable pause, at the Language RefDesk, which specialises in that sort of thing. In brief, languages live and change, as those who study English (including lexicographers) recognise and record: see Linguistic description and Linguistic prescription. Words which were once disparaging can be reclaimed; the technical name for this cultural process is Reappropriation.

LGBT, which contains no vowel and therefore functions as an initialism rather than an acronym, was intended as an umbrella term, to encompass groups that previously felt excluded by the simple moniker "gay". Social movements move on, however, and the umbrella covers even more people these days. Toronto Pride, which our article says is one of the world's biggest such events, exists, according to its website's section on Mission Vision Values, "to celebrate the history, courage, diversity and future of Toronto's LGBTTIQQ2SA* communities. (* Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer/Questioning, 2 Spirited, Allies)". I wonder how long it will be before the asexual contingent win recognition? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Jack of Oz: Well, Urning IS actually connected to Uranus. K. H. Ulrichs, the granddaddy of all gay activists who coined the term, derived the word from the name Aphrodite Urania, who was created from the body parts of Uranus. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, me thinks this could have been phrased somewhat more elegantly. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. So, it was derived from the same source used to name the planet, but not from the name of the planet itself. An indirect connection at best. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What skill set

What would be a very comprehensive skill set to describe the kind of person who could make this from scratch? I was going to post this question on the computing reference desk, since undoubtedly skill with certain software tools is part of my answer, but I wonder also what specific art skills could be identified as necessary too. Thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your link is to a Computer Generated Image and its poster has noted underneath "Software: 3DS Max - Textures + Background: Photoshop" that identifies the software tools used to make it. Wikipedia has an articles on the Autodesk 3ds Max and Adobe Photoshop programs. The required skills are familiarity with these programs, plus creative motivation to draw complicated spaceships. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would describe the general technical skill set as "3D modeling and texturing." What you have here are really two separate things: the model itself (a 3D connection of vectors and planes that makes up the ship), and the textures (a set of 2D graphics that are mapped onto said ship to make it look real). You can have people who can do one without the other (I can do modeling, but I'm not very good at textures), and in any really professional environment they are often disentangled (you'll have full-time texture people and full-time model people). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And let's not forget the artistic design skills needed to dream up an interesting space-ship design. APL (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The 'skill set' will presumably include good Visual-spatial ability, along with an artistic imagination, and a great degree of patience - 3D modelling in software can be a long-winded process. In many ways, this is probably most analogous to sculpture as an artform. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I might disagree on that last part. The spatial skills for a sculptor and a 3D modeler are pretty different in my experience. The reason is that with a 3D model, you not only have an infinite number of undos (which makes a big difference between it and any analog world), and you also have the ability to abstract the work in ways that you can't do with actual sculpture. I have no skills at sculpture, but I can make 3D modeling work, because I can reduce the work to literally one plane at a time, constantly subdividing the complicated parts into simpler parts. You can do 3D modeling entirely without reference to the materials or appearance of your final object, and just have that all done in post-production. You can't really do anything like that with sculpture. In general I'm not sure the "analog" art skills map over to the digital ones very straightforwardly. Being good at Photoshop won't make you a good photographer (or painter, or anything else), nor will being a photographer (or painter) make you good at Photoshop. Generic visual sensibilities are important to both, but the practical and tactile skill sets are so different as to be utterly unrelated. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You might enjoy reading about Randy Pausch, whose lecture and book Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams touched many. His career exemplified building bridges of creativity between computing and arts. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

NIGHT-TIME PARKING LIGHTS IN BRITAIN

When I was much younger than today - about 50 years ago - it was a legal requirement that cars parked at the roadside during darkness, had to display red lights towards the rear and white lights at the front. Oh dear, I can almost hear the lecturing tones of some academic Wikipedian Guru telling me not to seek legal advice here. But here goes anyway. Nobody nowadays seems to obey that rule - and nobody gets a warning or gets arrested. Question - was that law abandoned, or else, has it passed quietly into redundancy because people woke up every morning to flat batteries? Thanks 92.30.149.195 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying they had to leave their parking lights on all night long ? That's just crazy. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• The Highway Code, as ever, has the answer. See this page, particularly rules 248 to 250. (below)

Parking at night

248

You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space.

[Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24]

249

All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph (48 km/h).

[Law RVLR reg 24]

250

Cars, goods vehicles not exceeding 1525 kg unladen weight, invalid carriages, motorcycles and pedal cycles may be parked without lights on a road (or lay-by) with a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) or less if they are at least 10 metres (32 feet) away from any junction, close to the kerb and facing in the direction of the traffic flow in a recognised parking place or lay-by

Other vehicles and trailers, and all vehicles with projecting loads, MUST NOT be left on a road at night without lights.

[Laws RVLR reg 24 & CUR reg 82(7)]

— The Highway Code

reformatted for legibility --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I used the {{tl:quote}} so it don't scroll off the side. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 02:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hope this helps, DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That leads to another Q ... do Brits really spell curb as "kerb" ? Anyone spelling it that way here would be sent to spelling jail (not gaol). :-) StuRat (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Marnanel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Stu, how is it that you can get away with using the word "Brits"?! I nearly get death threats for using the full word "British" and here you are using "Brits" which I've been flogged over here before. Dismas|^(talk) 04:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because us Brits use it right. You foreigners always use it inappropriately, and annoy the Irish. Or the Scots. Or the Welsh. Or the English. There is no point in having an ethnicity if you can't argue about it... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The reverse is also true. If you called a redneck in the Deep South a "yank", he'd head for his confederate flag-decorated pick-up truck to grab his shotgun off the gun rack. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

But I think the question is about whether 249 and 250 (in particular) are actually enforced. --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably not. And I would be interested in an answer to exactly the same question for Australia. Anybody? HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Will vary from state to state in Australia. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the opposite for UK, certainly 249 seems fine, roads faster than 30mph (ie 40mph+) do not generally have cars parked on them, they're double-yellow lined. 250 is a little more iffy, I've seen a lot of cars parked nearer junctions than 10m, and many people don't pay attention to the "flow of traffic". But as to the lights issue, I've never seen a violation. Worm 08:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

See also Lighting-up time and The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 (RVLR) for more info. Nanonic (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

An accessory light was (is?) sold in England that clipped on a side window and contained a single bulb powered by a cable to the cigarette lighter socket. It had a plain glass facing forwards and a red glass facing rearwards. Thus it satisfied the legal parking light requirement with only 1/4 of the current of the regular lamps. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember those, but I haven't seen one for many years. Modern LED lights would solve the problem of battery drain. Dbfirs 13:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As, not a lawyer, but a UK driver for 25 years, my understanding is that the requirement for parking 'lights' is acceptably met by the colour reflective properties of a (parked) vehicle's rear brake and fog lights, and red reflective plates which may additionally be part of the rear light cluster, and by the similar properties of the front light fittings, which like road centre-line cats' eyes reflect some of a moving vehicle's lights back at it. That said, I've never myself had to park at night on a roadway with more than a 30mph limit, but I've often driven at night through 40-60mph zones with parked cars, and have never in my life noticed one vacated with lights left on.

Back in the 1960's, my father was once fined for being incorrectly lit, having parked in a line of other cars, facing "the wrong way" (and without lit lights). He did so outside my grandparents' house to enable my arthritis-crippled grandmother to exit the car more easily: the scores of other cars on both sides of the street were parked with no correlation to the traffic flow (and no lit lights), as they always were, so he did not think to amend his position, and we assume that he uniquely attracted the fine because his car was not recognised as that of a local resident. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

January 6

The end of the land

England has Land's End, France has Finistère, Spain has Finisterre. Are there any other countries that have a geographic feature that translates as "Land's end"? --Carnildo (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Lands End, Cabo San Lucas, Baha California Sur, Mexico.Buster Seven Talk 08:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I googled on the phrase "means land's end" and found:

• Gaspé Peninsula, Quebec, Canada, possibly from Micmac for "land's end"
• Tianya Haijiao, China, Chinese for "land's end" according to this web page, but Wikipedia gives a different translation.
• Chile, the country, possibly from Mapuche for "land's end"
• Pembrokeshire, England, from Welsh for "land's end" according to this web page
• Tanjong Berlayer Point in Fort Pasir Panjang, Singapore; the first word is Malay for "land's end' according to this web page and an identical sentence in Wikipedia.
• Uluwatu, Bali, Indonesia; according to this web page the first part of the word means "land's end" in "the old language".

That's as many as I felt like chasing. I certainly do not claim that they are all correct. --Anonymous, 11:47 UTC, January 6, 2011.

There are also a Landsende in Hooge, Germany and a Landsende in Rømø, Denmark. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And there is a Landsenden in Norway. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Landsenden is the name of a farm and a blog, and I suspect the only people who are aware of its existence are the residents, neighbours and their friends and family, the readers of the blog, and perhaps some genealogists. Verdens Ende (the end of the world), on the other hand, is a geographic feature which is quite well known. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tanjung/tanjong is probably better translated as cape, headland, promontory or something of that sort. (Tanjong is an older spelling.) See wiktionary:tanjung (Only Indonesian) or [4] (click on Kamus Bahasa Inggeris, wrong way but should give you an idea or perhaps Istilah Malaysia as well) or heck even Tanjung. If you're going to include tanjung you have a lot of candidates [5] [6]. There is also the related semenanjung which means peninsula. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention Lands End in Maine, Lands End Light on St. Helena Island in South Carolina, Lands End in San Francisco CA, Lands End NZ, Lands End in Indonesia and so on. Just about every country which has a shoreline seems to have one! Collect (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pen Fro" means something like "head of the region", but this is the name not of Pembrokeshire but of its county town, Pembroke. Marnanel (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, originally it was the name of the cantref or administrative area. Penfro cantref gave its name to the town, and the town later gave its name to the county of Pembrokeshire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

But it is not, and has never been, in England, (even if the area was once referred to as "The little England beyond Wales"). --ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

South Australia has World's End at 33° 46' 0" South, 139° 3' 0" East. As you might suspect, there isn't much there. --TrogWoolley (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Then there's this place, which I hear has a real good steak (that doesn't even mind being eaten). --Jayron32 18:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There's another World's End in Massachusetts. The name is misleading and hyperbolic, because it is just a small peninsula protruding into Boston Harbor, with land visible in every direction. Marco polo (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And there is a World's End halfway down the Royal Mile in Edinburgh between the Castle and the Palace of Holyroodhouse. The Royal Mile is a rather modern term to cover the distance between those two prominent sites, which actually begins at Castlehill before becoming the Lawnmarket, and then the High Street, and then the Canongate. The crossroads between the High Street and Canongate was, in Mediaeval times, genuinely regarded as being the end of the world for those living in the "Old Town", given that there was a tollbooth erected there that most folk would have been unwilling to pay to pass through, not having any business to conduct on the other side. There is a famous pub on that crossroads called, "The World's End" which is the site of the last-known sighting of 2 young girls who were subsequently found murdered, thus forever instilling in the minds of we locals, the "World's End Murders". 92.29.45.20 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

turmeric where to purchase

please advice stores that sell this herb. (cleveland ohio area) ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by MIKE1939 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is common. Supermarkets sell it. Just look in the spice section. Or ask store personnel where it would be located. I removed your email address, as inclusion of that is not advisable. Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a very sharp or scientific distinction, but in culinary lingo, turmeric is a spice, while oregano e.g., is an herb. See Herb#Culinary_herbs for clarification. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I never understood that term when in the USA - "an herb". I get "an apple" or "an orange", but "an herb"??? I know there will always be exceptions to traditional English usage, and I am not having a dig at how American English has drifted from its parent tongue, but "an herb" is as wrong-sounding as "an car" or "an dress". Can anyone explain how that jarring difference came into common USA usage? And, by the way, "herb" begins with an "h" followed by an "e" so what is the problem with pronouncing it as HERB, and not URB? Thanks 92.29.45.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

Why is the <h> audible in honey but not in honesty? See also Phonological history of English fricatives and affricates#H-dropping and h-adding. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do now and slough rhyme with each other, and low rhymes with dough, but now does not rhyme with low, and slough does not rhyme with dough? Welcome to the English language! Googlemeister (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. Penzeys Spices on Chagrin Blvd in the SE of Cleveland would have turmeric. Googlemeister (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Slough rhymes with 'few' in AE though, not with 'now'. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) You answer your own question. Americans pronounce 'herb' as URB, so when I type 'an herb', I hear 'an urb', much like 'an urban environment.' This is consistent with English grammar rules for indefinite articles and USA pronunciation. If you choose to pronounce the H, then you would say 'a herb'. I agree that pronouncing the H and using 'an' sounds wrong. If you don't like the way we pronounce 'herb', that's fine, but don't begrudge us the use the correct article. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think most everyone is aware that there are differences between AmEng and Brit/CommEng. But if there was a list ordered by Coefficient of Irritability, the herb/urb difference would probably appear at or near the top. To non-Americans it just sounds completely weird and thoroughly objectionable, hence the above comment from 92; but I guess Americans also scratch their head about this guy called Herb others are always talking about when they get to discussing culinary things. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it cuts both ways. I just wanted to clarify that the the difference in pronunciation mandates a difference in the correct article, which 92 above seems confused about. Saying 'an herb' in AmEng is completely correct; the incorrectness of 'an car'. is totally unrelated. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The pronunciation of herb without aspiration didn't come into common USA usage, it was there all along. The OED, treating of the pronunciation of herb across the English-speaking world, says that "the h was mute until the 19th c[entury], and is still so treated by many". It cites William Caxton as writing "He toke an erbe", for example. So it's the British, not to mention the Australians, who are guilty of deforming the language. I hang my head in shame. --Antiquary (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, it's the New Zealanders who are most to blame in this area. You look and I'll point.  :) -- (Jack of Oz) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a root, like ginger, and roots are not usually called herbs to my knowledge. Every full grocery store sells ground-and-dried turmeric, but the OP may be asking about fresh turmeric, which is easily available at natural grocery stores here in Berkeley, but I'm not sure about the Cleveland area. (The fresh form is much more interesting than the dried form, by the way.) Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are looking for the actual root, you should try an Indian grocery, of which there are several in the Cleveland area. Indian groceries can also sell you large quantities of dried, ground turmeric powder at a much lower price per pound than the supermarket. Since I have time on my hands, I will list them for you. There is a cluster in the Parma area (Patel Brothers: 440-885-4440; Krishna Indian Grocery: 440-292-0240; India Grocer: 440-885-0215; Laxmi Groceries and Spices: 440-842-2402), there's one in Warrensville Heights (Indo-American Foods: 216-662-0072), and there are two in Mayfield Heights (Lakshmi Plaza: 440-460-4601; Indo-American Convenient: 440-446-8200). You might phone a couple that are convenient to you and see if they have what you need. Marco polo (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)