Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:19, 7 August 2016

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

August 2

Thin to fat

Has there ever been a weight-gain competition. Like going from thin, to fat with a competitive objective and prizes at the end. Not just a little weight gain, but I mean from perhaps slightly underweight to genuine obesity. Would be a fascinating sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.243.193.206 (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an extremely stupid and dangerous sport - if sport is even a suitable word to describe such a thing! I suspect the nearest thing may be some eating competitions - and even those are considered such a bad idea that Guinness World Records no longer lists them Wymspen (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A regimen of no breakfast and a large lunch followed by a sleep is intended to help Sumo wrestlers put on weight so as to compete more effectively. The 6-foot-8, 704-pound sumo wrestler Emanuel Yarbrough was named the "Heaviest Living Athlete" by Guinness World Records. But sumo wrestlers have a life expectancy 10 years shorter than the average Japanese male due to the enormous amount of fat they accumulate. AllBestFaith (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent example, except I think the OP means a contest specifically about weight gain, kind of the opposite of The Biggest Loser. Sumo wrestlers' weight gain is a means to an end, but is not the end in itself, which is to win wrestling matches. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that Frenchmnen gained weight in order to join the "100 kilos club". See this 1912 article. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that boxers may want to gain weight to move up to the next weight class. In some cases, they may need to gain weight quickly. Presumably the goal is to gain muscle.

Also, actors may need to quickly gain weight for a role, although a fat suit is a safer way to go. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cook's Rate Adjustment RSVP form

I received your rate adjustment rsvp for the $19.95 in the mail, and wondering if there is away to order the Cook's one full year subscription on the internet web sight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.102.18 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia has nothing to do with this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for Cook's Illustrated a cooking and food magazine? Their website is www.cooksillustrated.com. Some problems have been mentioned about their subscription practices but Wikipedia cannot help as it has no connection with Cook's Illustrated. AllBestFaith (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timetable for aircraft strobe lights

Is there any fixed time range (in local time, such as between 6 pm and 5 am for example) when civil aircraft are required to have their strobe lights turned on? If yes, does it also consider summer and winter daylight durations, fog and other visibility factors? Brandmeister^talk 17:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See here for a copy of the official guidance - you want section 4-3-23 Use of Aircraft Lights. http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/aim_basic_4-03-14.pdf Wymspen (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are American guidelines binding worldwide? 86.28.195.109 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are most often ICAO compliant. The document also uses "domestic" where the FAA wants to refer to the locally defined situation. --Askedonty (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion as a category in the column of basic facts about a person

I have noticed that when a person is Jewish, his or her religion is listed in the right hand column beside a category called religion. This is the column containing basic facts about the person. When the person is not Jewish, no category for religion exists in the right hand column of basic facts. If the person's religion is relevant, why not have that category for every person you list? I really don't even understand why you put in a person's religion. I haven't noticed a column for race. Enough said, I'm sure you get my point. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.206.85.218 (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a policy on this titled Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality which basically notes how it should work. Since Wikipedia articles are written and maintained by thousands upon thousands of volunteers, there is no guarantee that policies and guidelines are always adhered to. Any variance you find is not always intentional; as someone may not know of such a policy. You are noticing a pattern which you are mistakenly assuming is due to design rather than by random chance. The intent may be quite different from what you notice; the reason it is the way you notice is not because it is supposed to be that way, but because no one has fixed it yet. If you see a problem you're supposed to just fix it without asking permission. Much faster and easier that way. --Jayron 32 18:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There have been a lot of discussions on this, including Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes, which includes some links to earlier discussions. There's also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127#Religion: Jewish, Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13#Request for comments -- religion in infobox (revised here), and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes. The general consensus is to not include religion unless a subject's religion is significant to their article. Furthermore, Jewishness is a complicated exception since it can cover culture, religion, and ethnicity. clpo13_(talk) 18:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly (the last bit). An ethnically Jewish person can be, say, a Catholic, and even join the priesthood and eventually become Pope, without ever ceasing to be Jewish. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Peter, for one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger was born Jewish in a Jewish family. Akseli9 (talk)

Let's cut to the chase. Jesus of Nazareth never abjured his Jewishness. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was never pope, though. (Rather, He is the guy the popes are supposed to answer to.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm making is that if he returned to Earth and, for whatever reason, needed a passport from a country that puts nationality (as distinct from citizenship; the Soviet Union used to do this, and Russia may well carry on that practice) on their passports, he would be classified as "Jewish", despite being considered the founder of Christianity, not exactly historically known as a pro-semitic creed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even nuclear arsenals couldn't stop Jesus. He could go wherever the hell He pleases. (in-universe) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. Cheech and Chong once did a bit where Jesus was trying to cross the border into Mexico. He was asked His name. He said, "I have been called the Prince of Peace." The border guard said, "Sr. Peace, we do not want you or your kind in this country!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Nevertheless it is My will." [starts walking slowly, deflects automatic gunfire, nonviolently flies over the barrier instead of breaking it, by the time Jesus is past the inhabited border area a Huracán-class Mexican corvette is firing 15 foot long Harpoon anti-ship missiles with Teledyne CAE J402 turbojet/solid propellant boosters at Jesus. Their 488 lb loads of high explosives hit Jesus at 537 miles per hour, completely unaffecting Him. Mexico asks the less pro-Christian nuclear states for backup] Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But eventually foiled by nails. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was part of the plan. The plan where a world with genocide is mysteriously better than a Garden of Eden with much less crucifixion and zero chance of 1-100,000,000,000 burning forever. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And with robotic individuals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus didn't actually found Christianity, His disciples did. Although putting "Israeli" on His passport wouldn't likely make things any better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was a Roman subject, but not a Roman citizen. It is unclear that Rome considered a resident of Judea to be a "Judean citizen" however. Judeans in the Greek Cities of the Roman Empire: Rights, Citizenship and Civil Discord addresses this a bit. Collect (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A side-note about this is the fact that a person's religion seems to come up in interviews quite a bit more when it's anything but Christian. There are some exceptions, of course, like Mel Gibson. Especially around the time that he was making The Passion of the Christ. So, when the religion is mentioned, we then have a source for it and the information gets put in the article. †Dismas†|^(talk) 21:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear; verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for including some bit of information about a subject. Relevance to the overall narrative of the article is also vital. After all, any number of facts about a person, up to and including what they may have had for lunch on August 9, 1991, could be published somewhere in a reliable source. We should make sound editorial decisions on what information we should, and should not, include in a person's Wikipedia biography, and the relevance of any one fact, including a person's religion, should ALWAYS be considered, including whether to mention it at all, how to mention it, in what context, and what depth of coverage, if any, we give to it. How to write good Wikipedia articles is MUCH more than "if it's written somewhere, we include it..." --Jayron 32 18:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of old British towns

I have several photos that I found that were taken by my parents and I am looking for information on where they were taken since nothing was written on the back of the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drobichaud58 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First step would be to put up a scan of the pics and we'll see if there is any identifying information on there :) Lemon martini (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

footage

Trying to find video footage of This guy's jump 199.19.248.107 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC news website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36935755 (and probably most other news websites anywhere - it was widely covered, and is very recent) Wymspen (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found it by clicking on the news link in the article and then poking around the other videos on YouTube. †Dismas†|^(talk) 20:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

People who don't like to travel

Hi,

I've always wanted to travel and I did it a lot as soon as I had money for it. I've been living abroad for 7 years. I've lived many amazing things and I have plenty of pictures and stories to tell but nobody in my family never got interested in it. It's been a big frustration for so many years and I'm about to lose contact with them cause we have nothing to talk about. They are from France and they would spend 2000 euros to go in the south of France every single year instead of going to Asia or to the US or to visit me in south east Asia. So time and money is not the issue. Why are some people so closed minded about the rest of the world? Should I try to motivate them to travel or should I give up? Please share your experience if you have some related to this topic. Thank you very much. 122.53.58.54 (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travel aversion reads more like an essay than an article, but it might suggest some insights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am one who doesn't care to travel. I have traveled a fair amount for work, at least in the US and Canada, but don't enjoy it. Let me list some reasons:

1) I absolutely hate air travel. From the illogical pricing, long lines and invasion of privacy at security, the bus I have to take to get from the parking lot to the terminal (the bus driver actually parked the bus to go eat dinner once), the unbearable heat in the plane when parked on the tarmac, having to sit uncomfortably close to a stranger or 2 in a seat that's way too small with way too little foot room, to having to risk them losing my luggage if I check it or having to pack unreasonably light to avoid it and jam my possessions into an overhead bin or under the seat. I am subject to DVTs, too.

2) I don't care for hotels. They are unsanitary (rarely clean the comforters, etc.) and lack privacy with the housekeepers coming in to clean. Theft is also possible.

3) I don't like unfamiliar places where I can get lost.

4) As I've mentioned earlier, I don't like strangers.

5) I don't like long lines at tourist attractions.

6) Once I arrive at a sight worth seeing, like the Grand Canyon, I am unimpressed. It just looks like the pics I've seen. Others mention that there is something magical about actually being there, but I just don't get it. Full colors pics at a sufficient resolution do just fine for me.

7) I don't like trying to communicate with people who don't speak English.

8) As a tourist, I am more likely to be robbed.

So, when I do take a vacation, I travel to visit relatives nearby. I know the route, there are no strangers involved, I can take a car that won't cause me cramps, there are no lines, etc. I seem to be a bit on the autism spectrum, so some of my reluctance to travel may be due to that. StuRat (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's even more basic: To you (and probably to many others) the annoyances outweigh the benefits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people simply don't like being out of their comfort zone, for many of the reasons StuRat mentioned. Not much you can do to change that, it's largely just personally. For example, I'm the exact opposite, and many of the reasons StuRat listed to not travel are in fact appealing to me (meeting strangers, unfamiliar places, trying to communicate across languages, etc). Trust me, you never complain about hotels again if you've spent weeks camping through East Africa with strangers .... For me, almost any annoyance is outweighed by experiences like that. I have noticed that it also seems to vary from country to country. People from the US seem to be more reluctant to travel, particularly more adventurous travel, than those from European countries for instance. All OR, or course. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest hesitation I have had when traveling is that I do not want to go to a foreign country, and automatically receive the perception that I am a Westerner tourist, and therefore must be dumb, naive, racist, or ignorant to the culture. I try to do a lot of research on the place I am traveling to before going. Sometimes there's not a whole lot that I can do, though.--WaltCip (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with StuRat (talk · contribs). For me, the disadvantages of going to a different country (or even a new part of my own country) are that everything is unfamiliar, confusing and possibly threatening. Advantages - none. Zilch. Not a one. I don't see that as closed minded - I am very happy to listen to other people's amazing (and, often, terrifying) travel stories. Just don't expect me to join you ! Gandalf61 (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And of course we have an article, Travel aversion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may have posted that link earlier. Traveling in America underscores the importance of franchise businesses. Most anywhere you are, you can find a brand-name hotel or fast-food joint or department store to fall back on, to help mitigate the unfamiliarity of a place. Someone commented on national parks looking like the pictures. The way around that is to do something that is less often photographed, and can put you much closer to what you're seeing from afar in the postcard view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually two different issues involved: one concerns the actual travel, and the other being in an unfamiliar place. They are not necessarily linked. I would love to be in Australia, or Japan, or China - but I would no appreciate the travel involved in getting to those places (from the UK) Wymspen (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better to travel to visit someone you know who lives there and has space to put you up. That eliminates the hotel issue. Getting there, of course, can still be a major pain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may contain some reliable sources. --Jayron 32 15:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no sources, but it seems there is an evo-psych reason for some people's aversion to travel. this is because for like 99.9% of human history, venturing outside your village was a sure way to get killed (men) or raped (women.) I also predict that women enjoy non-business (or war) related travel (aka vacationing) more than men. Asmrulz (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also, the opening-up of air travel to the lower classes. Asmrulz (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the security theatre, too Asmrulz (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also known that a particular form of travel, - namely, hiking, camping, mountaineering etc, is largely a White thing. I don't know why that should be so (and there have been some BS explanations put forward), but I can confirm from personal experience that it is. Asmrulz (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then your personal experience is pretty limited, it doesn't sound like you've been hiking in any affluent country with a large Asian population. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's limited alright, but the difference is I can substantiate my bs when asked. This here puts Asian hikers at 3.2%, which is way fewer than the Asians' share of the population, and Whites at 86.3%, which is more. The personal experience I referred to is that I know more outdoorsy Slavs than outdoorsy Joos and I myself never understood what the point of hiking was. Asmrulz (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jews (it appears you don't have to say "Joos") are not considered Asian in the US just because Israel's in Asia (neither are Russians from Siberia). And in the US Asians (Jews too) disproportionately live in the places furthest from nature (big cities) so it's no surprise that Asians hike slightly less than their share of the population. Asians were 4% of the population the last time I checked. A random African-American is more likely to be poor or not have a car, Northern African-Americans often live in cities and people that live close to nature are whiter than average so it'd be expected that white people hike out of proportion to their numbers. I don't know where the Slavs you know live but I believe the most Russian-American part of the US by percentage is around North Dakota/Montana/Idaho (Alaska too?) so.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Sagittarian Milky Way. And Asmrulz, if your stereotypes based on race held true all the many hiking trails in Japan would be mostly empty. They are not. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our Demographics of Asian Americans suggests 5.6%. However it's still not way fewer. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW [1] is interesting. While it doesn't separate by race or ethnicity, it does by overseas market. China and Japan were both markets with fairly low rates of people who weren't interested in tramping in NZ, similar rates to US. Both the UK and Australia had significantly higher percentages of people who weren't interested. China and Japan did however have fairly low rates of actual participation (lower than UK or US), although still higher than Australia. (The closeness of Australia combined with the fact it's likely quite a few of the visitors were probably simply visiting family or friends or needing to spend their money so they don't contribute to the Australian economy despite working and living there most of the time probably didn't help.) Germany is in a world of their own. South Korea was the only Asian country of the three listed that comes close to fitting the claim of not being into tramping, but even for them, there was still more people who were interested in it (or did it) then who weren't. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make sure I understand you, Stu, You are coward and a pussy. You are a bigot, or chauvinist. You're simply lazy. Did I miss some other point? My biggest complaint with travel is the foreign gits all try to speak english atcha! Bastrards! μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unacceptable attack on an editor just trying to honestly answer a Q. Coward ? If I don't feel the need to risk my life by going to foreign tourist attractions that are frequently targeted by terrorists, that's my business, not yours. Bigot ? Most people choose to associate with people like themselves. Trying to ban those different from yourself from moving into your neighborhood is a bad thing, but choosing not to go to theirs is anybody's right. As for being lazy, who decided that a vacation should be hard work ? If I choose not to use my vacation to struggle to learn a new language, that's also my business, not yours. And speaking of intolerance, you seem amazingly intolerant of anyone whose preferences differ from your own. Not I. Those who choose to go to places where it's hot and humid and nobody wears deodorant are welcome to do so. StuRat (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - as Marchetti's constant says - "Even since Neolithic times, people have kept the time at which they travel per day the same, even though the distance may increase." So technology & money (access to tech) probably explain all the variation between groups of peoples through time; within groups the proportions of wanderlust & homebodies are likely stable too.John Z (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that people have different interests and preferences. This sounds like more of a problem for the OP than for his or her family. If the family are not interested in talking about travel, are there really no other possible topics of discussion? I would drop the travel topic, at least for a while, since further proselytizing in the immedIate future is likely to lead only to further resistance. John M Baker (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which US states do not have a "Single-subject rule"?

Our article "Single-subject rule" says that 41 US states have single-state rules - but doesn't list them (or, more briefly, list the ones that don't have this). A quick Google didn't provide a list either. Help! SteveBaker (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There might be 41 different ways to say it, and 41 different Google sources to look for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This[2] purports to be a list of states which have the single-subject rule. There are 15 of them, so the numbers don't add up. But that might help narrow your search. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 3 in our article lists 15 states that have a single-subject rule for initiatives, and it states that 41 have a single-subject rule for legislative bills. At the end of that reference there is a link to a person you could contact for more info (if it's not out-of-date).Loraof (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I saw the short lists of 15 states that have the rule for public initiatives. I was mostly interested in it for legislative language. There is currently an effort to get a similar rule added into the US constitution - but for that to happen, there has to be near-unanimity between the states. I was interested to discover which states might object if such a question were seriously raised. To me it sounds like a good idea, with no downsides - it's hard to find arguments why it wouldn't be a good idea - and again, finding places that don't have it might provide some insight. SteveBaker (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 5

pigeons

is it immoral to feed the pigeons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.144.62 (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. It can be annoying for other people due to the bird's behaviour and defecation, and it's a somewhat futile exercise, merely extending slightly the Malthusian limit on the population. Many arguments can be made that there are better uses for resources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a TV news report not long ago which said the complaints about pigeons being "rats with wings" are unfounded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may contains some useful information in helping you to make a decision. --Jayron 32 13:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morality is a tricky matter - and it's unlikely to ever come up with a clear answer. For example, there are racing pigeons...homing pigeons...fancy show pigeons. It's clearly OK to feed them! If you're constrained to considering only wild pigeons, you have to know that pigeons are sometimes consumed as food (eg Pigeon pie) - and you might therefore consider feeding them to get a plumper bird, or to attract them to make them easier to catch. Even if you further constrain the problem to exclude those kinds of activities, I doubt that anyone would complain about you feeding pigeons if you lived 50 miles from the nearest other person - the degree of problems you'd cause for your far distant neighbors shouldn't be objectionable - and you might even draw some of the local pigeon population away from their homes and actually reduce your neighbors problems. Even in a city center, where pigeon infestations are a problem, you could probably come up with some contrived situation in which you'd benefit mankind to some degree by doing this. That said, there are obviously situations where by doing this, you'd be inconveniencing others to an unacceptable degree. This is a nuanced and subtle question. SteveBaker (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In some locations, it is illegal to feed the pigeons - read Save the Trafalgar Square Pigeons for a classic example. It seems reasonable to argue more generally that it is immoral to break the law, in which case it would be immoral to feed the pigeons in that specific location. Wymspen (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a mental picture now, of The Bird Woman being thrown to the ground, cuffed, and rushed away in a police lorry. And her fine would be a lot more than tuppence a bag. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cue Tom Lehrer —Tamfang (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe we'll do in a squirrel or two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I feed the pigeons, I sometimes feed the sparrows too. It gives me a sense of enormous well-being." See Felicific calculus. Tevildo (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

A rising student?

What does it mean to be a rising sophomore? †Dismas†|^(talk) 04:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think it just means they're becoming more important (because of their success in the sport). See sense 16 of "rise" here: "to attain a higher status".~~ --69.159.9.219 (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

During the summer break, a student's status is usually considered based on the upcoming fall semester. But to emphasize that this is for the upcoming term rather than currently active enrollment, sometimes one says "rising". That is, at the current time, they are in the process of moving up to that next level for the imminent term. So a "rising sophomore" has completed the freshman level, but is currently on break and has not actually begun sophomore coursework. Google "rising sophomore", "rising junior", or "rising senior" to confirm. DMacks (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That must be it, then. Thanks for the correction. That usage of "rising" does not exist in my experience (in Canada). --69.159.9.219 (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I started with the Virginia Thrasher article which led me to that source. My wife and I, both American, have never heard the term used for students before. Normally I see, and use, "...will be starting her/his sophomore year..." Thanks again, †Dismas†|^(talk) 12:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard the expression before, so I typed rising sophomore into Google. The first hit explains the term and suggests that it's popular in Washington, D.C. (and given the confusion, not much anywhere else!) Matt Deres (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In DC, clarity is a dead issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 :So, when I do take a vacation, I travel to visit relatives nearby.  I know the route, there are no strangers involved, I can take a car that won't cause me cramps, there are no lines, etc.  I seem to be a bit on the [[autism spectrum]], so some of my reluctance to travel may be due to that. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 04:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 ::I think it's even more basic: To you (and probably to many others) the annoyances outweigh the benefits. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 04:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 *A lot of people simply don't like being out of their comfort zone, for many of the reasons StuRat mentioned. Not much you can do to change that, it's largely just personally. For example, I'm the exact opposite, and many of the reasons StuRat listed to not travel are in fact appealing to me (meeting strangers, unfamiliar places, trying to communicate across languages, etc). Trust me, you never complain about hotels again if you've spent weeks camping through East Africa with strangers .... For me, almost any annoyance is outweighed by experiences like that. I have noticed that it also seems to vary from country to country. People from the US seem to be more reluctant to travel, particularly more adventurous travel, than those from European countries for instance. All OR, or course. [[Special:Contributions/86.28.195.109|86.28.195.109]] ([[User talk:86.28.195.109|talk]]) 07:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 *The biggest hesitation I have had when traveling is that I do not want to go to a foreign country, and automatically receive the perception that I am a Westerner tourist, and therefore must be dumb, naive, racist, or ignorant to the culture. I try to do a lot of research on the place I am traveling to before going. Sometimes there's not a whole lot that I can do, though.--[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]] ([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]]) 12:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@@ Line 122: / Line 124: @@
 :::There are actually two different issues involved: one concerns the actual travel, and the other being in an unfamiliar place. They are not necessarily linked. I would love to be in Australia, or Japan, or China - but I would no appreciate the travel involved in getting to those places (from the UK) [[User:Wymspen|Wymspen]] ([[User talk:Wymspen|talk]]) 14:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 ::::It's much better to travel to visit someone you know who lives there and has space to put you up. That eliminates the hotel issue. Getting there, of course, can still be a major pain. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 *[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22travel+aversion%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C34 This] may contain some reliable sources.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 15:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 :no sources, but it seems there is an evo-psych reason for some people's aversion to travel. this is because for like 99.9% of human history, venturing outside your village was a sure way to get killed (men) or raped (women.) I also predict that women enjoy non-business (or war) related travel (aka vacationing) more than men. [[User:Asmrulz|Asmrulz]] ([[User talk:Asmrulz|talk]]) 16:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 ::also, the opening-up of air travel to the lower classes. [[User:Asmrulz|Asmrulz]] ([[User talk:Asmrulz|talk]]) 16:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 :::the security theatre, too [[User:Asmrulz|Asmrulz]] ([[User talk:Asmrulz|talk]]) 16:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 ::::It's also known that a particular form of travel, - namely, hiking, camping, mountaineering etc, is [http://google.com/search?q=is%20hiking%20a%20white%20thing largely a White thing.] I don't know why that should be so (and there have been some BS explanations put forward), but I can confirm from personal experience that it is. [[User:Asmrulz|Asmrulz]] ([[User talk:Asmrulz|talk]]) 17:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 ::::: Then your personal experience is pretty limited, it doesn't sound like you've been hiking in any affluent country with a large Asian population. --[[User:PalaceGuard008|PalaceGuard008]] ([[User_Talk:PalaceGuard008|Talk]]) 11:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 :::::: It's limited alright, but the difference is I can substantiate my bs when asked. [http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/research.camping.pdf This here] puts Asian hikers at 3.2%, which is way fewer than the Asians' share of the population, and Whites at 86.3%, which is more. The personal experience I referred to is that I know more outdoorsy Slavs than outdoorsy Joos and I myself never understood what the point of hiking was. [[User:Asmrulz|Asmrulz]] ([[User talk:Asmrulz|talk]]) 12:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 ::::::: Jews (it appears you don't have to say "Joos") are not considered Asian in the US just because Israel's in Asia (neither are Russians from Siberia). And in the US Asians (Jews too) disproportionately live in the places furthest from nature (big cities) so it's no surprise that Asians hike '' slightly'' less than their share of the population. Asians were 4% of the population the last time I checked. A random African-American is more likely to be poor or not have a car, Northern African-Americans often live in cities and people that live close to nature are whiter than average so it'd be expected that white people hike out of proportion to their numbers. I don't know where the Slavs you know live but I believe the most Russian-American part of the US by percentage is around North Dakota/Montana/Idaho (Alaska too?) so.. [[User:Sagittarian Milky Way|Sagittarian Milky Way]] ([[User talk:Sagittarian Milky Way|talk]]) 13:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 :::::::: What Sagittarian Milky Way. And Asmrulz, if your stereotypes based on race held true all the many hiking trails in Japan would be mostly empty. They are not. --[[User:PalaceGuard008|PalaceGuard008]] ([[User_Talk:PalaceGuard008|Talk]]) 14:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 :::::::::Our [[Demographics of Asian Americans]] suggests 5.6%. However it's still not way fewer. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 14:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 ::::::::::BTW [http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/visitor-research/twt-visitor-trends-report.pdf] is interesting. While it doesn't separate by race or ethnicity, it does by overseas market. China and Japan were both markets with fairly low rates of people who weren't interested in tramping in NZ, similar rates to US. Both the UK and Australia had significantly higher percentages of people who weren't interested. China and Japan did however have fairly low rates of actual participation (lower than UK or US), although still higher than Australia. (The closeness of Australia combined with the fact it's likely quite a few of the visitors were probably simply visiting family or friends <small>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYIIubP7NG0 or needing to spend their money so they don't contribute to the Australian economy despite working and living there most of the time]</small> probably didn't help.) Germany is in a world of their own. South Korea was the only Asian country of the three listed that comes close to fitting the claim of not being into tramping, but even for them, there was still more people who were interested in it (or did it) then who weren't. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 15:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 *Let me make sure I understand you, Stu,  You are coward and a pussy.  You are a bigot, or  chauvinist. You're simply lazy.  Did I miss some other point?  My biggest complaint with travel is the foreign gits all try to speak english atcha!  Bastrards! [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 04:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
+:*That's an unacceptable attack on an editor just trying to honestly answer a Q.  Coward ?  If I don't feel the need to risk my life by going to foreign tourist attractions that are frequently targeted by terrorists, that's my business, not yours. Bigot ?  Most people choose to associate with people like themselves.  Trying to ban those different from yourself from moving into your neighborhood is a bad thing, but choosing not to go to theirs is anybody's right.  As for being lazy, who decided that a vacation should be hard work ?  If I choose not to use my vacation to struggle to learn a new language, that's also my business, not yours.  And speaking of intolerance, you seem amazingly intolerant of anyone whose preferences differ from your own.  Not I.  Those who choose to go to places where it's hot and humid and nobody wears deodorant are welcome to do so. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 14:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 :Note - as [[Marchetti's constant]] says - "Even since Neolithic times, people have kept the time at which they travel per day the same, even though the distance may increase."  So technology & money (access to tech) probably explain all the variation between groups of peoples through time; within groups the proportions of wanderlust & homebodies are likely stable too.[[User:John Z|John Z]] ([[User talk:John Z|talk]]) 06:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)