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.
Why is it the British Army and not the Royal Army?
Simple question really. There is the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, and the Royal Air Force. Why is the army of Britain called the "British Army" and not the "Royal Army"? Thanks everyone! 59.167.253.199 (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From British Army: "In contrast to the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Air Force, the British Army does not include Royal in its title because, after a historic struggle between Parliament and monarchy, the British Army has always been answerable to Parliament and the British people rather than the Monarch." --Viennese Waltz08:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, the obvious question is why - long after the "historic struggle" - are the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, and the Royal Air Force still so named? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cromwell's New Model Army may have something to do with it, but I'm not sure of the details. Before the civil war regiments were raised and maintained by various nobility - there was no centrally controlled integrated army. That's the reason why there still are regiments named after sundry Dukes, Princes, etc. The Royal Navy on the other hand was a single integrated force - answerable to the crown. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Bill of Rights prohibits a standing army, the Army must be regularly authorised by Parliament. Armies are seen as a tool for oppression of the people, whereas the Navy is for defence from foreign powers and the protection of trade. We did not have an air force in the 17th Century. DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The British Army as a whole is not royal, but most of its constituent parts are. Many of the infantry and armoured regiments are so designated (e.g. Royal Green Jackets, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, Royal Tank Regiment), along with almost all the supporting corps (e.g. Royal Engineers, Royal Artillery, Royal Army Medical Corps). All of these were independent formations that received their royal designations separately. It didn't make sense to refer to the collected assemblage of them, under the banner of the British Army, as also "royal".
The other services were more monolithic entities. Multiple independent formations did not assemble to form the Navy when called upon; there was just the one Royal Navy. The Royal Air Force was originally created as a single unit within the Royal Engineers called the Air Battalion. It was later established as a separate army corps, the Royal Flying Corps. When it merged with the Royal Naval Air Service to become an independent service it kept its royal title.
So the reason is, that's the way it has always been. As a wise man once said, "Of course it's daft; it's traditional." - EronTalk17:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. Equally daft is the fact that "On enlistment, the Army and Air Force Acts require members of the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Marines to take an oath of allegiance to the Monarchy as Head of the Armed Forces. Members of the Royal Navy have never been required to swear an oath – the service was formed hundreds of years ago and its existence stems from the Sovereign’s prerogative". [1] But that's the way it is and always shall be, unless a good reason to change presents itself. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Army oath is I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me, so, failing to obey an order would be a breach of the Oath, but it would not be treason. DuncanHill (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that failing to obey an order would be a breach of Queen's Regulations in the first instance. I'm fairly certain that the oath is more of a formality, which is how the Navy gets away without one. But I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Banknotes that can't be scanned or photocopied
A friend told me that some countries' banknotes have "special dots" that prevent scanners and photocopiers from working if one tries to copy them. Is this true? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copiers aren't perfect - so the trick is to find their flaws and exploit them. So, for example, they have limited resolution - so if you produce an effect on your banknote that has a bunch of curving, thin lines - then you'll produce a Moiré pattern that looks nothing like the original note. Similarly, you can put shiney metallic patches on your banknote - which look dark from every angle except exactly square-on to the light...which is how the scanner will see them as bright white dots. Another trick is to use the fact that copiers use cyan/magenta/yellow and black inks and cannot produce all of the colors that a specific color of ink can be. I'm not sure I know what these "special dots" are - but you can be sure that any reasonably popular currency will have a bunch of anti-copier technologies in them. SteveBaker (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the EURion dots are obfuscated in many applications. There are many ways to prevent copying, but the EURion dots mentioned by ...121 are the only ones I know of that use a special arrangement of dots. As for OP (or anyone) finding them on a specific bill, they can themselves be "hidden" amongst other dots. See e.g. the US$20. On the SA Rand 50 note, they are arrayed quite conspicuously, next to an image of Orion! This page shows pics, of various SA bank notes, but refers to the EURion dots as "Omron rings" [2]SemanticMantis (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, indeed! Still, our article says it is a "copy-evident" system, wherein the copy will show some pattern not visible on the original. Contrariwise, EURion prevents compliant hardware from even making a copy! SemanticMantis (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want to get the Yamaha R25 details with its photo (market version) please anyone google it and paste it on the comment box below. I dont want the link of google or any other websites ..
This question has already been answered - see your previous topic above. Nobody will paste copyrighted images here so you will just have to follow the link already given. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
new performance and optimization model technology developed
Hi, our research institute has developed a certain model for performance optimization and re engineering of business processes. it is based on EFQM and six sigma technologies. I have a written a small write up on the same and am trying to put it on wikipedia.
i would like to know how i can do this without disclosing too much information with just some basic outlines about it as we still have not got it patented. i have received a comment form "Hasteur" saying it needs significant work.. how much??? in what aspect??? i lack the knowledge!
Please help as this is my first time posting on wikipedia!
H1_visa is the name for a visa used to let a USA company employ a foreign worker. I would think that a similar thing in Dubai has a different name. Here is the website for immigration info in Dubai [3]. They probably have information on work visas for non-Dubai citizens. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on what the rules for internal migration are within the UAE. I don't know one way or the other, but there's no reason to presume that freedom of movement between the constituent emirates is the same as it is between the constituent states of other Federal Republics like the USA or Australia. It may be. I've looked around Wikipedia, and can't find any answer, but that doesn't mean that someone from another Emirate wouldn't need some sort of visa to travel to Dubai. --Jayron3222:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there are restrictions on travel among the emirates, but there may be restrictions on legal residence and employment such that an individual may have permission to live and work in one emirate but not another. Marco polo (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May 23
Executions FYI
Resolved
Update to an earlier discussion. Back on May 1 there was a question about lethal injections as an execution method in the US. Today the governor of Tennessee signed legislation which will allow using the electric chair in that state, if the drugs used for lethal injection become unavailable.[4] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A huge military and executing criminals are two things America is known for - why not combine them? Just have a troop of soldiers line up and shoot them - that way they won't have qualms the first time they have to do it in the field. Dmcq (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the black & white thriller film of the above name, it explains how the exact time and place that a newspaper was printed, can anyone remind me of those details? I do remember that the location of the printing machine was indicated by three white dots in a broken under line which showed that the printer was in Cardiff, that the location of those dots under a specific letter in the "Daily Mail" heading showed the day of printing, but under which letter I cannot remember, and that the content of the 'Stop Press' (The Fudge) showed what time that edition was printed, I think too that there was some means by which of the Welsh newspaper distributors couold be identified, but again, I forget that detail also..85.211.129.35 (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TOEFL and GRE
Are the two tests (TOEFL and GRE) both required simultaneously for admissions into universities, or is it sufficient if an applicant writes either one of them? I'm planning to apply to McGill University for my PhD and I can't figure out if I need to write both tests or just one. 117.194.243.80 (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to get an answer is to contact the university's admissions office. Often the requirements vary by program, so you might also be able to find the admissions requirements on the program's website. Katie R (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also be aware that in general you would be much better off going to Europe to do a PhD, better pay, MUCH shorter course, no need to do random classes as well, better quality on the whole etc etc etc. Just saying! 131.251.254.110 (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The TOEFL and GRE are different tests that aim to measure different qualities, so it would be surprising if a university treated them as interchangeable. The TOEFL aims to measure English-language ability, whereas the GRE aims to measure general academic readiness. As to whether it would be better to attend a European university, the OP may be taking into account the greater ease of permanent immigration to Canada than to most EU countries for people with academic qualifications and the bridge that a Canadian university would offer to Canadian residence. Marco polo (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stakeholders of Wikipedia
Where do I find comprehensive information about the stakeholders of Wikipedia? Is there a stakeholder analysis for Wikipedia?
I have been searching for hours in Wikimedia, Metawiki and Wikipedia, but I have not found anything comprehensive. However, I firmly believe that Wikimedia must have a comprehensive stakeholder analysis and communication strategy. ITKALDKESJDNF (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can create a list of stakeholders easily enough by reading the Wikimedia FAC page. I would say the stake holders are (a) the Wikimedia foundation, its Executive Director, and its Board of Trustees; (b) local Wikimedia chapters; (c) the wider Wikipedia community of volunteers, active editors and benefactors; (d) Wikipedia readers. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation has multiple projects, mainly Wikipedia, but there are others, such as Wiktionary, Wikitravel, Wikisource, and more! The Wikimedia Foundation runs those projects, and is a non-profit itself. Non profits don't have any stakeholders. Stakeholders usually get the surplus revenues from the (for-profit) company they own in the form of dividends, and a non-profit uses the surplus revenue to fulfill its goals. Therefore, your question only applies if Wikimedia decided to become a for-profit organization. Hope that answered your question! 123chess456 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Non profits don't have any stakeholders" - you seem to be using a different definition of stakeholder. In our article, stakeholders are defined as "those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist". Their relationship with the organisation does not have to be economic or financial. Your definition of stakeholder seems to be closer to "investor" or "owner". Gandalf61 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, 123chess is using a restricted definition that doesn't cover modern usage. The NSF, NRC, and EPA use a definition of stakeholder similar to our article's, some discussion of the term in this EPA pub here [5]. In that usage, WP readers and editors (e.g. everyone seeing this!) are absolutely stakeholders in the Wikipedia project. We may not be that important individually, but as a class we hold a lot of the stake! SemanticMantis (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect he confused stakeholders and shareholders. In modern project management, doing a stakeholder analysis and developing a communication strategy to gain (as much as possible) of their support is part of the project initiation. Of course, no-one is forced to apply these principles, but it's not unreasonable to expect a professionally run organisation to do this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Animation of what will happen if humans disappear
Some years ago I saw a short, thought-provoking animation online that showed what the filmmaker thought would happen if humans suddenly disappeared. I can't seem to find it again, although I've found bad ones, long ones and ones that aren't animated. Any ideas? --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can only think of the Life After People TV show - of which there are many episodes. It does an excellent job of showing how the world would change over the following days to millennia without us. SteveBaker (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They call it a root cutter, but I use it to break ice (or I slide the blade under the ice to separate it from the ground). I've called it a Mutt, but I think that may be a trademark. Is there a general term for such a tool, when used for ice removal ? Do we have an article on it ? StuRat (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An "ice chopper" is a tool with a long handle. You can break up sidewalk or driveway ice with it. It's shaped a little differently from your "root cutter", though. An ice chopper has a shorter, wider blade. OttawaAC (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any connection between "cauldron" and "seething pot" that is mentioned in the King James Bible?
In the book of Leviticus, in the Bible, it speaks a lot about the "caul" during animal sacrifices which was burnt on the altar, but there was also the "seething pot" where the priests would use flesh hooks to draw out their portion of meat. The writer of the article on CAULDRONS did a great job with the etymology, but I was just curious if there was something in the Hebrew or Greek that might not have been listed. Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdoidonext (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wycliffe Bible used "caudron" (closer the the French "chaud") in 1382, with the Coverdale version of 1535 using the modern spelling. Job 41:20 in the King James Bible indicates that "seething pot" and "caldron" were the same. The earliest recorded use of caul (1327) recorded by the OED was spelt "calle", with the modern spelling not being used until the late 1600s. It seems that the coincidence of modern spellings is just a preference of modern spellers. Dbfirs09:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The word caul is in the KJV verse "And he took all the fat that was upon the inwards i.e. intestines , and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and Moses burned it upon the altar." Leviticus 8:16, also 8:25. The OP is incorrect to connect "caul" with "cauldron" derived from Latin caldārium "hot bath". Modern bibles translate "caul above the liver" as "the (long) lobe of the liver" (NI, NL, ES, NAS) or "the appendage on the liver" (IS, NW) or "the protruding lobe of the liver" (NET) or "the net of the liver" (DARBY) or "the cover of the liver" (WE) or "the redundance above the liver" (YL). Commentaries on the Old Testament by Keil & Delitzsch describes this portion of the liver as "the liver-net, or stomach-net, ...which commences at the division between the right and left lobes of the liver, and stretches on the one side across the stomach, and on the other side to the region of the kidneys...This smaller net is delicate, but not so fat as the larger net; though it still forms part of the fat portions." It is defined in Pentateuch with Rashi's Commentary as "the protecting wall (membrane) over the liver." 84.209.89.214 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
what foods are good to take when you are on a diet?
That will depend on the type of diet you wish to follow. Please see our article on dieting, which has links to the different types of diet, and come back here if you have further questions.--Shantavira|feed me08:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you want to limit the number of calories, and calories come from 4 sources: protein, carbohydrates, consisting of simple carbs (sugars) and complex carbs (starches), fats (consisting of saturated, unsaturated, and trans fats), and alcohol. Of those, some are more important to proper health than others. Trans fats are terribly unhealthy, so eliminating those is a no-brainer. Saturated fats are also somewhat unhealthy, so try to limit those. Unsaturated fats are quite healthy, and without them you can expect dry skin and other problems, so I wouldn't cut back on those, unless you are getting more than you need. (Unsaturated fats tend to be liquid, while saturated and trans fats tend to be solid.)
Similarly, protein is necessary for proper health. There are disagreements over how much each person needs, but something like 50 grams a day seems reasonable. If you don't get enough protein, you may suffer from "brain fog".
Carbs and alcohol are good places to cut calories. Simple carbs (sugars) and alcohol, which is rapidly converted to sugar, can both cause a glucose spike and then a glucose crash, so limiting both of those is a good idea, but don't substitute in artificial sweeteners, as they are both unhealthy and seem to cause weight gain. Complex carbs (starches) tend to provide energy over the long term, so are better, but many people on a western diet still get way too many. In particular, you might want to avoid white flour, and stick with whole grains, or other sources of healthy carbs, like sweet potatoes (not white potatoes). The goal here is foods with a low glycemic index. I suggest the web site nutritiondata.com for info on the glycemic index and other facts about foods.
It's also a good idea to reduce sodium intake, as salt is both unhealthy and can cause you to retain water, which results in weight gain.
Meanwhile, you don't want to reduce your intake of other nutrients, like vitamins, minerals, fiber, and phytonutrients. Some people who have an incredibly unhealthy diet manage to get enough of those just due to the quantity they eat, and then, say after gastric bypass surgery, still eat the same crap, but in much reduced quantities. Thus they lose weight but suffer from health problems due to a lack of nutrients. So, as you lower your total food intake, it's important to move to healthier foods, too.
Now for an example. Let's say you would normally have a bacon double cheeseburger with cheese fries and gravy (poutine) with soda to drink. That's high in saturated fats (and perhaps trans fats), sodium, white flour carbs, and calories. Instead, have a salmon fillet with salt-free spices, broccoli with lemon juice sprinkled on it, a baked sweet potato with butter or trans-fat free margarine, cinnamon, and (if you need a sweetener) some dark brown sugar. To drink, try an herbal tea without sweeteners, if you can handle it, or perhaps some honey, if you need it.
Unfortunately, your average fast food restaurant won't be able to provide a meal like that, but you can still do a bit better there. Some have grilled chicken, which is better than a burger, and you can ask for fries unsalted, and add ketchup if that's too plain for you, or better yet ask for apple slices, a yogurt parfait, etc. You can also get juice or milk at most places. This certainly isn't as healthy as the salmon meal, but is a lot better than what we started with. StuRat (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot provide professional advice, seek a registered or licensed dietician or nutrtitionist, no advice from strangers on the internet:
General Disclaimer: If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.
American eating habits.
I know I am going to take some abuse for this but hey-ho, here goes. We recently invited some USA Americans for dinner. We are in the UK. They were all above mid 20's, well educated from University Level and upwards, and they were all above middle income earners. So we gave them traditional steak pie with a puff pastry lid plus vegetables, and we all set about eating. Now, we have been to America many times and know about the fork switching technique but have never watched so many Americans simultaneously eating a traditional steak pie dinner. It was frankly quite disgusting. All of them used only the fork in their right hand to both cut their food into smaller pieces including the pie crust, and then proceeded to lift the food to their mouths using the fork as a spoon. Their dinner knives were never touched. To prevent the food falling from the fork before it reached their mouths they bent their heads down close to their plates and almost threw the food into their mouths, sometimes missing. And when they did score a direct hit they proceeded to munch and chew and talk, all at the same time. I am a traditional knife and fork man and can adequately manage to cut the food with my knife held in my Right Hand, then spear some food of a small size and lift it to my mouth on the tines of the fork with my Left Hand without spilling any. And I never talk with my mouth full at the same time. I eat with my mouth closed and only speak when my mouth is empty, and I can hold my head upright so I can see and address my guests and give each of them my focused attention which I consider, and was taught, to be respectful of one's guests. I daren't describe the performance of them eating trifle, it was sickening and frankly put me off my own food. My dog has better eating habits and in his case, I can forgive him for sticking his mouth into his bowl. We were going to invite them for a meal in our favourite restaurant where we are well known to the staff and other diners, but decided against that course of action for fear of causing alarm and embarrassment. So what was going on there I ask. Is that behaviour normal in the USA? We were in Canada last year and don't recall seeing anything like that at table. Only asking in order to prepare myself for our next USA Vacation. 94.174.140.161 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talking with your mouth full is considered bad manners in the US, too. However, I believe the knife is only used here for things which actually require a knife, like steak. Anything which can be cut with a fork or spoon is likely to be. To me, this is better, as it doesn't dirty a knife if you don't need one, so that's less washing up and better for the environment. I don't follow why it would be necessary to lower your face to the food, but this is considered poor manners in the US, too. You just seem to have some rather slovenly friends who happen to be from the US. One possible difference is that few in the US would receive any formal etiquette training, basically the parents are expected to provide that. I suspect that some in the UK do have formal schooling in etiquette (certainly those who train as butlers do). StuRat (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning over the plate compensates for spillage, although bringing one's face very close to the plate is kind of odd. I am curious why the OP was so focused on the guests instead of just eating. Jerry Seinfeld once said that eating in general looks fairly gross, so that's why we do it together - we can focus on our own consumption instead of others'. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One suggestion, take them out for casual finger food, like pizza, where their eating differences will be less apparent. If you want them to experience British culture, then maybe fish and chips, wrapped in a newspaper page. StuRat (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad, as I get the impression that for the class of people who eats that regularly, that may well have been their only exposure to a newspaper. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eating habits vary from country to country. Barring the apparent embellishments ("sometimes missing"), this is basically how I eat. I'm Canadian, but in my experience Americans eat the same way as me for the most part. It's only disgusting because it is deemed so culturally. Point being, yes, this is what you can expect should you travel to Canada or the US. Mingmingla (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there's also a huge difference based mainly on what I'll call class and parental example. I know plenty of people who don't have the slightest idea how to behave in a restaurant, from how to use their napkin, call the waiter, order, or tip. Just this week there was the story of a family who got a discount from their bill for well-behaved kids. One of my earliest memories is of an elderly couple coming up to my parents at Bookbinders restaurant in Philly and complimenting us on how well we children were behaved--and I couldn't understand why, although I do now. There are people who hold conversations across the street, or who sound like they are doing so when they stand next to each other. The Loud Family sketch from Saturday Night Live covered this. There was Shenehneh (sp?) from Martin (TV), there were the ghetto girls from Mad TV, there's the teenage student from the Katherine Tate show. Am I bovvered? None of this is typically or particularly American. PS, if the food you're serving drips before it gets to the mouth, set a tablespoon. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest issue I can think of is: where were they from? Income and education doesn't matter quite as much for certain manners. I'm from the Southeastern United States (or "the South"), and I'd've been fussed at by my mom for most of what you described, and would get (at best) a glare from both my folks for talking with my mouth full of food (even if it was just the family). I can easily find friends and coworkers descended from slaves and sharecroppers who would tell you their mothers would spank them in front of God and all of earth for eating that way, bourgeoisie who wouldn't see what the problem is, and vice versa. That said, despite my region having (a honestly undeserved) reputation for being well mannered (and "friendly," I can't stand that reputation), I could head over to the nearest restaurant and easily find people eating like pigs and some eating in a more refined manner than I do. Same restaurant, even.
I know a lot of Americans have a pretty strong dichotomy between "formal" and "informal," instead of measuring between the two as a matter of degree. Since it wasn't black tie, they might've figured they should (not merely could) eat as they do when they're with just family.
It's actually not as bad as it used to be. I remember reading one travel journal from nearly 200 years ago where one traveler (either British or French, it's been years and I was only half-heartedly skimming) had mixed feelings of admiration and disgust at how a group of American strangers of varying social classes completely dropped all differences if you put them at a table with food. Admiration at the beauty of egalitarianism and universal fraternity, but disgust (even by my standards) at folks alternating between fighting over the last sausage while asking for unwanted food off of strangers' plates. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If one wishes to attract the stares of astonished foreigners, one should eat one's peas using the back (convex side) of the fork, as all well-brought-up English folk have been taught from early childhood. To be fair, the Americans that I've dined with did so in a civilised fashion, except for the disinclination to use a knife and fork in harmony, a skill which some Canadians seem to have retained. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's something kids do that might qualify as "playing with their food". You balance as many peas as you can on the side of the blade, and see if you can get them into your mouth that way. The inevitable result is peas rolling onto the floor. The mushier the peas are, the easier it is to keep them on the blade. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the upside-down fork thing. I've found various references online that identify this as "the British way" of eating peas, but haven't seen any pictures or an explanation of how it's done. Evan(talk|contribs)04:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, you either eat a very small number of peas at a time, balanced on the tines, or you mashing them down onto it. Personally, I find ketchup makes the whole thing a lot easier, which is when everyone quotes that old honey rhyme like they're the knights who say ni. Or you can otherwise lift the peas with other things on your fork, so they're held in place with a piece of meat or potato or something. The balancing act isn't quite as hard as you'd think, since it's easier to keep the tines completely flat with little arm movement when the fork is that way up. It does slow you down, though. Sometimes, you just have to pretend you don't have a knife and shift the fork to your right hand (leaving the left empty), at which point it is mysteriously acceptable and normal to use your fork as a shovel. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgive the Americans for having no idea how to manage the U.K. meal (speaking as a Canadian). Watching foreigners trying to eat poutine, KFC, pizza, etc., with a knife and fork has provided occasional entertainment for me. But also worth noting is that "fine dining" is not that common in the U.S., while eating out at fast food places or diners is much more common. Different level of service, different expectations for table manners. 99.245.253.81 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As American children in München in the early '60s, we were amused and amazed by weird eating habits of the Germans. When introduced to hamburgers, they would eat them with knife and fork. Amazing! Point being that arbitrary dining etiquette varies from culture to culture. Americans who consider themselves mannerly would never even consider slurping noodles Japanese style, much less burping in satisfaction to praise the cook (Saudi Arabia, I seem to recall.) We will not hesitate, however, to eat with our left hand should we please, a quite disgusting thing to do if raised a certain way. If you're going to live in international style, it behooves you to (a) learn what might disgust those you're dining with; and (b) learn to suppress your own opinions about what's disgusting. Because it's really completely arbitrary; the person eating with their mouth full might have completely different social cues. --jpgordon::==( o )23:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eating on a full stomach would require that you place your plate on top of a haggis, which would be one way to get a balanced meal, I suppose. StuRat (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a matter of culture. We're on a spectrum here. I'm British - I used to make frequent business trips to the Netherlands (I worked for Philips Research) - and one time we had lunch in the company staff restaurant. I chose a simple cheese sandwich (sliced bread - thin slices of cheese, some kind of dressing) and sat down to eat with my (Dutch) co-workers. I proceeded to pick up the sandwich and bite into it exactly as polite British *and* American people do. As I ate, I slowly noticed quite a few people looking at me - and several other people with sandwiches carefully cutting and eating them with a knife and fork. I felt like a barbarian. So should we make value judgements? I think not!
At the opposite end of the scale, there are cultures where almost everything is eaten with fingers.
I live in the US, and my (American) wife says that the (British) way that I eat seems very strange. She describes it as like in Medieval times when people would eat with just a hunting knife. She tells me that having both hands on the table and using the knife throughout the meal is considered a breach of formal etiquette. You cut up your food with knife in dominant hand - then switch the fork over and place the (now unneeded) non-dominant hand into your lap. Having both hands on the table is a faux-pas on a scale with leaning your elbows on the table in British dining etiquette. So the way I eat is considered somewhat barbaric on this side of the atlantic. My wife reports that she did feel uncomfortable with her eating style while we in the UK and worried about how people would perceive her - but decided that it would be physically difficult to use the fork with her non-dominant hand - so she didn't attempt to adapt.
So both sides think the other has bad manners - and both of us are out-done by the Dutch.
I haven't noticed a particular difference with leaning over the table - but I do notice that the Americans use their hands for a wider range of foods than British people do.
17:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I don't agree with your wife at all. Generally, only children get their meat cut up into bits before eating. What you do is, when you want a bite of meat, you hold the fork in your left hand and cut off a bit with your right. Then you put the knife down, transfer the fork to your right hand, and take it up to your mouth. For the next bite, you transfer the fork back, pick up the knife again, and repeat.
I'm afraid any shortcut to this procedure, including cutting up in advance, makes it look like you're too much in a hurry to eat. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why the switching of the hands? Having cut a piece of meat off with the knife, and having held it down with the fork, why not just bring the fork containing the cut piece, in your left hand, up to your mouth? Or was I missing some irony there? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]20:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having spent my entire life around people who do it the way I described, I have never once thought the thought you mention. Now, cutting the next piece while you're still busy chewing the first one may well make it look like you're in a hurry, but merely using the left hand to bring food to your mouth on a fork never produces that effect. I guess it all depends on one's upbringing and what one has been led to expect. I don't think there are any universal rights or wrongs with eating. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]20:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand that. If I were visiting an American home and ate my way while my hosts all ate the way you describe, then yes, the difference would be apparent, and the thought "What's his hurry?" may well enter some of their minds. But then, I've seen many American movies where people were eating meals, and while the methods vary, they have often included using the fork in the left hand and the knife in the right and nobody ever switches hands. That says to me that there's no one universal American way of eating, and Americans, being cosmopolitan types, should expect to see all manner of variations and not jump to conclusions about the manners or lack thereof of eaters with whom they come into contact. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]21:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deeper (but still "original") research: My wife called her grandmother - and verified that 90 years ago, she had been taught to eat with fork in right hand. The issue of whether to cut up all the food before transferring the fork over - or just some of it - depends on the social context. In more formal meals, one would cut up more of the food in advance in order that the non-dominant hand could be placed in the lap for more of the meal. She also mentioned that her grandfather (so we're now 4 generations back in US history) was a first generation Irish immigrant. She clearly recalls him scolding her if her left hand wasn't placed primly in her lap while eating...thus indicating that the US way of eating is least 90 years old. So now we have to wonder why someone who presumably learned eating etiquette as a child in Ireland would be such a strong advocate of fork-in-dominant-hand eating. I kinda doubt this is an Irish invention from at least 150 years ago (although it might be) - probably more that immigrants are often the most aggressive about blending into mainstream society by adopting their customs and etiquette.
Another point of interest is that my ex-wife is French - and they eat the English way - so this isn't just a UK-only thing.
The "slowing down the eating" argument is an interesting and compelling motive for eating the US way - but is flatly contradicted by the American tendency to eat more food with their fingers than we Brits do - which is undoubtedly fast. Also, when my wife and I eat, it's not the case that one of us always finishes first. So as a practical matter, the "slowing down" or "efficiency" arguments seem pretty specious to me. Eating can always be profitably slowed down by good conversation if there is something good going on - and if not, then why not be able to shovel the food down quickly so you don't miss that movie you wanted to see? SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch seem rather silly, to me, if they object to eating a sandwich with your hands. It is a British invention, after all, and the Earl of Sandwich specifically invented it so he could eat without utensils. So, if the Dutch wish to eat one with utensils or stuff it into a blender to make a drink out of it, that's their business, but they have no business ostracizing others for eating it as it was originally designed to be eaten. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now. Do you eat couscous with your right hand (with your fingers)? I don't, normally, but as a guest of my friend's relatives in Morocco I did (no cutlery was provided, the technique is not that difficult). Nevertheless, I'd expect and accept weird stares if I ate couscous with my fingers in most places in Europe or North America, for example. ---Sluzzelintalk21:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just try eating a Sri Lankan curry and rice and other trimmings with your fingers. Sound gross? Well, that's their way, but they also provide Western utensils for those who can't quite bring themselves to go the traditional way. They recognise that most other cultures have a low opinion of eating with one's fingers, and that early childhood training goes deep and is hard to overcome. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]04:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was couscous specifically designed so it could be eaten with the hands without getting them messy, like the sandwich was ? StuRat (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say for sure - but as a point of comparison, having stickier food is common in cultures where they eat with chopsticks. Trying to eat modern 'long grain' rice with chopsticks is a pain - but the stickier kind of rice that's eaten throughout East-Asia clumps really well and is easy to eat with those utensils. Indian food is always served with a variety of flat breads (Nans, popadoms, etc). That enables one to use the bread as a scooping utensil - which makes eating with hands alone much easier. Same deal with tortillas in south and central American cuisine. Clearly, in all three of those cases, the food has adapted to the eating style rather than vice-versa. Heck even modern "fast food" is adapted to the desire to deliver it without utensils - so burgers and hotdogs come in buns, potato is made into french-fries or tater tots. So it wouldn't surprise me if couscous is indeed made the way it is to make it easier to grab a mouthful of it between thumb and two fingers...it's the way humans adapt their diet to the eating utensils available. SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Europe has a history of using bread as a plate too, a history older than John Montagu, and I'm wondering whether the (nameless) person who signed at 17:18, 25 May 2014, had his Dutch meal squeezed between two slices of bread, or whether it was actually an open sandwich, which exists in many traditions independently of the two-sliced sandwich. It is sometimes customary to eat them with knife and fork. In the Netherlands, for example, there are uitsmijters (Dutch Wikipedia has an article on uitsmijter linking to English WP's article on Strammer Max). These are not eaten by hand and they weren't invented in the United Kingdom. ---Sluzzelintalk21:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly - it had a name too: A Trencher was a piece of bread that was used as we'd use a plate - and it certainly dates back to at least Medieval times. So the tradition of eating foods with bread was nothing new when the Earl of Sandwich came up with his idea. We might call that an "open sandwich" in modern parlance - but Sandwiches' innovation was in using TWO slices of bread to make it easier to pick up and eat without the filling falling out. That's what makes it difficult to track the history. We find plenty of references in Shakespeare of people eating foods with bread - but no indication of whether this was a trencher or a sandwich.
My favorite thing about the Earl of Sandwich is that there is (of course) an actual town called "Sandwich" - that he was the Earl of. Nearby, there is another tiny village called "Ham" (see image at right!). SteveBaker (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article Gautama Buddha mentions possible birthplaces in present-day Nepal, India or Himalaya; shown is a shrine in Lumbini. The infant's given name was Siddhartha (Pāli: Siddhattha, "he who achieves his aim") and there was no consensus that the baby had the quality of a Buddha. He became known to his followers as Buddha only after his attainment of enlightenment at age 35. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can find plenty of traditional recipes online, but I will assume you want a healthier version, since you previously expressed an interest in healthier foods and in losing weight. First, there are two approaches to forming the shapes:
1) Cut the potato into slices, possibly with the skin left on (steak fries). (Keeping the skin on is healthier.)
2) Mash the potatoes, then extrude them. The mashed version allows you to add spices to the interior, but don't add salt there, as you will need more salt to get the same flavor than if it's on the surface. Also, the extrusion process requires special equipment.
Then there's the choice of cooking methods. Deep frying is the traditional method, but baking is far healthier.
Also, there's the choice of potato. Sweet potato fries are healthier.
Fries may also be dipped in batter before they are cooked. For healthier fries, skip this step.
Finally, there's some seasoning to put on top. For white potatoes, salt is the most common (though unhealthy), while ketchup is a bit healthier. For sweet potatoes, on the other hand, butter, cinnamon and sugar would work. This can be made into a dip, making it less messy to eat and allowing everyone to get the amount they want.
In any case, thicker fries are healthier, as it decreases the surface area, so allows less fat, salt, etc., to be absorbed.
So, for the healthiest version, remove the "eyes", slice sweet potatoes up thickly, with the skins on, bake them, and serve them with a dip made from melted butter or trans-fat free (no partially hydrogenated vegetable oils) margarine, dark brown sugar, and cinnamon. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The salt substitutes I've had the best experience with are Cumin (love this stuff on meats especially), Rosemary (love this stuff on fries), black pepper, and (in sweeter dishes) Jamaican Allspice (not other "Allspices" though). It's not always a 1 to 1 ratio (you'll want to use less cumin, pepper, and allspice), and you have to learn which goes with what dish (though you can usually tell by smelling the spice and the dish before mixing), but the flavor you get from those spices should satisfy your urge for salty flavors. I would not recommend using them all at the same time, though, except maybe with certain kinds of curries or chilies. For white potatoes, I know that Rosemary is great, and cannot imagine how cumin or black pepper would go wrong. For sweet potatoes, Jamaican Allspice tastes like a combination of cinnamon, cloves, and nutmug (hence "all spice"), but not as overly sweet as most powdered cinnamons nor as strong as cloves.
As for a dipping sauce, using an unflavoredstrained yogurt (often sold as "Greek Yogurt" these days) as a base for the sauce instead of sour creme or mayo will help some (though they sometimes have more sugar to compensate for the reduced fat). This is something you'll probably have to experiment with, but start with about three-quarters the yogurt you'd use for the dip, and add the minimum amount of each spice, sauce, or whatever to get what you're looking for. I had a dipping sauce with some Sriracha sauce, cumin, and a few drops of Worcestershire sauce the other day that was great. Spicy mustard (regular mustard will lose all its flavor when mixed) and Balsamic vinegar are also good (my favorite salad dressing is just those two sauces and some olive oil). Of course, if you're substituting the spices for salt, you may not need a dipping sauce. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those salt substitutes sound far better than potassium chloride, which is dreadful stuff. Capsaicin is also a good substitute for salt, although most hot sauces that contain it also have lots of sodium, so you may need to buy your own peppers (I use red pepper flakes). Not sure why you would want a substitute for cinnamon, though, as it's tasty, inexpensive, and healthy. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Back when Jim McGreevy was the married gay but not gay married mayor of Woodbridge Mall, NJ, I learned how to cook T.G.I.F.riesday. On monday you would clean, slice and blanch the potatoes in 1/4" strips along their length. You brought them to a very low boil in a 50 gal aluminum vat, and added ice chips if they boiled too quickly. This drew out the starch. You emptied the hot fries into a colander, discarding the starchy soup, and transfere the fried into what looked like kitchen-plastic trash can half-way filled with ice chips and let the combination sit over night while more starch leaked out. The process of heating, cooling and draining continued ad nauseam. (They employed a professional Prussian ex-Margravess for that purpose). Finally the fries were crunchy, rather than cakey enough to fry, for which they rounded up some illegal immigrants looking for work along U.S. Route 1 that ran through the middle of town. A surprisingly large proportion of this story except the Prussians (they were Cantonese) was true.) 06:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there any relation between aging and eating foods cooked(grilled, fried, roasted etc.) in high temperature?
Although free radicals are connected to aging. But on the other hand, I've heard foods cooked in high heat would yield harmful chemicals like acrylamide.
"Boiling potatoes should create less acrylamide than roasting them"
"in baking bread, the centre of the bread does not reach 100°C. You would only really get acrylamide in the crusts - but they're the tastiest part." (the browned crusts should be due to Maillard reaction if I understand correctly)
"These harmful compounds (AGEs) can affect nearly every type of cell and molecule in the body and are thought to be one factor in aging and in some age-related chronic diseases"
Per references above, it seems eating foods cooked in high heat will speed up aging and get you look older faster, but I'm not quite sure. Besides, eating grilled, fried or roasted foods is very usual in some western countries. I'd like to know how these coocking styles affect body in aging... and to what degree ... - Justin545 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that only bread with a burnt crust contains the harmful compounds, as browning is just due to the Maillard reaction. Can anyone else verify or disprove this ?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have spoken with family of Amanda Todd. They have been un able to edit. A UK paper stated Amanda hung herself and seems so many rolled with it afterwards. That is all assumption as it was never released how she took her own life. Why can't they edit something as serious as that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reportamandatruth (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to say that we report what we hope is the truth. That's why "reliable" sources are required. In this sad case, the OP would need to find suitable sources which contradict what the article says, otherwise what it is is the best we can do. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reliable source stating that the cause of death was not released, and I updated the article a few minutes ago. It's unfortunate when mainstream news media publish incorrect information, or rumours/misinformation that is poorly sourced. However, those are the sources we have to work with. At least in this situation, I was able to find a source with better information. OttawaAC (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that a newspaper/news website can publish just about any information credited to an anonymous source, and it's up to the readers to decide if the newspaper is reliable and worth taking at face value. It's not unusual for law enforcement members, or other people connected with an investigation, to speak off the record. What they say may or may not be accurate. Unfortunately, with the mad rush to be the first out with a story, it seems like more news outlets are publishing rumours, which they often have to correct in short order. In this case, we don't know the exact facts, because they haven't been released by the coroner in detail. That hasn't stopped a lot of news outlets from running with speculation. OttawaAC (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two sources cited about hanging, only one actually say anything about hanging, and it doesn't even say "reportedly", it states it as a fact. So, the question is, is that particular source a valid source? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the source that mentions hanging down to the relevant sentence in the Investigation section. I edited the sentence that I had previously qualified with "reportedly", to remove the reference to hanging. We'll see whether or not those changes stick. I think they should, since they more accurately reflect the info in the sources cited now. OttawaAC (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And...I got reverted for "Undue". How bogus. One or the other source for that statement on "hanging" is inaccurate; one mentions it, one doesn't. The statement should accurately reflect the information in the sources cited. Period. I reverted the revert, and will now take a break from this topic til tomorrow to avoid an edit war. If anyone else wants to join me, I'll probably be requesting edit changes on the Talk page tomorrow. OttawaAC (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to putting weight onto that one source when there are numerous that mention it explicitly by hanging. 5 sources v 1 and choosing to go with that 1 would be pretty unreasonable. (Unless it came from TIME and the other sources were probably blogs, then it would be right) Tutelary (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A coroner can order that their findings not be released, and I couldn't find the coroner's written findings on the BC gov't website. It may be because there is an ongoing investigation, but I don't know. There was no autopsy. [8]OttawaAC (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am the editor that reverted the attempt to change 'hanged' to 'found dead'. What ultimately is the deciding policy is WP:Verifiability. Wikipedia operates on the status of verifiability, not truth. We cannot take primary sources in this situation, as they wouldn't be sourced to anything. However, if reliable sources were to report on a public announcement that she had not hung herself, we would be able to use those references to verify that and get it changed. I ultimately do not have a vendetta against changing it to 'found dead', but I go by what is written in the sources. The vast majority of the reliable sources explicitly mention hanged so that's what we were using. I have no qualms to considering other sources, giving that they'd be reliable. Albeit a public announcement would probably get the attention of reliable sources, which in turn could be used. Tutelary (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is verifiable as being published by some supposedly reliable sources doesn't make it trustworthy. You should always question where and how those sources got their information, to evaluate how much confidence you can have in their reporting. I understand that's not always possible, but that doesn't change the fact that the question needs to be asked. You also need to question whether multiple sources got their information from the same source. If they got their information from the same source, then consistent reporting by multiple sources is not corroboration. The OP seems to be suggesting that the widely reported account is wrong, without saying what the truth is. If the OP's connection to the victim's family is true, that's strong reason to question the accuracy of the details reported in news sources. "Being found dead" is consistent with "hanged", but less specific. How much diligence have you done before you decided that you could confidently stick with the "hanged" description? --108.16.202.209 (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia operates on verifiability. We need to be able to make sure that content is not just made up. We do not establish original research on Wikipedia. The only way to prove an edit is not original research is to provide a source for it. Ultimately, we go by what the sources say. If we're attempting to establish fact that she was not hanged, there needs to be a source for it. Personally contacting the family and asking whether she was hanged would be constituting original research. What would not be original research would be them releasing a statement on the true cause of death, reliable sources reporting on that, and then using those sources. The fact of the matter is that a good amount of sources have said that she was found to be hanged, and that's what I attempted to make consistent with the article. I am more than ready to question sources brought to the matter, and am patiently awaiting the bringing of sources to this discussion. I've already made a small list of the ones which describe her as being found to be hung on the talk page of the article. Tutelary (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, and frankly, it doesn't matter, because we go on what the sources say. Even if they're wrong, that's the tenant on Verifiability policies. You can propose a change and hope that within the RfC and everybody thinks it's a good idea, you can get that changed. However, as it sits, as long as a reliable source says it, that's what we go with. We can't insert original research into articles, either. (Though I acknowledge that it does not apply to talk pages.) My own edit inserting 3 reliable sources for the 'hanged' comment have been removed and reverted and I have attempted to discuss this on the talk page, yet no response as of yet. Tutelary (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While being in a published source is a requirement, it is not a ticket to inclusion. If there has been no official cause of death released, any source alleging to know the cause of death is automatically suspect. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter. As long as the source is reliable, we go by what it says. My UNDUE comment was referring to the use of one source when a good amount of sources contradict that one source is putting undue weight onto that source. This discussion should be happening on the talk page, not here. Tutelary (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not slaves to sources, and if something is doubtful we don't include it. If the manner of death has not been released to the public, how can there be any "reliable" source for the manner of death? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we are. That's why no original research was enacted, so that we would have to explain and backup our additions with reliable sources. The only way to prove an edit is not original research is to provide a reliable source for that edit. As it sits, the notice of how 'some media reported X', and then saying 'but the official cause of death was not released' is not original research, but is instead putting undue weight into that one source. Additionally, I am not going to entertain your request for the search of why media outlets reported it as a hanging. You can do that as you want, but any edits to the article must be reliably sourced. Tutelary (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're failing to make an important distinction here. The no-original-research thing says we can't have material not supported by reliable sources. It does not say that we must have material just because it is supported by such sources. If we have doubts about the veracity of a source, it is sometimes reasonable to leave it out. News articles in general are relatively low-quality sources.
There is no question of "undue weight". Undue weight is an issue when sources disagree. But the sources do not disagree. Some of them make more specific claims than others; as far as I'm aware, there is no point where they make incompatible claims. It is not necessarily unreasonable to defer including the more specific claims, and stick with the more general ones, while awaiting higher-quality sources such as books. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinction, and the latter is what has happened. There are innumerable sources that state specifically that hanging was the cause of death. The current formulation of the sentence as it sits is
The cause of death was reported in some media as hanging.[20][21][22][23] However, the exact cause of death has not been released.[24]
There is too much weight put into that one source (24) while the other 4 directly contradict it. Using 'some' is also a weasel word but that's not the majority of the problem. Additionally, the word 'hanging' has been scrubbed out of at least 4 different places in the article, under what I would consider censorship. I am more than willing to go and participate at WP:DRN over this. Tutelary (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have been known to hide behind the citation rules in order to force a particular viewpoint into an article. You can't just count sources like a scorecard, as they often emanate from a single source, and often not a reliable one either. For example, when Michael Jackson died, there were many news outlets reporting it - but the source for each was TMZ, which is not regarded as reliable, and it was kept out of the Wikipedia article. Once the story was independently confirmed, it became valid to include it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Googling the matter, I am hard pressed to find any reliable sources claiming she hanged herself. They mostly simply say "committed suicide". So, to claim a specific method requires cherry-picking of sources that make that claim. That is true "undue weight". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're implying I'm a POV pusher, I'd like formally beseech that you focus on the content, not the contributor. Additionally, what you're referring to is considered a 'questionable' source. WP:QUESTIONABLE. The four sources listed are not considered questionable sources, and have editorial control, which is why they're considered reliable. No matter how I see it, putting 'some media' in that context and scrubbing out all mentions of hanging except for that single section is WP:UNDUE. In addition to your response, please provide the sources, as I have already provided mine on the talk page. Talk:Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd#Hanged_vs_.27found_dead.27. Tutelary (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am going to ask you to stop commenting on the contributor. Also, Google search results are ultimately filtered in a filter bubble based on your last search queries which you cannot turn off. I have not cherry picked sourcing, and I am going to ask you one more time to stop commenting on the contributor. Tutelary (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a comment that POV-pushers often try to hide behind, so you'll have to do better than that. So, tell me, why do the sources that assert a particular method of death outweigh those that don't? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not call or implicate me as a POV pusher, as I will consider it a personal attack. Anywho, it's because of the quantity of them. See the talk page of the article. Tutelary (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't want to start a debate about the second amendment. That is not the purpose of the reference desk. My question is ONLY about the practical/logistical aspects of a gun ban that pro-gun control people seem to crave. How is it going to work.
Let us assume, temporarily, for the purpose of this question: guns are bad for society; permissive gun laws lead to murders; it is in society's interest to ban guns; a national gun ban is going to be passed by Congress, and the local governments will be on board with it as well and won't defy the federal government.
What, then, are we going to do with the millions of people in the US who already have legal guns? Do we, as right-wing anti-gun-control people fear, send out armed government agents to round up and confiscate all guns? Or do we have sort of a grandfather clause that states that if you already have a gun, that's fine, but people aren't allowed to buy any *new* guns? If the latter, how does that prevent any gun murders? There would still be plenty of legal guns floating around. If the former... yeah, good luck with that.
I don't think you're going to get an answer to this without a debate. My short answer: you would not get a Congress that would pass such a law without greater social change on this topic than there has been. A society that elected such a Congress would be a lot more willing to give up guns, and to accept a degree of state interference with gun ownership. If you want to see a worked example, look at the increasing strictness of UK gun laws over the past 40 years. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, I agree you would have to completely change society to get this to work. US has a different culture and history from UK. But doesn't someone out there have a plan on how the gun ban is going to work in *this* society?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the person who hastily collapsed my question and said we don't do "debate" or "predictions" on the reference desk, let me clarify. I'm not asking for YOUR predictions. I'm asking what pro-gun control organizations' plan is. Every good organization/political movement has a plan. Pro gun control organizations are real, not hypothetical. What is their plan for how a gun ban would work? Thanks.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what you originally asked. And the tone of your '...yeah, good luck with that' in your original post belies your attempt at neutrality. Want to know what gun-control organisations say? Go and read their own literature. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference desk doesnt demand that the tone of the question be neutral. If it does, I'm sorry for not following that rule. Could you help me find some of the literature where their plans are outlined? Please be specific and show me what parts of the literature explain the answer to my specific question. Thanks.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a rule that you have to phrase your question neutrally, but had you done so it wouldn't look like your question is just a rhetorical question framing an ignorant strawman argument in an attempt to induce cognitive dissonance in yourself rather than try to understand what other people reasonably believe.
There are no serious attempts by legitimate and powerful gun control groups to completely ban all guns overnight ever in the US. Anyone who has seriously thought about the subject knows better. Do some gun control advocates wish we could get rid of them overnight? Yes, but they know that's not going to happen just as much as most people know the average citizen is never going to buy an M60 machine gun (or need to, for that matter). Restricting and reducing the sales of guns based on their capabilities, where they're bought, and who's buying them]? Sure. Gun buyback programs? Sure. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presently, I am deeply skeptical that a gun ban would work. That's why I sounded very sarcastic. That doesn't mean I'm not open minded or willing to entertain attempts to change my mind. I don't even like guns, by the way. I just know America loves their guns and won't give them up easily. Thank for trying to contribute. to answering my question, and I will read up on some of the programs you linked to.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're being skeptical about something that no one advocates. That's why you're coming across as close-minded. You're not presenting something that doesn't exist as the beliefs of gun control advocates. You're lying to yourself about what they believe, and asking people to argue in defense of something no one believes. It's no different than a gun control advocate asking why the NRA supports shoot babies and the elderly with bazookas. 00:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It's true no one advocates banning ON ALL GUNS immediately and I've not encountered anyone who thinks it's feasible to start taking people's guns away. But I've been reading the news, and some newsworthy people have stated that they believe strict gun control laws will prevent mass shootings (even shootings that don't involve semi automatic weapons) and that we NEED to start passing these laws to save lives. I am just looking for more information on how these stricter laws are going to reduce the number of legal guns, especially in so-called red states. How is that going to happen?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't see the tone problem with comments like this, I can't help you. I've already told you - if you want to know what gun control organisations say, go and check their own publications. This is not the place for what is blatantly a debate. Now I'm off to sleep in a country which has about one firearms massacre a decade. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did check their publications; I didn't find anything terribly informative in terms of reducing the number of legal guns on the streets. But people at the reference desk are good at looking up facts that I'm unable to find, so that's why I came here.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One might also have thought the USA hated marijuana and same-sex marriage, but times change. Heck, 90 years ago one might have supposed the USA hated alcohol, too. What loud politicians say, for or against gun control, is no guide to subtle shifts in public sentiment. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A constructive response here is to suggest a look at a country that relatively recently brought in much more restrictive gun control laws than it used to have. See Gun politics in Australia. In particular, after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the country was ready for much stronger restrictions on gun ownership. The conservative government led the way. Eighteen years on, gun laws are not an issue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, I didn't think about Australia, and I read the article now. I was a bit confused by the category A/category B stuff. How hard is it to get a handgun in Australia compared to getting a hunting rifle? And do people conclude that the drop in gun violence is attributable to the restrictions on handguns, or on more powerful semiautomatic weapons, or to something else?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what people conclude because, as I said above, it has become a non-issue. Hardly anybody ever even discusses the issue now. We haven't had a mass shooting since 1996. As for handguns, as I understand it, apart from law enforcement people, only gun club members (target shooters) can own handguns, and the guns must be stored separately from ammunition. There was a lot of objection to the buyback initially, but when people realised they could get cash for guns they hardly ever used, and which would become illegal, it became quite popular. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. And plenty of people still own hunting weapons, correct? It would seem that, due to their difficulty to conceal, that it would be a lot harder to commit a mass shooting with a hunting weapon (though there have been cases in the US, like that guy who climbed the belltower, and the elemnatry school kids in Arkansas, etc.)--24.228.94.244 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not many city people own hunting weapons, and most Australians live in big cities. Country folk have shotguns for killing foxes and rabbits, but it's not a big part of the population. Hunting is not a big activity in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the OP's question is, "It won't" work. No serious discussion of banning guns is going on here. The issue is "regulation" of guns - such as how or if it's possible to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics, like that guy in California the other day. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well quite. Even lefties like me who can't think of many good moral reasons for people to own guns don't think it's sensible (or necessarily right) for a government to say "OK, guns are banned". Things that might work would include a more stringent licensing regime, more narrowly defined categories of legal firearms, and more closely vetted sales. It's still legal to own certain guns, under certain circumstances, here in the UK - and yes, there are still homicides with legally owned firearms. But it's unthinkable that a government would just up and ban something that so many people already have. (Well, I already mentioned alcohol prohibition...) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take everybody's points about the UK being different to the USA, but this article describes how it was done in the UK - after handguns became illegal there was an amnesty when you could hand in your weapon at a police station. There was no "round up" as the OP suggests. Alansplodge (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "consensus". The only (albeit flawed) way of finding out the consensus on a single issue such as this is a referendum, and AFAIK the US doesn't do referenda. I don't pretend to understand the constitutional process in the US, but if the President and/or Congress wanted to push through gun control legislation they could do it by virtue of the fact that they were elected, regardless of what some imagined "consensus" might be. --Viennese Waltz12:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that the people have to be willing to give up their guns. If not, when the government tries to confiscate them, there will be massive bloodshed - which seems counterproductive to the reason for trying to ban guns. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the 2nd Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". That would prohibit Congress from passing a law banning the private ownership of guns, unless:
1) The Supreme Court reinterprets the 2nd Amendment to only apply to state militias, specifically "well regulated" meaning that they are run by the state government and don't let people take the guns home with them. This would require a majority vote by the Supreme Court.
2) The 2nd Amendment is repealed, which would require 2/3 of Congress or 3/4 of the states.
Considering the powerful lobbying group, the National Rifle Association, would go all-out to stop such a repeal (or the appointment of Supreme court judges who might vote that way), you'd probably need like 90% of voters to favor such an action to overcome all this inertia. So, you would have a powerful mandate if such a law was ever passed.
The more practical effect would be if you could ban carrying and selling guns, rather than owning them (although you could ban owning large numbers). This would allow people who carry guns in public to be arrested. As for the ownership of existing guns, you'd need to wait until they break down with age, although the ability to make one using a 3D printer would allow for replacement. Since most gun crimes are committed by young people, they would need to obtain guns somehow, as soon as we get a new batch of young people. StuRat (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A prevailing theory among gun advocates is that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. An attempt to confiscate guns would be seen as exactly that, and there would likely be a large-scale civil war. Which would kind of defeat the point in trying to ban guns in the first place. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy the "large-scale civil war" argument. Guns were banned, collected and destroyed in the UK without those kinds of dire consequences. When the 1997 law was passed, effectively banning handguns, 162,000 pistols and 700 tons of ammunition and related equipment were handed in and duly destroyed...peacefully and certainly without rioting in the streets.
The 2nd Amendment argument is flakey too, you can read those words in any of half a dozen different ways and conclude that private gun ownership either should or shouldn't be allowed. The UK also had dusty old rulings: "Subjects which are Protestants ...(Eeek!)... may have Arms for their Defence, suitable to their Condition, and as allowed by Law." in the 1689 Declaration of Rights - and it was also accepted Common Law: "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.". Sounds kinda similar to the spirit and intent of the US constitution...and for good reason - the people who wrote these things came from the same era and the same mind-set.
The problem is that surveys have shown (eg [9]) that the percentage of US voters who want more agressive gun control always hovers around the 50% mark. With intense lobbying from the gun manufacturers and their proxies (eg the NRA which gets more than half of it's funding from gun manufacturers), nothing much is likely to change because not enough people want it to change. If a clear majority Americans really wanted gun control - they'd find a way around the poorly-written, badly-thought-out and *way* out of date, 2nd Amendment in a heartbeat. eg "Sure, you're allowed to bear arms...cudgels and pocket-knives" - that's within the scope of the 2nd Amendment - nothing there says that you have the right to bear "guns" any more than it says that personal nuclear weapons are allowed.
The Constitution does not define or limit the type of arms that the people are allowed to have. That's left up to the Congress, which of course has long banned truly military weapons. The assault rifles are in kind of a murky area. They were illegal for a while, but that law had an expiration date on it and was not renewed. In the case of the recent California looney (which I expect is what prompted the question), the guy had done everything by the book, up to the point where he started shooting at everybody. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems to me that any attempt to limit the 2nd Amendment to small weapons excluding firearms would meet no small amount of opposition from those same lobbying groups you mention. The problem with banning guns, of course, is that the only people you need to take guns from are those who already have them ("Duh," you say). In the UK (and evidently in Australia) those with guns didn't seem too opposed to the idea of handing them over. The sociopolitical situation is quite different in the United States, especially in the South, where you have a huge number of civilian paramilitary groups who would have no problem telling you that they will use their weapons to defend what they see as their constitutional right. "Civil war" might be an exaggeration, but perhaps imagine 500 simultaneous Wacos.
That aside, historical documentation is somewhat spotty on what the 2nd Amendment means and why it means it. The Supreme Court opinion in DC v Heller is particularly illuminating in that regard. Did the Founding Fathers really intend for the 2nd Amendment to be a safeguard against "tyrannical government?" Well, maybe... It might depend on which Founding Father you ask, though. One of the great untruths of the conservative American founding myth is that "the Founding Fathers" were a group of unimpeachable Holy Men who, by virtue of their divine inspiration, never disagreed with one another on any subject worth discussing. What is certain is that the guy who probably wrote the final version of it talks a lot more against foreign invasion as a pretext for the 2nd Amendment than he does any domestic tyranny. That's certainly a somewhat obsolete concern in our era of nuclear submarines and early warning systems, but the efficacy of any argument of that sort is necessarily limited by which sides of the debate want to hear it.
The argument over what "arms," "militia," and "people" mean is essentially a conflict between originalism (with a healthy dose of strict constructionism) and the Living Constitution idea. As an interesting aside, Antonin Scalia has no problem referring to the former position, which he supports, as idealizing a Dead Constitution. From what I've read, I do think the historical way of reading the 2nd Amendment is as a guarantee of private individual gun ownership. That is completely separate from the issue of whether that guarantee is any longer necessary or productive (which I don't think). Evan(talk|contribs)18:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if you take the view that the literal words in the constitution are to be upheld, then either you have to read it as requiring that people be allowed to openly own nuclear weapons (Imagine a US-based nut-job, openly constructing a FOAB grade weapon in full knowledge of the authorities) - or you have to accept that government can act to limit those weapons. Since the words don't say anything about guns - you have to concede that if the government can ban people from owning nuclear weapons - then they can also ban them from owning anything more dangerous than a club or a 3" knife. If you argue that the founding fathers had in mind a particular weapon as an "arm" - then fixed-sight, single-shot, muzzle-loading smoothbores (and no smokeless powder) should be the legal standard because that's what they knew. If you regard the constitution as a "living document" because the founding fathers couldn't possibly understand how the world might develop - then we should be able to adjust the definition of "arms" to suit the modern world - which should result in something a lot more sane and adaptable than "any gun"...or whatever the current standard is.
The idea that the constitution specifically permits things precisely conceived of as modern firearms is simply indefensible - it says nothing of the sort. SteveBaker (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I didn't mean to suggest that all guns were encompassed by the 2nd Amendment, just that, whatever class of objects Madison and the framers had in mind, some firearms were certainly in the mix. The amendment is permeated with ambiguity in practically every word, and imposing one construction or another doesn't resolve the ambiguity inherent in the text. As long as that ambiguity stands, there's going to be serious disagreement on how to interpret the constitution. Evan(talk|contribs)20:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May 26
I am not making this up (famous last words)
I had read somewhere that the world's first modern environmental movement was in Japan, during the Meiji period, regarding preservation of the wilderness of Hokkaido, however I can find no reference for this, has anyone else heard this?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if the Meiji period was the first instance of environmentalism. Establishment of large parks, like Central Park, may also qualify, as might implementation of clean water and sewage systems, such as the Roman aqueducts. For that matter, when the first cave men decided not to just poop wherever they happened to be and set aside a place for that, this would qualify, too. StuRat (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was probably pre-human, but post arboreal.
But early environmental movements might be the creation of the New Forest in 1079, or even the estate formations of the previous millenia. Exactly what constitutes a "modern environmental movement" is something that would need to be defined before one could consider "first". All the best: RichFarmbrough, 22:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC).
I believe that if you consider the legal preservation of the environmental system of a particular area as an end in itself, rather than for hunting, water catchment, grazing or other human activity, then the first example I can find is Yosemite National Park in 1864. The New Forest was created by a a brutal military tyrant expelling thousands of people from productive farmland so that he could chase deer about, which didn't really have the same lofty ideals. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly find any updates update that project? What is the current status of the renovation? Is it on hold due to the GOP's objections or are the shovels still active? 112.198.79.49 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My lethargy, though having enormous contacts and practical ideas, has making me unsuccessful in all areas namely, family life, financial and health. I have a name of good worker when I worked with various organisations. I need to know the obstacle in me and I want to remove it and be successful. Is it Procrastination? If so how to overcome it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijayakrishnam (talk • contribs) 10:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the lethargy is ruining your life, then you ought to consult a doctor -- it is possible that you are seriously depressed, or have some sort of illness. Looie496 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procrastination is the act of postponing, delaying or putting off, from Latin prō ("to") + crāstinus (“of tomorrow”), from crās (“tomorrow”). While procrastination is often associated with feelings of laziness and guilt, there is enough scope for normal people to procrastinate for rational reasons and/or as part of their coping strategy in complex situations for it not by itself to amount to a Mental disorder. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that medical advice is prohibited here. You have no way to know what the OP's real issue is. Only a professional, in a face-to-face meeting, can provide possible answers to whatever might be ailing the OP. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for granting or denying a motion for summary judgment
Resolved
