Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:14, 14 December 2017

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

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.

December 7

Pull-Up Variation

Hi all. Not sure if this is the right place for this but will ask anyway. I saw a video once of a pull-up variation but can't find it now and don't know the name of the exercise. Basically, the guy went from a dead hang into the pull up position. He then holds his legs out straight so that they're parallel with the ground. He then moved himself backwards and forwards in this position, legs parallel with the ground at all times. Anyone have any idea what it's called? Thanks. 90.196.50.123 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"L-sit pull-up" (aka L-hang pull-up) fits the first part of your description; however, this is not listed in the article: Pull-up (exercise). 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E0C2:7665:8339:5B1F (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"L-Sit Chin-Up" also has a lot of Google results; we used to do "chin-ups" at school in the UK rather than "pull-ups". Alansplodge (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, chin-up and pull-up (exercise) should surely be merged, as both discuss that their respective terms can include both grips, but pull-up perversely retains "not to be confused with chin-up" right at the top. (So far as I can tell this is not so much of a US/UK thing, as terminologies that have swapped back and forth over time)SemanticMantis (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

Under the subtitle "demographics" for all articles in Wikipedia that contain demographics, "white" is listed first. Why? If there is no scientific reason or contextual framework, then groups should be listed in an alphabetical scheme as a matter of order and reading ease, or racial and social neutrality. I suspect "white' is listed first habitually, or because of an implicit bias that "white" should be listed first as an order of importance, or that more "whites" may populate a certain area; but not in Detroit, Atlanta, St. Louis, Memphis, Baltimore, Birmingham, Cleveland, New Orleans or Newark to name just a few major cities in America with a majority "black" populous. So why then?

I propose that the policy, if one exists, for listing groups under the subtitle "demographics" be changed to reflect an alphabetical listing of racial groups.

E Thrower — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ediththrower (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for the order used is probably that it is the order in which the data is presented by the US Census Bureau - which is the source for most of the figures. [1] Wymspen (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a bigoted airline joke. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a lot of tedious work. You could start with Detroit: check the talk page and its archives to see if this was previously discussed, and then seek consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that in the articles you are looking at, the racial groups are listed in order by proportion. In many U.S. places, "whites" are the largest racial group. --Jayron32 01:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Memphis, Tennessee article, African-Americans are listed first (in the paragraph list, not in the chart) as they are the largest racial group by proportion in this city.--WaltCip (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs elsewhere. Luzerne county, Penna., is the only Polish-majority county in the US. Likewise, there are Finnish majority counties in Minnesota. Should we list these counties as "white" majority, since Poles and Finns are "white"? In any case, posting this here is (however unintentional) a form of forum shopping. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with absolute statements like the OP is that they can be disproven with a single contrary example. E.g. Demographics_of_South_Africa#Ethnic_groups. More contrary examples can be provided if need be. Furthermore, all demographics articles I've looked at list groups in order of proportion of population. Iapetus (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

Vintage Toy Easy to Do

Easy to do was a toy back in late 80's to 90's I believe it was for jewelry making. Can't find reference of it anywhere! Anyone have? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.221.189 (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"EZ 2 Do", by Kenner.

Looks like there were a handful of different toys under that name, all diy fashion related.

This site has scans of the manuals of those toys.

Hope this helps.

ApLundell (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

What comes first, Hindusim or Buddhism?

What comes first, Hindusim or Buddhism? 123.108.244.116 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism, in the dictionary at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism - "Buddhism originated in Ancient India sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE"

Hinduism - "This "Hindu synthesis" started to develop between 500 BCE and 300 CE,"

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu scriptures are 4,000 years old. The Buddha lived 1,500 years ago. 86.171.242.205 (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one millennium out. Wymspen (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't called Hindus yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were the Indus scriptures (of the Indus valley). People who followed them were the Indus people. Their religion was the Indus religion. When English-speaking people found out about it, they called them Hindus. It appears that your claim is that they weren't real until English-speaking people gave them a name. I know that isn't what you want to claim, but that is what it looks like. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both religions are syncretic (less so some atheistic forms of Buddhism), but the Vedas, the oldest stratum of Hindu literature continues terms (deva "god") and names of figures traced back securely and sometimes speculatively to the Proto-Indo-European religion. The earliest Vedic texts date to 1700BC and are obviously of even older provenance. Buddhism originated much later and within this setting. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a reasonable argument could be based on breaking Hinduism and Buddhism into multiple religions. Hinduism began as many separate religious concepts, many of which are recorded in the Vedas. That created the Vedic religion, commonly referred to at Ancient Hinduism. Then, there is the change in Hinduism that coincides with the rise of Buddhism. Buddha himself was adopted into this branch as an avatar of Vishnu. Over time, Hinduism, as with Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, shifted away from the metaphysical focus of gods and astral planes into modern Hinduism. Damn science. Took all the fun away. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, syncretic. See also religious syncreticism. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or, indeed Religious syncretism. Matt Deres (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't if it is syncretic or not. The point is where do you draw the line and say "That isn't Hinduism". If I claim that Buddhism has been Buddhism since Buddha first started telling his buddies about it, but Hinduism didn't start until the most recent reformation in 2015, then I can say that Buddhism has been around for thousands of years, but Hinduism is just a few years old. If, instead, I claim that Hinduism began with all the Indus Valley religions and Buddhism didn't start until Buddha created it, then I am clearly claiming that Hinduism is older. So, until there is agreement on the definition of "Buddhism" and "Hinduism", there can be no answer to "which is older?" 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually making the rather silly point that, analogously, one could argue tendentiously Catholicism didn't exist until Vatican II? The answer to the OP's question is rather clear. Either Hinduism incontestably predates Buddhism, or they are both extant parts of a long intermingled syncretic condition. From our article:

Buddhism has syncretized with many traditional beliefs in East Asian societies as it was seen as compatible with local religions. Notable syncretization of Buddhism with local beliefs includes the Three Teachings, or Triple Religion, that harmonizes Mahayana Buddhism with Confucian philosophy and elements of Taoism, and Shinbutsu-shūgō, which is a syncretism of Shinto and Buddhism.[17] The religious beliefs, practices, and identities of East Asians (who comprise the majority of the world's Buddhists by any measure) often blend Buddhism with other traditions including Confucianism, the Chinese folk religion, Taoism, Shinto, and Korean shamanism.[18][19][20][21][22][23] Before and during World War II, a Nichiren Shōshū priest named Jimon Ogasawara proposed the blending of Nichiren Buddhism with Shinto.[24]

Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism in ancient India have made many adaptations over the millennia, assimilating elements of various diverse religious traditions.[citation needed] One example of this is the Yoga Vasistha.[25]

By arguing over definitions, rather than things, you are taking a step away from answering the OP. There is nothing that can reasonably be called Buddhism before Buddha, while there is something which can be called Hinduism. Or one can say pseudoeruditiously that Humans and Birds have existed for the same length of time, since they both evolved from a common amniote ancestor. I don't think that's what the OP wants. A look at Religious_syncretism#Indian_and_Far_Eastern_religions will, however, address some reasons why the question of relative "age" might be raised. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic religions consists of various denominations. Please name.

Abrahamic religions consists of various denominations. Please name. 123.108.244.116 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Abrahamic religions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatted discussion tangential to question.--WaltCip (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Homework question? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's homework alright; and Bugs was right to provide a link to the most appropriate source to get this info.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he had linked it from his own question, he wouldn't even have had to ask. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But given that they appear not to be a native English speaker, they may not have realised that we would actually have an article with that title. [Using singular "they" as no gender can be inferred from the OP – this is currently a hot topic in linguistic and other circles.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.173 (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many native speakers don't realise how comprehensive Wikipedia is. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP could be a group. —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

Random devices, e.g. coin and dice. (December 6)

I see from that article that the plan was to kill all the Jews on the thirteenth day of Adar, which is the twelfth and last month (sometimes the thirteenth and last). Could this be a reason why the number thirteen is considered unlucky? Do the Jews consider it to be unlucky? This date (or the day after) is the festival of the pur, which is a random device. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 = December 14 =
+== Random devices, e.g. coin and dice. (December 6) ==
+I see from that article that the plan was to kill all the Jews on the thirteenth day of ''Adar'', which is the twelfth and last month (sometimes the thirteenth and last).   Could this be a reason why the number thirteen is considered unlucky?   Do the Jews consider it to be unlucky?   This date (or the day after) is the festival of the ''pur'', which is a random device. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.208.70|82.13.208.70]] ([[User talk:82.13.208.70|talk]]) 12:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)