Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:51, 16 June 2019

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.

June 9

War on Terrorism kill ratio

Since 9/11/2001 (and including the 9/11 attacks), what is the overall kill ratio in the Great War on Terrorism (including our civilian losses, but not including civilian losses in terrorist nations)? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:E143:3EF:8DB:B5B7 (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Define terrorist nations (and also our). Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 15:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism and Counter-terrorism are unsymmetrical warfare where casualty figures are weighed differently by the opposing parties: a fallen combatant is for one side a source of mourning, for the other is lauded as a "martyr"; one side seeks to minimize civilian deaths while the other seeks to maximize them. What "kill-ratio" calculation gives a meaningful figure of merit for comparison when the contest strategies differ from a simple war of attrition? DroneB (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist nations? 173.228.123.207 (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: "our" = all nations which are actively waging war against terrorists (primarily the USA and Israel but also other nations fighting the same enemy, whether or not actually allied with us Muricans); "terrorist nations" is defined by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists and therefore needs no further explanation; and I have already explained what calculation to use, count combatant losses only for the terrorists (excluding civilians in terrorist nations, as I have already mentioned) but all losses (military and civilian) for our side, and divide the bigger number by the smaller one! 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't use the term "terrorist nation". The closest I can see that it comes to a definition is "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." Which isn't really much of a definition - we'd need a list of which countries the president has determined are up to no good. Also, why do you want to ignore civilians killed in those countries? Iapetus (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second question first: because for us what matters is killing terrorists, and while many of these so-called "civilians" are undoubtedly terrorists in hiding, there is no way to make more than a ballpark estimate how many, so it makes sense to not count them with the combatants until they actually reveal themselves as terrorists -- better to count too low than too high, because overestimating enemy attrition can lead to complacency which ultimately leads to defeat (as our experience in Vietnam showed)! Whereas what matters for the terrorists is killing all infidels, whether military or civilian, until the ones left surrender -- their strategy is essentially genocidal, and what's more, it is an effective strategy for them to use, given our low replacement rate and the fact that our military is recruited from civilian life and supplied by dual-use, mostly civilian industries! And that is why we should count our civilian losses together with the military losses -- because losing civilians hurts us almost as bad as losing soldiers! As for the list of terrorist countries, you (or I) will have to look at which countries have aided Al-Qaida and/or any of its allied groups (i.e. any of the groups on that big flow chart from the Holy Land Foundation trial), which I expect would be quite a list (although we are not actively at war with all these countries, which will cut the list down a bit)! 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be treating this as a case of whoever gets the best "score" wins (with "our" score being based on terrorists killed, and "their" score counting everyone of "us" that they kill. That's... not how war works. Note also: 1) the numbers killed are no where near enough to achieve a genocide. The terrorists are not going to be able to kill enough of us that they win through demographics. That's absurd and paranoid. 2) The terrorists are typically not just waging war against "us" - they are waging war against the people or governments in their own countries, so the people they kill there should count for their "score" too. 3) And when our side kills civilians, that generally acts in the favour of the terrorists, because people are more likely to support them, or at least less likely to support us. So really, you should count civilians we kill, as a penalty to our "score". But again, wars aren't won by getting a better "kill score" than the enemy. Iapetus (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding your "notes": (1) They CAN kill enough of us to achieve a genocide if they ever get nuclear or chemical weapons, and besides, they are also outbreeding us -- so our defeat through demographics IS a possibility, and NOT in any way "absurd" or "paranoid"! (2) Where and when the governments in the terrorists' own countries actually fight against terrorism in alliance with us (as in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban), they DO count under the formula I specified above, so the military (and government) losses of these countries, if inflicted by terrorists, DO count toward our losses under this formula -- HOWEVER, "the people" of these countries by and large support the TERRORISTS (as consistently shown by the polls in those countries), so ordinary civilians in those countries SHOULD NOT count toward the terrorists' "score" for that reason (because when they kill civilians in their own countries, they are in fact killing their own)! (3) Terrorist recruitment is NOT motivated by anything we do (as shown by our experience regarding the earthquake relief in Pakistan -- relief which I'm happy to say I opposed from the very beginning because much of it would end up materially aiding terrorists -- which showed NO significant long-term drop in anti-Americanism as a result of this relief), but by Islam itself and the promise of going to heaven for waging war on infidels, so our killing civilians does NOT significantly increase the (already high) support for terrorists among the population, and therefore should NOT count as a penalty to our score! As for attrition not winning wars, it actually DID in several cases (World War 1 being maybe the best-known example, as was the Russian-Finnish war) -- and regarding the Great War on Terrorism, I want to ask YOU the question, how is this war to be won if not by attrition??? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I get the feeling that you're pushing some kind of political agenda here, which is not what this reference desk is for. We deal in factual questions, and, as other posters have already tried to explain, your questions are not capable of factual answers. If, as I suspect, you're coming here to push some kind of fanatical pro-Trump agenda, you've come to the wrong place. --Viennese Waltz 08:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG -- all I did was ask about the loss-exchange ratio in the Great War on Terrorism (a COMPLETELY factual question PERFECTLY capable of a factual answer), it is Iapetus and Torana who came here looking for a fight and started asking me loaded questions (asking for the definition of terrorist nations, asking about my motives for not counting enemy civilians, calling me "paranoid", even posting a picture about the French Resistance even though the question was EXPLICITLY about TERRORISTS, etc.) in response to my legitimate query! So if you can give me a number (ballpark figure is fine), please do so -- but if your goal is to provoke a fight or make false accusations against me like you just did, then FUCK OFF! 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's you who is asking the loaded questions, as others have pointed out. The very idea of "terrorist nations" is itself politically loaded. You're an idiot. --Viennese Waltz 11:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, pray calm yourselves. I posted the image. Its source is Poland 1909-1910 which was a period of unsuccessful guerrilla actions by young Poles against conscription into the Russian Army following prolongued reprisals after the crushing of the January Uprising 1864. As far as I know, it is not an illustration of French resistance, as might have been supposed from the title. DroneB (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

To User:Viennese Waltz, PERSONALLY: Your latest comment is PREPOSTEROUS ON THE FACE OF IT -- terrorist nations are DEFINED BY LAW (Authorization for Use of Military Force, already referred to above) and their status as such is therefore ESTABLISHED FACT and is accepted as such by all who are not themselves terrorists! So YOU are the idiot here, and a terrorist as well! And to DroneB: there can be NO equivalence whatsoever between the terrorists we are fighting right now (Al-Qaida et al.) on one hand and either the French Resistance or the Polish separatists on the other -- the latter two were fighting FOR THEIR OWN FREEDOM (and in the case of the French Resistance also for the freedom of THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD in the Allied cause, which was a self-evidently just cause and is accepted as such by all who are not Nazis), whereas the terrorists are fighting to ENSLAVE EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, which makes OUR cause against them self-evidently just (and this is accepted by all who are not terrorists!) 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that most evidence suggests the Taliban for example, have no real interested in enslaving everyone in the world. The worst they did in terms of your line is give shelter to Al Qaeda but not because of any desire on the part of the Taliban to enslave the whole world, more for ideological reasons. The Taliban's only real interest seems to be in controlling Afghanistan, which includes killing Americans, as well as any Afghanis who disagree with them. Don't get me wrong, what the Taliban does and wants to do in Afghanistan is disgusting, but the fact remains, they don't fit into your simply definitions. Yet if a US soldier in Afghanistan kills someone working for the Taliban or uses a drone in Afghanistan to kill them or whatever, you can be sure they will say they are killing terrorists and I'm fairly sure you want to include them as such. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a problem here arose (or at least it certainly did for me) with the OP's use of the word "Great" in front of "War on Terrorism". Many of us see it as a not terribly great nor noble exercise. Its success can never be meaningfully quantified, as the OP seems to be hoping to achieve here, and it covers a massively diverse collection of activities. Then there is the fact the what the OP might see as Islamic terrorism has probably killed far more people of the Islamic faith than of any other background. It also looks far too closely at that source of terrorism. Other editors have already touched on the fact that what some people call terrorism comes from many sources, and has just as many different target groups. It's not all about Muslims. Googling "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" returns around a million hits, highlighting how pointless this exercise is. This question tries to massively simplify a very complex issue. It's not worth trying to answer. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

Decimal separators

According to this map, Egypt uses periods to indicate decimals (34.56), while other Arabic-speaking countries use the Arabic-specific Momayyez. No other Arabic-speaking countries use the period; the formerly French countries of the Mughreb use commas (34,56) and others are data-deficient, but why is Egypt different? It was a British protectorate for a long time, but so were the Trucial States and Mandatory Iraq, as well as Muscat and Oman, and the data-deficient Sudan and Jordan. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find a reference, but one suspects that it has to do with the other former-British territories that you mention having been integral parts of the Ottoman Empire until 1917 or 1918, which used Arabic notation at that time. Although Egypt was nominally part of the Ottoman Empire until 1914, it was fully autonomous from it, and our History of Egypt under the British article notes that "European and foreign finances took control of the treasury of Egypt" well before the establishment of the veiled protectorate (1882–1913). I also suspect that Sudan follows Egyptian notation; our article on the Sudanese pound states that the currency there was the Egyptian pound until 1956 when the Anglo-Egyptian condominium ended. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance warfare

Suppose a unit of Landsknechts on foot and armed with broadswords (let's assume 50 of them, for the sake of the argument) is attacked by an equal force of cuirassiers on horseback who are also armed with swords. If both sides are equally well-trained and experienced, and both fight optimally, which side should win? Does this change if the cuirassiers are armed with sabers instead of swords (but the Landsknechts keep the same broadswords as before)? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify the terrain. Horsemen can ride down infantry more easily on an open prairie, while the infantry would have a big advantage on a rocky wooded hillside. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Level ground, with a mixture of open fields and woodland. 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The classic defence against cavalry is the infantry square, but as that article notes, a square typically relies on a larger force, maybe 500-1000 men. I'm not sure that a 50-man square might have the same benefits, especially if they're armed with shorter and heavier weapons like swords instead of lighter and longer pikes. Conversely, a large body of horsemen has a bigger effect because of the weight of numbers: shoot down one horseman and there are more lines behind him, while fifty might not have the same effect. (It's vaguely like the square-cube law — if such a military formation is doubled in size, its effectiveness is likely to grow more than double, since you can do more with a larger body of massed men.) Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the answer depends on the size of the units, even with the assumption that they are both equal in size? (BTW, the real reason I chose 50 to be the numbers on each side is because based on the Landsknecht TOE, it would be highly unlikely that there would be a unit of more than 50 of them all armed only with swords, without any muskets and/or pikes.) 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is "TOE"? To give you an extreme example, imagine a one-on-one engagement: the horseman probably has a big advantage. Now take a two-on-two: again, a big advantage. Now a four-on-four, and the infantry try to form a miniscule square: there's hardly a difference between their square and any other formation. Now 500-on-500: the infantry can form a robust square that's pretty much impenetrable to your cavalry. How the two would balance in a 50-on-50 setting is probably somewhere in the middle. Nyttend (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! And TOE = Table of organization and equipment (every military person knows this :-) ). 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the United States Army, it's a big TOE; for the military of Monaco, a little one. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Point of accuracy: a Zweihander is not re same as a broadsword. Iapetus (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our Landsknecht article states that they consisted "predominantly of German mercenary pikemen and supporting foot soldiers", so it seems that a mix of weapons would have been much more likely. Our article on the Spanish Tercio formations which were widely imitated across Europe, gives some idea of battlefield tactics in the 16th century.

In later warfare, commanders tried to avoid sending cavalry against infantry in formation, preferring to wait until they were broken up by artillery fire or were in retreat. The disastrous French heavy cavalry attacks on the Allied line at Waterloo were prompted by the impression that the British were retiring, when actually they were just sending their walking wounded to the rear. Why Marshal Ney persisted in these attacks and destroyed his heavy cavalry corps in the process is something of a mystery. My opinion (for what it's worth) is that if 50 infantry can hold their nerve and keep formation (some kind of schiltron would do the trick) then the fact that you can't make a horse ride onto a wall of pikes, swords or bayonets would be greatly in their favour. United they stand, divided they literally fall. Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, as long as the Landsknechts stay in close formation, they have the advantage? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The answer is that cavalry really isn't all that effective against disciplined infantry, emphasis on disciplined. Generally. what we see when we look at ancient and medieval battles is that commanders who order cavalry charges into infantry formations who hold together and are bracing for the charge lose horribly. You use cavalry to flank, in "hammer-and-anvil" tactics (where your infantry forms the "anvil" against which the enemy force is pinned while your cavalry "hammers" the enemy repeatedly until they break). Cavalry is also used to follow up on a successful battle and pursue routing enemies. But successful commanders do not order direct charges into prepared enemy infantry formations". [1] Alansplodge (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is why 69 is tagged in roblox

hello as i cant anwser this on wikia (Since its not part of wikipedia as it says here: WP:Wikipedia is not Wikia also this si for pepoel who do not know why 69 is tagged in roblox, to see why see the words in red circles

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobloxFanEditor (talk • contribs) 07:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you're talking about Roblox, which is a game of some kind. What do you mean by "tagged"? Is something preventing you from entering that number? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that number is censored in the chat window (or perhaps player names) due to the sexual meaning. Those type of automated censors are notoriously bad at censoring things they shouldn't and missing things they should. Some games have the option to turn the filter on or off; perhaps Roblox does, too. SinisterLefty (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 5th

Question moved to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#June 5th. MarnetteD|Talk 14:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One Dollar Bills and the USA Motto

Wikipedia (and Publishers Clearing House who references wikipedia) states that the 1957 One Dollar Silver Certificate was the first paper money that had "In God We Trust" on the reverse. In fact, the 1935g and 1935h also have the motto on the reverse, predating the 1957 bill and Congress' bill making "In God We Trust" officially USA's Motto by 22 years. I have a 1935 one dollar silver certificate and I verified this fact through Hawaiian Islands Stamps and Coins.72.235.11.122 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to find an appropriate reference and fix it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1935G were issued about 1961 to 63 while 1935H were issued in 1963 - both after the 1957 change. See the names of the Treasury and Secretary of the Treasury as shown on our list: Silver_certificate_(United_States)#Small-size_United_States_silver_certificates_(1928-1957) For instance, Smith and Dillon are on both 1937G and 1957A. Rmhermen (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

Cleanser

A cleanser can be used as part of a skincare regimen together with a toner and moisturiser. People with such sensitivity should find cleansers that are pH-balanced cosmetic balanced, contain fewer irritants, suit many variating skin types. Cleansers should work with the skin not against it. I've chosen the right cleanser for my face but what about toner and moisturiser how do you know whats good for your face? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.109.163 (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is bordering on medical advice, which Wikipedia does not provide. Dbfirs 06:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Go into any the cosmetics department of any major department store and you'll find various attractive ladies available to give advice on exactly this kind of question, none of whom are medical practitioners. --Viennese Waltz 08:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. No hint of treatment of any medical condition here. SinisterLefty (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was the "People with such sensitivity" that rang an alarm bell for me, but perhaps I was being over-careful? Dbfirs 16:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "sensitive skin" is common and not considered a medical condition. That would be equivalent to people who don't like perfume having "sensitive noses". SinisterLefty (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as moisturizer, the main difference is in thickness. That is, some have more water (thin) and some have more oil and/or wax (thick). The thin ones need to be applied more often, but avoid that greasy feeling associated with thicker ones (such as Bag Balm, with a lanolin base). And if applied before sleeping, the thick ones may end up smeared on the pillow. Another consideration is perfume. An unscented moisturizer may be less objectionable when applied to the face. However, certain moisturizer bases, like Vaseline with a petroleum jelly base, have strong smells all by themselves, so you might avoid those. Personally I find an unscented moisturizer with a cocoa butter base smells pleasant, and has the advantage of being inexpensive, as well, at least in generic form.

And whether one is using enough moisturizer is easy to gauge by if one's skin is dry and flaky (too little) or oily (too much). If one has naturally oily skin, no moisturizer may be needed, and perhaps instead an astringent, like witch-hazel, in an alcohol base, could be used to dry the skin. It's also possible to have "combination skin", with some dry areas and some oily areas, like the "T zone" (nose and forehead). In that case, moisturizer should be used on the dry areas, and the astringent on the oily areas.

Additives to moisturizers such as vitamins, aloe and sunscreen may also be considered, but go beyond the basic goal of moisturizing.

One final consideration is the container. For liquids, I suggest the pump type, as that allows dispensing a controlled amount. A squeeze tube, on the other hand, tends to dispense either none or way too much, like a ketchup squeeze bottle. I've also seen such products in roll-on bottles, like deodorant. That might be good if you don't want to get your hands messy. For thicker gels, a shallow screw-on top container that allows you to easily reach the bottom is best. SinisterLefty (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are vitamins (Vit. C apart) absorbed through the skin? And I would suggest any container that can be recycled is best, preferably a refillable multi-use or glass container. Richard Avery (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The vitamins don't necessarily need to be absorbed all the way into the bloodstream, in quantity, if the goal is to help the skin right at the application site. However, I have no idea if they do any good. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One container type I forgot about is spray-on. I certainly wouldn't recommend that for the face, as it would get in the eyes and nose and on the lips. And for the rest of the body, I'm skeptical that it would over-spray onto the furniture, and you would probably need to use your hands to spread it around evenly, defeating the purpose. It would also only work with a rather thin formula, requiring respraying often. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong hair, smoother skin etc

Products aimed at women. Are women more susceptinlev to these than men would be to products aimed at men? 80.2.21.170 (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, how strong is hair, and why would you want to make it stronger?80.2.21.170 (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the language of the fashion industry. Any relationship between that and correct English would be accidental. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article called Hair care which may help. From the medical press, see How to get thicker hair. Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You want strong(er) hair so that it doesn't break, either during brushing or normal wear and tear. Broken hair is harder to manage and tends to look bad. Matt Deres (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split ends, in particular, can result from some of the crazy things women do to their hair. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

Hygiene

I'm really fascinated by this article according to science it may be a good idea to shower two to three days as daily washing may be doing more harm than good. Is there a right way to shower and a wrong way or is there just the normal shower routine?https://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelwmiller/how-often-you-really-need-to-shower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.109.163 (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is claimed that Queen Elizabeth I bathed once a month whether she needed it or not. (https://life.spectator.co.uk/articles/relax-dont-scrub-why-we-should-all-bathe-like-victoria/) HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of a line from Will Cuppy's The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody: "Queen Isabel of Spain bragged that she had only ever had two baths - one when she was baptized, and one when she married. They gave her a third one after she died." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bathing with soap or detergent does remove the oils from the skin and hair. If not replaced, this could lead to dry, chapped skin and dry hair. However, it's simple enough to replace the missing oils, with hair conditioner and skin moisturizer. Those with oily skin and hair don't need to do even this, as their natural oils will quickly be replaced. On the plus side, daily bathing makes it more likely one will find ticks, lumps, irregular moles, etc., in time to have them treated and minimize risks. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like to use an anecdote... I worked with a man named John. He thought everything was a conspiracy - including soap. So, he did not bathe. He did not use deodorant. He said that the human body self-regulates everything. He also claimed that his choice was justified because nobody ever told him that he stank in any way. He did. He did stink very badly. People quit their jobs just to avoid being within odor distance of him. So, I told him he stank, every day, every time we met. It made him more emboldened. His claim was changed to a claim that not only was soap a conspiracy but that the soap agency pays agents (like me) to tell lies about people who don't use soap. 68.115.219.130 (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who left the company first - you or him? Also, if it gets to the point that flies refuse to go near someone, then it's time for a shower. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I transferred to another position in another building. I have heard that he went to work for the government somewhere. 68.115.219.130 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<insert joke here> —2606:A000:1126:28D:F08E:2A5A:BEC4:DEAE (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me thinks 68.115 made all this up (because s/he's a soap company astroturfer...) 93.136.9.45 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the plot for a soap opera. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should have told the smelly employee to get off his soapbox, then open it up and use it. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly The next big thing in fashion is Not washing your clothes. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The CEO of Levis says you should never wash your jeans. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an aesthetic of grunginess that the CEO of Levis is suggesting but one has to ask oneself if this is an aesthetic in jeans that one desires. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find a source for it, but I heard a young lady on local radio here in Melbourne, Australia, declaring that she never washed her jeans, and stored them in the freezer between wears. She claimed that somehow "sterilised" them. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article you linked to mentions something like that. Advice from several major jeans manufacturers is to instead try putting your pair in the freezer overnight to help get rid of bacteria. Here is more on the subject. Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source says that's all a bunch of [hooey]:

Zielinski, Sarah. "The Myth of the Frozen Jeans". Smithsonian. —2606:A000:1126:28D:C126:5C2E:5D33:1CCC (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a cousin to the theory of cooking one's underwear in the microwave. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

....And then warming up dinner in it? Hmmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

Mongolian TATAR band

What are the names of the two artists who produced this song? And where could I find the answers? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MVVP1kRY7xc déhanchements (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

Guns Germs and Steel

In relation to the above mentioned work by Jared Diamond. His book, while deeply fascinating, has been stated by eminent professors such as Professor Richard Bulliet of Colombia University to be: "...wrong in almost every instance..." among other derogatory comments (I could provide an exact citation for this claim but would require me watching all of The Earth and its Peoples lecture series again, which I can't be bothered to do just now) I recall that on many occasions within Wikipedia this work has been used as a guide to cite, reference and answer questions. In light of the statements by Professor Bulliet and others, and now that we are aware that being trained in physiology; ornithology and ecology; his expertise is not in the field in question, history, unlike Professor Bulliet. I wonder if there has been any projects to remove citations relating to this work in articles and elsewhere. Further to this, when a scientific work is, at a much later date, debunked, do we have any project to actively rectify errors within Wikipedia? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The work that you criticise has won prizes, so I would regard it as a valid source, but where there are alternative theories from WP:Reliable sources, Wikipedia should report these also. Could you provide links to some of the criticisms of Jared Diamond's work? Dbfirs 11:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a wealth of criticism on the article on the book itself. I think that fundamentally, this is simply the wrong type of source to begin with, for writing an encyclopedia article, at least for most parts of the article. GG&S is not primarily presenting or summarizing historical/anthropological work - it's an argument/position based on an accumulation of expert sources, presented by a well-educated non-expert. I think that popular literature like this gets cited a lot more often than it should due to its popularity and accessibility compared to proper sources. It would be a better idea to cut out the middle-man and directly cite the experts that Diamond himself is citing for anything useful. To answer the original question, I'm not aware of any such organized program, but it would probably be better to ask the WikiProject talk pages than here. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's almost completely inaccurate, it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with an example or two. Also, I can't find "Peter Bulliet" on Google. And are you sure it's Colombia U rather than Columbia U? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is within this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF6ig8c9Gh0 series of lectures that Professor Bulliet makes the statement, but as I watch these several months back I can't now direct you to which video, and a timestamp in any particular video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His article is under Richard Bulliet, and it is indeed Columbia, not Colombia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note: the above exchange looks odd because the OP has changed the name in the original question from Peter to Richard. Matt Deres (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

June 15

Does X mark the spot?

I stumbled upon Stuart Galbraith IV, which got me to wondering. Excluding the aristocracy, who's the notable (i.e. "articled") person with the highest generational suffix? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend Along with Kings and other royalty I'm guessing you also want to exclude popes and others with bestowed title in their names. MarnetteD|Talk 08:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, none of that riffraff. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh it is nice to see that word someplace other than a crossword puzzle C. Thanks for making me smile. MarnetteD|Talk 08:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Astors count as aristocracy? There are clearly some edge cases in there. John Jacob Astor VIII is a baron and hereditary Lord Temporal, but John Jacob Astor VII, better known simply as Jakie Astor, is merely an MBE. The Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Vanderbilts and Du Ponts don't seem as attached to their given names. Matt Deres (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's only the 3rd Baron Astor, so VIII is in the lead as far as I am concerned. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The independent publishing company John Murray [disclosure: I was briefly one of their editors] was founded by a man of that name whose family successors as company head were all named John Murray (some having various other middle names), and were widely referred to as John Murray I, John Murray II etc. I myself worked under the last, John Murray VII, before the firm was taken over, though his predecessor John "Jock" Murray VI (then aged 80+) still worked there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

khan academy

What do the energy points do? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but here's a link to Khan Academy, for anyone wondering what that is. No mention of "energy points" there, though. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 16

Punch card v system

Hi lately I am very passionate about punch cards, the Votomatic. I have a question: when the voter voted, was he given the entire card with the space even for the write-in candidates, or was he the voter himself who requested it? I mean if the voter already had in mind to vote for the candidate on the ballot, was there no need or error? Another thing: if he voted for a fallen in write, was the card inserted in the ballot box? Was the piece ripped before or after the card was deposited in the ballot box? Thank you.

@@ Line 185: / Line 185: @@
 ::He's only the 3rd Baron Astor, so VIII is in the lead as far as I am concerned. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 19:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 :The independent publishing company [[John Murray (publisher)|John Murray]] [disclosure: I was briefly one of their editors] was founded by a man of that name whose family successors as company head were all named John Murray (some having various other middle names), and were widely referred to as John Murray I, John Murray II etc. I myself worked under the last, John Murray VII, before the firm was taken over, though his predecessor John "Jock" Murray VI (then aged 80+) still worked there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/2.122.177.55|2.122.177.55]] ([[User talk:2.122.177.55|talk]]) 17:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
+::What of the [[George Foreman#Personal life|sons]] of [[George Foreman]]? <font face="Century Gothic">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;→&nbsp;[[User:Michael J|Michael&nbsp;J]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Michael J|Ⓣ]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Michael J|Ⓒ]]&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/Michael_J|Ⓜ]]</font> 10:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 == khan academy ==