Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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.

Comparing conflicts.

With ISIS in the news again, my question is how they are able to make such rapid and swift progress against two formally powerful countries. CNN or Fox just don't go into context.

My main reference being the siege of Stalingrad. I mean, hundreds of thousands if not over a million perished during this conflict. The size and scale of the Eastern Front makes the ISIS skirmishes and battles look like something straight out of kindergarten.

Yet, ISIS are probably only slightly better equipped than the Soviets were, excluded the thousands of tanks. Slightly better than rag tag. And they survive a sustained, comprehensive aerial bombardment by the most powerful air force ever known. How!?

Then they take Palymra against an army that has powerful T72 tanks.

Is there something we dont know in this co flict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference is that this bombing is not carpet bombing, it's very limited targeting drone strikes. The goal is to kill only ISIS fighters without killing civilians. In carpet bombing, you just kill everyone in the area. That's far more effective militarily, although you still need massive land forces to use in combination. Most of the land forces just aren't up to the task. You have a weak central government in Iraq, which has purged all the Sunnis from it's officer ranks, leaving it weakened and demoralized. You have Shiite militias, which really only care to fight when in Shia areas. And in Syria you have the much weakened government, due to years of civil war. The Kurds have done an effective job, but again only in Kurdish areas. It's going to take competent troops, which probably means Western troops, to get the job done. And since ISIS will probably behead or burn alive any prisoners, it would require overwhelming numbers to ensure that they never have the local superiority in numbers which might allow them to take prisoners. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that little is said about them until they take an oil producing site. There is only one viable resource in the region: oil. They can take 100 cities that do not produce oil and the concern is low. If they take a city that produces or refines oil, concern is high. From an American perspective (I assume you are American because you mention CNN/Fox), we are not overly concerned as long as the oil keeps flowing at a good price. We don't really have a need to one religious sect to rule over another. It reminds me of a quote from the Iraq-Iran war: The only problem is that we cannot have both sides lose. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the US I hear about them when they commit a massacre or destroy antiquities. StuRat (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When they commit a massacre or destroy antiquities, look at where they are. For example, radical Islam in Nigeria was not notable until they kidnapped a bunch of girls from a major oil producing area. Suddenly, they are in the news. Similarly, we didn't hear much about Ethiopian pirates until they captured a oil tanker. Suddenly, they are a major threat. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody outside of Erbil has ever given a shit about Erbil. At least not for Erbil's sake. Poor abundant Erbil. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

I agree that access to oil is an important concern, but not because the US wants that oil. It's difficult to imagine American refineries being set up in that area anytime soon due to all the violence there, especially with home US oil and gas production way up due to fracking, keeping the prices low. And if ISIS sells it on the world market, that still has the effect of increasing the world oil supply and keeping prices down. The concern is that ISIS then makes lots of money off selling the oil, which they'll use to expand.

Also note that US troops in Afghanistan continue to make the news whenever there are deaths or a battle, even though there's no oil there. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The oil and its machinery are in the general area. America doesn't want all the oil itself, but control (or at least influence) over the business end. If ISIS takes some oil and oil makes ISIS expand, ISIS reaches more oil. If ISIS fully expands within its claimed zone, and still doesn't agree with American policies by then, it's game over. So yeah, they'll fight them on any front, even the bone dry ones and in the spirit world. We hear about a lot of those fights, but hard to say "whenever" without considering the ones we don't hear about.

It's not all about the oil, though, because gas is interesting, too. And there's the tiny fact that, regardless of goals or even who's fighting who, virtually all of the military budget of the United States goes back into American corporations. If the economy stops expanding, that's also game over (or something ominous, anyway.) InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

The main difference between ISIS and the government forces that are their main adversaries (outside Kurdish areas) is one of motivation. Fighters for ISIS believe that their cause is holy, and that if they die, they will go straight to paradise as heroes meriting reward. Their commitment is strong. As a result, ISIS is able to use tactics like sending armored vehicles to force their way to positions, then exploding the vehicles once they reach their positions, killing the ISIS fighters in the vehicle as well as their opponents, and allowing other ISIS fighters to then advance and take the positions. [1][2] Government forces in the region are fighting for corrupt governments lacking in legitimacy and simply lack the fervor to stand against ISIS fighters willing to risk everything. Given the choice between dying in defense of their corrupt government or fleeing to safety, they tend to flee to safety. By contrast, ISIS fighters willingly sacrifice their lives. As for bombing, another factor is that most of ISIS's opponents (including US forces) are concerned about minimizing civilian casualties, whereas for ISIS, their cause is more important than individual lives. [3] That allows ISIS to act more ruthlessly and with little restraint, whereas humanitarian concerns constrain U.S. and allied forces. Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between minimizing civilian casualties and minimizing acknowledgment of civilian casualties. The numbers in Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), Casualties of the Iraq War and Drone strikes in Pakistan aren't exactly consistent, but even the lowball counts smoke ISIS' death toll (excluding those killed when the US bombs a suspected ISIS target, then gives ISIS credit for apparently being there).

And let's not forget, aside from murder, intolerance and all that, a huge part of ISIS' mission is getting rid of those guys the West used to be mad at for killing even more civilians than America does. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

You're comparing multiple wars over a decade and a half with a single, recent conflict, in the case of ISIS. Also, I suspect that many ISIS massacres aren't reported, as there are no surviving witnesses or anyone allowed to investigate. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comparing a bunch of conflicts, all under the same terror roof. Which one were you thinking of? ISIS is a latecomer, at least under that name, so they'll naturally have some catching up to do, but their formation itself was largely based on (and is sustained by) all sorts of people killing all sorts of civilians. Same general area. Many drone (and "normal air") strikes aren't reported for the same reason. That's why sites like Naming the Dead have to exist. Dead men tell no tales, no matter who kills them. Women and children, neither. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing surprising here. The US got nowhere in Vietnam against a guerilla army so they left. The USSR fought a war of attrition in Afghanistan and quit. Funny how when the military get it wrong abroad the government often collapses (USSR, Argentina, Portugal). In Iraq the US are pulling their punches. They didn't assist in the liberation of Tikrit bacause Iranian - backed militia were involved. They weren't very active in Syria recently when Daesh were advancing in regime - held areas. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the OP understand the difference between "formally" and "formerly?" Edison (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, given the context. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

May 27

How long was the IRT Third Avenue Line (redux)?

On May 20, Metrophil44 asked:

How long was the IRT Third Avenue Line?

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

And I wrote in the thread:

I haven't found a source for the actual length but have asked a knowledgeable friend. Stay tuned. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC), corrected 21:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC).

I now have an answer, but it's from a knowledgeable friend of my friend, not from a published source, and I didn't get permission to attribute it. So this should be the correct information but I don't have a suitable reference for it to be used on Wikipedia. According to this unpublished information, the sections of the line were:

From	To	Miles
South Ferry	Chatham Sq.	1.3
City Hall	Chatham Sq.	1.3
Chatham Sq.	149th St.	8.4
149th St.	Gun Hill Rd.	5.5
Fordham Rd.	Bronx Park	0.3

Making 15.2 miles (24.5 km) end to end, plus 1.6 miles (2.6 km) in branches.

I was also given official lengths of the different Manhattan Railway el lines as given out by their chief engineer's office in 1909, but this was before the Dual Contracts extensions and therefore does not represent the final extent of the Third Avenue line.

Manhattan:

Line	Miles
Second Avenue	7.44
Third Avenue	9.34
Sixth Avenue	10.89
Ninth Avenue	4.78
Suburban	0.15
Total	32.60

Bronx:

Suburban	5.08

I hope this is useful. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These numbers are extremely precise, implying your friend's friend has a source. Is there some reason he can't simply name the source, MTA Museum Brochure, or whatever? μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort! As Medeis said, these numbers are very precise, thank you. And @Medeis: I wanted to use the length in the German wikipedia article about the Third Avenue Line (not existing yet). -- Metrophil44 (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ipanema_(brand)

There's no article for the Brazilian sandals brand Ipanema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.224.70 (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that the Portuguese Wikipedia has such an article either. Their disambiguation page, pt:Ipanema, contains no footwear entries. -- ToE 06:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create the article yourself! The Portuguese Wikipedia does have an article on Grendene who own and make the brand. Nanonic (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But (s)he can't! Feel free to participate in the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to change the focus of pending changes to change things. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Living brain outside the body

What would the owner of that particular brain experience?

Seeing as we can sustain whole organs outside of the human body, if we did the same with a brain, is it possible at all to theorize what it would experience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just dreaming, really. Not having access to the external functions of stimuli like touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight, it couldn't do anything else. It would simply be just like being asleep. 82.35.216.24 (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to provide it with nerve inputs. We have a cochlear implant and visual prosthesis that work that way now, so it certainly is possible. StuRat (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated brain and William and Mary. DuncanHill (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madness, and death, in short order. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stating from the get go that this is impossible, it would most likely be exquisite torture, and not just like being asleep. Compare with phantom pain and phantom limb. Although exact mechanisms are still being studied and disputed, it is likely that a combination of irritated severed nerve endings and mal-adaptation in the cortex case pain and other sensory sensations in the missing body part. That is just in one body part, and can sometimes already be crippling. Now imagine that for a whole body..... I guess you could argue that with the medical technology required to keep a disembodied brain alive (Clarke's three laws|indistinguishable from magic?), you could compensate for these things, but that is firmly in the realm of sci-fi. Fgf10 (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; madness and death in short order. It's like asking what would a kidney do in a toilet, or a liver do in a swimming pool. Brains are organs, not magical gum drop chocolate fairy thingumies. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, the OP specified that we have the magical ability to keep the brain alive, which means no death. If that wasn't the case, even madness couldn't occur, as there would be no conciousness without the rest of the body. Fgf10 (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is essentially what I said. The brain would just be in a dream state. There may be some sort of phantom limb syndrome at some point, but why do we not have that when we are asleep? When we are asleep, we can dream and do whatever we want, but our brains are disconnected from the body (so that we don't act out the dreams). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 07:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck could you possibly know that? You don't - please stop writing from your own personal guesses. SteveBaker (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK everyone - how do we know any of the things we're claiming here? What is the source of these pieces of claimed knowledge? Everyone here is just thinking shit up and guessing? The brain is VERY poorly understood - the importance of all of the connections with the rest of the body are not well understood. We don't understand how consciousness works - we don't even have an established definition for the term. So how could we even remotely guess an answer. Please stop doing that. Unless you have some kind of evidence from some kind of human trial - the only correct answer here is "We Don't Know"...all else is bullshit.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take time off the RefDesk. As you say below, this is a Reference Desk, not a tabloid, and certainly swearing is not acceptable. Take a break, relax, and come back when you are ready to join into the spirit of things. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 18:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this crap about stopping people saying "shit"? It's not, nowadays, regarded as foul language when used as Steve does above. DuncanHill (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not realise that calling everybody else's answers 'bullshit', when such answers were given in good honest faith, was polite parlance around here. Perhaps I should take note of that fact. I shall add that to my list of 'Ways to Insult People on Wikipedia after They Have Given a Good and Honest Attempt to Answer a Question'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Steve was using "bullshit" in its scientific sense of "a supposition based on no evidence whatsoever, with no reasons given for making it". DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When pigs fly. Assuming magical abilities is outside the purview of this desk. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard a drama on the radio recently done by Orson Wells about a Mr Donovan whose brain was sustained in a vat by an irresponsible doctor. The brain acquired the ability to force the doctor to do inappropriate things and it all ended badly.Edison (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps surprisingly it is possible to answer this question even without knowing how the brain works. A basic tenet of neuroscience is that all of the brain's interactions with the world outside it are mediated by trains of action potentials travelling along nerve fibers. (And to a far smaller degree, by chemicals circulating in the bloodstream.) Action potentials can easily be artificially generated using stimulating electrodes. It follows that if a machine can keep the brain healthy and can generate the same pattern of nerve impulses that the brain would normally get, the brain would act in exactly the same way as if it was embedded in an intact body. And if the brain shows the same activity, the experiences it implements must be the same. Of course if the machine fails to generate the right pattern of nerve impulses, all bets are off. Looie496 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair Use" or "Public Domain"

The photos on your site. How do I tell if they are "Fair Use" or "Public Domain"?

I am writing a trivia book and would like to use some of your photos, but I am not sure if I will have a copyright issue. It seems if I am reading correctly, the information on your site is "Fair Use" or "Public Domain" as long as I cite the source. Please advise and also let me know if this is not the case, how do I find out who to contact for permission to use a photo? Thanks

D. L. Milner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlmilner (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in reusing content from Wikipedia, especially images, please read Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content which contains details on how to do so. There is a section in there on reusing Wikipedia images, which also links to some longer reading if you have further questions. If you have any more specific questions regarding reuse of Wikipedia content, please let us know! --Jayron 32 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each picture has a different copyright status. All images have a description page; click on the large blue button at the bottom-right with the text "More details" to see it. That page will indicate what the copyright status is. Some pictures are Public Domain, some Fair Use (so they are owned by a third party), and some are on various copy-left licenses, mainly Creative Commons or GNU Free Document License. For example, the picture of the Taj Mahal is file:Taj_Mahal_in_March_2004.jpg, and it is GFDL. 19:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongHairedFop (talk • contribs)

There's no such thing as a "fair use image". Fair use is a set of (poorly defined) limitations on the power of copyright holders to restrict what you do with their works. The copyright owner can't choose to make an image "not fair use". Uses can be fair use or not; images can't. If an image on Wikipedia has a fair-use box in the "licensing" section, that only applies to a particular use of that image on Wikipedia. It says nothing about your rights.

Also, there's no such thing as "public domain as long as I cite the source". If something is in the public domain, it is not copyrighted and there are no copyright restrictions on its use. If an image's page doesn't explicitly say that it is in the public domain, it isn't. -- BenRG (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that last sentence is probably not quite true. I would wager there are quite a few public-domain images on WP servers that are not identified as such. But you would have to find that out some other way.

(Note that the converse is not necessarily safe either — anyone can mark an image as public domain; it's a simple edit. It doesn't make it true.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for "public domain so long as I cite the source", the asker is presumably referring to the various atrribution-required licenses used, where the image is free to use if you give attribution (not actually public domain, since the copyright holder still owns the image, they just let you use it). Any Creative Commons license with "BY" in the summary (e.g. CC-BY) has this condition, though it may have additional ones (e.g. CC-BY-SA, which requires you to share any work using the image under an equivalent license - which would require you to freely license your trivia book, so anyone could copy from it so long as they give you credit). MChesterMC (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

Halloween and Autumn

Why is Halloween in autumn?

117.120.18.136 (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, not Down Here anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's scary. The crops die and winter comes. Nobody (aside from Australians, of course) wonders about ghosts and skeletons in spring. That's a time to live. See Halloween for details. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why wouldn't it be? It's not necessarily tied to some other season. That said, it's roots are based around harvest festivals of pagans. Harvesting is normally done in late summer and autumn. I'm a bit confused by the question and not really sure why you would think it should be in some other season. Dismas|^(talk) 05:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the question as suggesting they chose the wrong season for Halloween to fall in. The OP just wants to know why it is so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only time you can get pumpkins. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 06:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. If we're going with why it has to stay in autumn, it gets dark sooner than it used to, so kids with early bedtimes can still have some gloomy fun, without freezing to actual death. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Boring reason: All Hallows' Eve is in autumn because All Hallows' Day is in autumn. Less boring reason: on the old Celtic calendar it's the beginning of the winter half of the year, when the life of summer is fading and thoughts turn to mortality. —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why is All Hallows Day (All Saints Day to us) in Autumn? Saints' days are usually the day of their death (their birthday in Christ) but John the Baptist has two - his Nativity on 24 June and his Decollation on 29 August. And why 8 December for the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and 8 September for her nativity? 156.61.250.250 (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity comes roughly 9 months after conception. Same reason that Christmas Day is 9 months after the Annunciation (or Lady Day, 25 March). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We knew that already [4]. The question is why that particular pair of days rather than one of the other possible 364 pairs. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Dismas said above. The original occasion was the pre-Christian New Year in North West Europe. Speculatively because of the fact that it was Autumn, the days were lengthening and Winter was approaching, questions of mortality came to mind, and it came to be thought that the world of the afterlife then drew closest to ours, such that we should think of, and might be able to communicate to/with, the dead: certain formal celebrations and rites were performed. Surviving relics of such beliefs survive in modern secular culture in the form of ghost story-telling traditions, use of scary turnip- or pumpkin-carved lanterns, various customs such as trick-or-treating, use of bonfires (now mostly transferred in England to by a few days to November 5th) and so on (as well as debatably accurate revivals of the original celebrations by Neo-pagans such as myself).

When Christianity arrived, it attempted to subsume such beliefs into its own worldview (as it did with other pagan celebrations around the Winter Solstice - Christmas, the Spring Equinox - Easter, and so on.) This particular re-interpretation was called All Saints Day as a parallel to the Pagans' all departed spirits, or in older terminology All Hallows Day, preceded by All Hallows Eve aka Halloween: note that "e'en" is an old variant of the word even(ing) and that the Pagan day (as for example the Jewish and Muslim day in ritual terms, began at the previous sunset. in Mexico, the not dissimilar though presumably independent pagan customs surrounding the Day of the Dead have similarly been partially subsumed by All Saints Day. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Disasters in Christmas

Are there any hurricanes, tornadoes or bushfires in Christmas?

117.120.18.136 (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's just another day, as far as Earth cares. These tornadoes happened around the same time the TV said the world was ending. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Here's the Black Christmas. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

And then the hurricane. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2005 massive earthquake (knocking the Earth out of orbit) and tsunami, on Dec. 26th. Does that count? Maybe it was a day late for Christmas, but it ruined my birthday (Dec. 27th). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 06:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"knocking the Earth out of orbit" is a bit of an exaggeration. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami is the link we needed. The orbit changed EXCEEDINGLY subtly...less than a centimeter. Energy releases of all kinds alter our orbit minutely - so this was far from special in that regard. It happened in 2004, not 2005 - and it was the day after Xmas in the time zone where it happened and even though it was an incredible earthquake, the energy released was only about half of the largest ever nuclear weapon explosion. With around a quarter million people dead or missing as a direct result - the fate of your birthday is hardly relevant. This is a reference desk, not a tabloid newspaper, please stick to the facts. SteveBaker (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I got the year wrong. Sorry about that, Mr. Angry. Now shall we get back to the original question? (And I mentioned my birthday because I was in the f**king area at the time). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 07:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not angry - I'm merely concerned that contributors here take just a little care to get their facts straight and to avoid exaggeration. What you wrote was almost entirely untrue - and you CLEARLY hadn't even tried to find a decent link for your answer or you'd have been reminded of the correct year. I'm just asking that you slow down a little and do some basic fact-checking. SteveBaker (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Bam earthquake - ok so it was a day late but the OP said "in Christmas" not "on Christmas" or "at Christmas"...--TammyMoet (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what's it worth, Boxing Day is inextricably linked to Christmas Day, at least to those who observe it. Can't return gifts you didn't get, and generally can't find Christmas gifts that cheap before. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Which Christmas? There's an Island in Australia, and in the US alone we have

Christmas, Gila County, Arizona
Christmas, Orange County, Florida
Christmas, Lawrence County, Kentucky
Christmas, Alger County, Michigan
Christmas, Bolivar County, Mississippi
Christmas City, Utah County, Utah
Christmas Cove, Lincoln County, Maine
Christmas Valley, Lake County, Oregon

μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pretend to be stupid. That's for those who play the sophomore par excellence. Remember? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid (or pretending) or not, a Michigan guy shot another dead in Christmas, then crashed his car and died about fifteen minutes later near Wetmore last July. It wasn't exactly a disaster, but disastrous for at least two families. See also Christmas in July. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

Given the OP said "in Christmas" I thought the research was both interesting, and in good faith. Orange County, Florida has certainly been hit by hurricanes and tornadoes. Just nothing recent. Oddly enough, the OP's an Aussie. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind it. If it's not what he meant, he can easily ignore it. If it happens to be, it's very helpful. For those just strolling by, it's a free lesson in something they probably wouldn't have looked for themselves. Even trivial, loosely-related knowledge is power. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

The OP's question is ambiguous. However, if μηδείς is correct in identifying the OP as "an Aussie" then the question is almost certainly about the Australian Territory of Christmas Island particularly as that is the location of Christmas Island Immigration Reception and Processing Centre and, in Australia, for over a decade, hardly a week can go by without that island being named in the press in connection with immigration policy and issues. As to cyclones & hurricanes, Christmas Island is subject to tropical cyclones as the weather section in the article explains. If you want more details the Australian Bureau of Meteorology may have more details as may the equivalent authority in Republic of Indonesia due to the island's remoteness from the Australian mainland and proximity to Indonesia. As to bushfires, the island is 10 degrees south of the equator and has a climate significantly different to mainland Australia. A tropical climate with less temperature variation. It is not noted for bushfires although I believe I recollect that there were some limited fires (not necessarily bushfires) several years ago when some detainees escaped the detention centre. Lanyon (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Race and murder in the US

In the U.S, particularly Southern states like Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, are black people more like to get executed for the homicide of a white person. Than, lets say a white man killing a black person. Especially if the white person argues self defence. And is there some law stipulates juries must be an equal mix, rather than all white (or all black vs a white person) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this is hatted (by someone who knows how) as it is not a request for a factual answer. This is not a chat room designed to debate possible racial prejudice... gazhiley 10:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a request for factual information to me - a breakdown of sentencing for homicides according to the ethnicity of perpetrator and victim, and laws on jury composition. DuncanHill (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well each to their own DuncanHill, but as a frequent viewer of this desk this question has a tinge of chat/debate about it... "are black people more like to get executed" - how can we factually respond to that? We can answer what the number of each ethnicity is executed, from a factual viewpoint, but to answer the question are they more 'likely' (I assume that is what the OP meant) is a matter of opinion... Surely it depends on the level of the crime and priors etc? The judicial system should hopefully look past the colour of someone's skin and base the result purely on the facts... Frankly, I am amazed this "question" has had as much response as it has... gazhiley 09:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the responses below, read the studies referred to in them. It is a legitimate question, being studied by serious institutions. DuncanHill (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also μηδείς's comments DuncanHill - I've been around here long enough to recognise an attempt to stir up debate... While the studies may be legit, this "question" (especially the op's attempt to keep the provocative title) is not - it's an attempt to cause trouble... gazhiley 10:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well to start with, Amnesty International USA refer to a study by Yale University saying that "African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white". Our article Race and crime in the United States states "Federal Prosecutors of African American and Hispanic defendants are twice as likely to push for mandatory minimum sentences, leading to longer sentences and disparities in incarceration rates for federal offenses", referenced to Univ. of Michigan Law & Economics, Empirical Legal Studies Center. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Jury selection in the United States has some interesting points, including the Duke University study "black defendants (81%) are significantly more likely than whites (66%) to be convicted when there are no potential black jurors in the pool. Even with only one black member of the jury pool, conviction rates are almost identical (71% for blacks and 73% for whites). While 64% of cases had at least one black potential juror in the pool, only 28% of all trials had one or more black members on the seated jury." DuncanHill (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report by the Equal Justice Initiative - "Some district attorney’s offices explicitly train prosecutors to exclude racial minorities from jury service and teach them how to mask racial bias to avoid a finding that anti-discrimination laws have been violated." DuncanHill (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And we have an article All-white jury. DuncanHill (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people executed in Alabama, ~~List of people executed in Mississippi~~ and ~~Capital punishment in Florida#List of individuals executed since 1979~~ might be worth a look. One has a race column. But no, they don't provide a full picture, including who was not executed, and who had shadows of doubt in their trials. It's something, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Here is one summary of the research (keep in mind though that not everyone will necessarily agree with it, and there are considerable time and place variations):

For decades, scholars have examined the influence of race on capital punishment. The research literature suggests that the race of the defendant does not have a consistent impact on the death penalty. A few studies report that death is more likely to be imposed against black defendants than white defendants, but most do not. In contrast, the race of the victim does have a consistent impact on the death penalty the vast majority of studies report that death is more likely to be imposed on behalf of white victims, and particularly white female victims.
— Scott Phillips, Continued Racial Disparities in the Capital of Capital Punishment? The Rosenthal Era, Houston Law review, 2012

For the various avenues through which racial bias is introduced in the process see this paper and references in it. For jury selection issues in particular see this paper and cited references. For pioneering and extensive work in the area see papers by David C. Baldus and George Woodworth (Google scholar search). Also see the 1987 Supreme Court case McCleskey v. Kemp, in which death penalty was almost overturned based on their research about death penalty in Georgia. Abecedare (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP IP is a known sock who's been blocked by User talk:JzG for his disruptive behavior. Rather than just close this I am simply giving a more neutral name, which steps on no ones answers. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

What are these shoes?

How do you name these shoes? Or what keywords could you use to research more about then? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wrangler-Regular-Fit-Darkstone-W32INxL30IN/dp/B007HD2I2Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=clothing&ie=UTF8&qid=1426344119&sr=1-3&keywords=wrangler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.97.43 (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a standard Derby shoe to me. --Viennese Waltz 09:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Derby shoe" does not output any relevant results at amazon.co.uk. Might it be that it has a different name in the UK? --31.4.157.152 (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask where to buy them, you asked what they were called. "Derby shoe" is a generic descriptor for that type of shoe, not a brand name. [5] gives Oxfords and Derbys as a category name from which you can start your browsing. --Viennese Waltz 11:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They look like industrial or military boots to me, rather like this. Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the US engage in currency manipulation ?

Other nations, like China, manage to keep their currency artificially low, relative to the US dollar, to make their exports cheaper and their imports more expensive. Complaints about this are just ignored. So, why can't the US do the same ? StuRat (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be against the first principle in their Manifest destiny. --Askedonty (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assumes facts not in evidence, Stu. --Trovatore (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be less coy, of course the US does engage in currency manipulation. Heck, that's half the Federal Reserve's job. Maybe the point is, there are people who benefit from a strong home currency and people who benefit from a weak one, and maybe the political balance is more in favor of the first party in the US than it is in some countries. But both sides have their day. --Trovatore (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The US actually has been weakening its currency quite strenuously, by setting interest rates very low and by means of the policy called quantitative easing. China has suffered pretty seriously from its efforts to keep up. In principle the US could weaken its currency even more, but the costs would probably outweigh the benefits -- weakening a currency has a strong inflationary effect. Looie496 (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would low interest rates drive down the value of the currency ? I would think that would make people want to borrow that currency, increasing demand for it, and thus the value. StuRat (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Low interest rates lower the savings rate (because the low interest discourages keeping money in banks) and encourages borrowing (because it's cheap to get loans, so people are more likely to do so). Both of those factors increase the money in circulation. By the simple laws of supply and demand, more money in circulation is greater money supply, which in turn means that money is worth less. QED. --Jayron 32 16:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But a low interest rate also implies a low inflation rate, and that's a good environment for saving money. High interest and high inflation rates are bad for savers, because the government taxes the entire interest amount, not the interest less the rate of inflation. Better then to invest in something that will hold it's value, such as real estate, if you have enough cash to do so without borrowing. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Low interest rates might possibly be correlated with low inflation, but for the opposite reason that you're thinking. Lowering interest rates, by a central bank, means increasing the money supply, which is inflationary. --Trovatore (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the money is not worth buying buying will not be cheap. You are counting on foreign buyers. --Askedonty (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That first sentence makes no sense to me. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to ancient times when money was weak and you couldn't buy. Anyway borrowing is not making money more valuable inside the country. It affects the interest rates, if they are not regulated. --Askedonty (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do China and other nations who do currency manipulation in a big way have very bad inflation ? StuRat (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on what you mean by 'manipulation'. The US dollar, Euro, British pound, Japanese yen, and many other currencies are freely exchangeable. Exchange rates are set by the market. Any 'manipulation' is done by monetary policy (in individual countries, typically in coordination with fiscal policy), such as the setting of interest rates. The Chinese yuan is not freely exchangeable; its exchange rate is set by China. Also, while often nations (or unions of nations) want to keep their currency low in order to make exports cheap and imports dear, there are sometimes reasons why that may not be the best policy. While China is not having hyperinflation, it is having inflation. An American, European, or Japanese might reasonably ask: "Inflation? What's that?" Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, I don't think anyone has cleared up a couple of your misconceptions. What matters is the real interest rate, that is, the nominal interest rate minus inflation. If interest rates are higher than inflation, there is a positive real interest rate. If interest rates are lower than inflation, there is a negative real interest rate. Savers and investors tend to avoid putting their money where it will earn a negative real interest rate. The United States has had a negative real interest rate for the better part of 7 years now. You suggested that by attracting borrowers, low interest rates would tend to drive up a currency's exchange value. The opposite is true. You can borrow in a currency without buying any of it. In fact, low interest rates do attract borrowers, who borrow dollars and then sell them to purchase a currency in which they can earn a higher rate of return. This is known as the carry trade. In this way, low real interest rates drive down the value of a currency. Marco polo (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Race and violence in the US and UK

Are blacks in the USA and / or UK more predisposed to violence? Are there any "unbiased studies that link blacks to violent activity. Assuming this is true, what explanations are there to explain this difference in behaviour compared to other races. If the anecdotes such as poverty, hardship and poor upbringing are discounted, would the baseline be any different?

Or, is it considered too difficult (or controversial) to compile this sort of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mention poverty, but your use of the word "anecdotes" appears to be intending to dismiss it as an explanatory factor. I don't know about the UK, but the correlation between race and income in the US is established, and the correlation between low income and social disorganization in the US is established. Partial correlation as a statistical technique is needed even to try to identify causation under these circumstances. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to tread carefully here, and 'anecdote' was the best I can do. If going along the anecdotes line, we could say Chinese or Jewish immigrants who started off very poor are not seen as outwardly violent (no equivalent open gang culture, bloods, cribs, ghettos, gansta culture to name a few)

Reasons for the above are not entirely clear if we just say stuff like just poverty / low income.18:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)82.28.140.226 (talk)

Gangs in America are a mixed bunch. Gangs in the UK are mostly white, then South Asian. Some black. Different general behaviours and attitudes on either side. I think you mean Crips, not cribs. Anecdotally, the biggest bully at my first elementary school was a huge Jewish girl. No lie. But I don't hold it against her people. Even she's mellowed out, last I saw her.

I think being young, rather than black or poor, lends a bigger hand. Raging hormones, easily manipulated, desire to fit in, narrow perspective on the value of life, plenty of energy. Here's a more professional Ontario view. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the pointer and not knee-jerk accusing and implying that I'm an overt racist. And probably a member of the KKK as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to hold it against all Wikipedians. We do get quite a few racist trolls here, like anywhere else on the Internet, so it's not surprising that some of our spider senses tingle when questions like these come up. If you are a racist, your phrasing isn't nearly as overt or disruptive as the ones that clearly don't want an answer. Even racist baby murderers can ask questions here, so long as they're not trying to soapbox, troll or get free legal advice. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked. Try not to hold it against the blocking admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

The OP IP is a known sock who's been blocked by User talk:JzG for his disruptive behavior. Rather than just close this I am simply giving a more neutral name, which steps on no one's answers. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a question specifically about one race, it's also a vague title. Like replacing "US" in the currency manipulation question with "country" or "these shoes" with "this footwear". Wordier than the old one, too. But if we're copyediting other people's words, I'll decapitalize "violence". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

Lowest level for top-level club

Of the 65 clubs that have competed in England's top level of football (First Division from 1888 to 1992, Premier League since then), what is the lowest tier that any of them ever competed in, either before or after their entry into the top level? Thank you. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit difficult to pinpoint due to the changes to the steps over the years but I think Wigan Athletic A.F.C., Grimsby Town F.C. and Oxford United F.C. have a shot. Wigan went from (what is now) steps 7-8 up to the Step 1. Grimsby and Oxford have gone down to Step 5 from Step 1. The problem is that the pyramid is ever changing and some leagues have moved up and down the tiers over the years. Also we have to decide whether we look for natural progression up/down or those teams that were playing in a regional league before election to the old Third Division North/South after the Football League's formation or whether they were late joiners to the Leagues (see also English football league system and History of the English non-League football system). With Wigan, it's uncertain as they played in the Cheshire County League (now the North West Counties Football League at step 9-10) and the Lancashire Combination before joining the Northern Premier League (Now Steps 7-8). But before 1979, the NPL was at step 5 as the Football Conference was yet to be formed and the pyramid didn't exist. Teams moved between any of the collective non-league combinations as they saw fit and requested membership to the recognised amatuer Northern/Southern/Isthmian leagues if they felt they were good enough. Because there was no real pyramid, I can't determine what step (if any) the county leagues would have been at the time. Maybe @ChrisTheDude: may have a better idea. Nanonic (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nanonic that it's tricky to determine this due to the changes in the league structure over the years. I think Wimbledon F.C. possibly have a shot too, having played in the Athenian League which fed into the Isthmian League at (what is now) level 7-8. BbBrock (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

Origins of Profiterole

Yes all, there is a disturbance in the Force at Profiterole! Some IP editors have been (over the last year or more) swapping it back and forth between Italian and French origins. This seems to have been going on since at least April 2014. Apparently it was invented by "Chef Popelini that worked for Catherine De Medici from TUscany". Anybody know the 'Truth'? 220 of ^Borg 05:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the long-running debate about the origin of the Pavlova - New Zealand or Australia? Anyway, the "truth" (whatever that is) is less important at WP than what can be verified from reliable sources. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]}