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.

January 5

Geography questions

These questions are not homework. These came to my mind shortly before.

Why Australia does not have a major desert metropolis like the US has Las vegas and Phoenix?
Why the United States does not have any city propers with population over 10 million?
Why there are no countries in Europe over 100 million (other than Russia)?

--40bus (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go, see below under the relevant headings. Adding note after I provided my answers: Very POV, very heart-on-your-sleeve, not for the faint of heart. You have been warned. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1

Why should it, when it has all those lovely beaches? 31.113.52.197 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it just doesn't. There weren't any drivers to establish it, being either natural (for a start, if You wanna live somewhere, you want to have a source of food; a riverbank is a good place to establish a city, as is a forest) or socio-economical (right situation or intersection of travel corridors). --Ouro (blah blah) 07:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A desert isn't such a nice place to build big cities. The few big desert cities there are (Khartoum, Cairo, Baghdad, Las Vegas), are usually along a big river (Nile, Tigris, Colorado), providing the city with water for humans, camels, agriculture, ships and today hydro-electricity. Such big desert rivers need a big source of water out of the desert and a way to the sea through the desert. The wet parts of Australia are too small to feed such a river. How did Phoenix and Riyadh get so big then? I'll leave that question to you, but the circumstances must have been quite special. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Australia does have Alice Springs as a desert city. Pablothepenguin (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix, Arizona was originaly a farming community, depending on irrigation from the two large rivers that meet there. Las Vegas owes its origin to the peculiarities of the local gambling laws. Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that big even by Australian standards. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2

Define "city propers". The City of London has a resident population of a few thousand but 40% of the U K's population live in the surrounding region. 31.113.52.197 (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City proper is an administrative area of city. London city proper includes the entire Greater London.

--40bus (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it doesn't have these because that't the way things turned out. The US is a vast place and for many intents and purposes can be defined as a body with fifty countries that differ quite broadly between each other. There are many nice, big cities to live in that offer opportunities for education, work, accommodation and food, and that's sufficient.

For some reason, the Americans didn't decide to merge their largest urban areas into cities with some sort of central government. The reason must be political. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that would mean a loss of city government positions. If two cities become one, you go from two mayors (etc) to one. Who's going to be in favor of their own unemployment?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming “Cities Proper” refers to the main city, New York City, and Los Angeles must come close. Pablothepenguin (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See List of United States cities by population for more info. One factor is that large cities are often hemmed in by suburbs, which tends to keep the population of the central city relatively stable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "city proper" means "within the legal city limits". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking why the largest city in a given state is not necessarily the capital, there are at least a couple of things to consider. One is that they tended to make capital cities roughly centrally located within the state, which not all big cities are. Another is that there were very few large cities in America originally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3

Does the 100 million include all of Russia, or is it only the European part? 31.113.52.197 (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because their populations haven't grown enough, and are even declining nowadays. According to List of countries by past and projected future population, no major European country (except maybe transcontinental Turkey) is expected to be much closer to the 100 million mark in 2050 than it is today. --Theurgist (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For one, that r country you named is not Europe. Yes, it's POV, and it's a good POV. Second, I'd say - too little space and too many wars. Europe, even if small, is home to very, very broad and diverse nations that throughout history have fought just too many times to gain that little speck of land to call 'theirs', thereby removing others in the process. Attempts to create a pan-European country (oh yes I'll mention the Romans and Napoleon) that would have a large population have and will fail because the people are just too different. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Europa has many small countries that kept each other balanced. In some cases, countries were even chopped up and turned into independent areas to keep anyone from getting too dominant. In other parts of the world, some countries managed to dominate and absorb their neighbours (sometimes European colonialism is to blame (North America, Indonesia), sometimes not (China)), giving very big countries with a lot of people. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that will complicate this will be the real possibility of new European nations being formed, which will have small populations. Examples might include, Scotland, Kosovo, Catalonia. These are listed in order of how soon we might expect them to happen and how likely they are Pablothepenguin (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo has already happened. Serbia being pissy about it is irrelevant. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly irrelevant, as it impedes Kosovo's aspired integration into the UN, the EU, and other organizations, blocked either by Serbia itself or by other parties unwilling to open Pandora's box by recognising a breakaway region. By contrast, no one had problems recognising Montenegro or South Sudan, nor will anyone question Bougainville's independence if Papua New Guinea ratifies it. --Theurgist (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call a ruler without units?

I was cleaning out my dad's place when I came upon an oddly marked ruler (this is it, though the picture is bad). Spoiler alert, they call it a mixing stick. If you need to combine fluids in particular ratios, but perhaps at different scales, you could use this baby. I guess. It seems like a niche need when you could just figure out the amounts for any given value pretty easily. So, Q1 is: would it be right to call this thing a ruler or is there a better term for it? The manufacturer calls it a mixing stick, but it clearly does more than stirring a mixture.
Second part: this thing has four scales on it and at first glance I thought they might be cm, inches, and two others, but they're not any scale that I can find. However, the four scales are interrelated in ratios. Scale A matches to Scale B in a ratio of 3:2. Scale B matches to Scale C in a ratio of 5:2, and Scale C matches to Scale D in a ratio of 3:5. (And Scale D matches to Scale A in a ratio of 4:9). This has turned out to be surprisingly helpful to me in drawing. I can measure a source image using Scale B, say, and easily scale an image up or down by moving to another scale. Seems like the kind of thing some other poor artist or draughtsman might make use of. Is this a tool that might be used in those circles under a different name? Matt Deres (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going by its name, a ruler is literally a device for ruling straight lines. It doesn't need units. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's for mixing car paint isn't it? You put paint in your bucket up to a certain level, then the scale shows how far further up you need to fill the bucket with the pigment. So long as the bucket has a constant diameter all the way up it'll work and you don't need units. DuncanHill (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your draughtsman would probably remain poor if he insisted on using the stick instead of a scale ruler. fiveby(zero) 02:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A straightedge. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in Mecca

Mecca is a closed city so how do non-Muslims, such as Cristiano Ronaldo get to play there? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a solid reference, but it appears that the Mecca football stadium is outside of the area restricted to Muslim-only. RudolfRed (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The religious prohibition applies to the inner city, the medieval holy city of Mecca, inside the inner of four ring roads. I don't know how far the prohibition by the governing authorities extends, but here is a map from a travel guide showing the "al Haram zone" with some checkpoints, and the King Abdulaziz Stadium is well outside that area and even well outside the outer ring road. --Lambiam 08:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does Mecca enforce its rules? Do Muslims carry ID cards that say "I am Muslim"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Saudi Arabia), aka the Mutawa or 'Religious Police'. Mecca receives many pilgrims and tourists (Muslim and non-Muslim) from outside Saudi Arabia annually: anyone in the 'Muslim only' zone would be expected to carry identity documents with them, and the Mutawa are likely to challenge anyone who visibly acts in a 'non-Muslim' manner (see Hisbah) or visibly appears 'Non-Muslim'. (Doubtless not difficult to spot, in the same way that we residents of the UK find it easy to identify most tourists from the USA on sight, despite no 'racial' differences, through clothing and mannerisms – doubtless the reverse is also true.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdote: I was walking down the streat in Tromso, Norway by myself. A woman stopped me and asked if I was American. I said that I was and asked he knew. She said that only American walk around with a stupid smile for no good reason. Then, she asked if she could practice Hollywood English with me since they only teach English English in schools there. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of my favorite special interest topics that I can’t stop talking about. When and how did Americans become famous for their smiling behavior in public, which much of the rest of the world reserves for private use only, between close friends and family? I’ve been discussing this for years and haven’t made much headway. There does seem to be some concordance that countries like Russia and China do not necessarily smile as much in public as Americans do, at least according to anecdotal reports. Further, when did people start smiling in photos? It is often said that the rise of dentistry in the US led to more smiling, but this is just something people often say, I have seen no evidence for it. Viriditas (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the smiling in photos I understood that it arose after photography became easier. I was told that in the early days of photography taking a picture took some time to take and smiling that long was hard but a reliable source says something different. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wider smiles were “associated with madness, lewdness, loudness, drunkenness, all sorts of states of being that were not particularly decorous". Yes, that’s the argument I’ve gravitated the most to, but it still doesn’t explain how Kodak and others managed to change the cultural acceptance of smiling in public in the US while making little headway elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the paragraphs beginning with the quote “Take the camera out of the professional and put it into the hands of the snapshot photographer and then they can do whatever they want”. It may be that in the Untied States cameras were cheaper than other countries combined with (stereotypical) more relaxed cultural norms. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great article. I was going to paraphrase a different Merrill Fabry article which says pretty much the same thing. All the reasons given are, to some small degree, correct. The main reason for the change is that there are a lot more photos, so there are a lot more photos of people smiling. As for why I was smiling in my anecdote, I was in Norway, which I enjoyed. I was very far north, which I enjoyed. All the graffiti I saw was in English, which I found very funny. It wasn't, as the woman I talked to aggressively suggested, that I was chest-height to all the women. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the main difference I still haven’t been able to get to the bottom of, is that there are still a lot of countries that culturally disapprove of smiling to or among strangers, reserving it solely for friends and family. If the wider embrace of photography and cameras as an accessible technology is thought to have changed this, then why do we still see bias against smiling in countries where cameras are easily accessible? Where I live, the Asian population is the majority, both in terms of residents and especially tourists. On the daily I practice smiling at random strangers. I’ve noticed that the German and Scandinavian tourists get frightened, and the Russians look positively angry. I admit, I sometimes forcefully smile at Russians, almost to the point of trolling them, and they have this bizarre reaction that almost no other culture I encounter even approaches. I did this yesterday at a family of Russian tourists, and they looked like they would have driven over me in a car if they were behind a wheel. Very odd. On the other hand, smiling at my fellow Americans on the street can and often does lead to random conversations and smiles in return. I’ve noticed that Korean tourists are far more open to it, but the Chinese and Japanese tourists don’t like it. I do have to be careful when I smile towards my fellow Filipinos, because, and this is no joke, that’s an easy way to get invited to dinner or to be introduced to their cousin who is looking to get married. For whatever reason, smiling goes a long way in their culture, but I have no idea why. I also found this to be true with people from Mexico, where a smile can lead to polite discussion and even a free drink. Viriditas (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has come up before on the reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 4 § When did people start smiling in photographs?; Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2021 December 12 § Very old pictures. --Lambiam 10:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smile#Cultural differences has some treatment including Many people in the former Soviet Union area consider smiling at strangers in public to be unusual and even suspicious behavior,[9] or even a sign of stupidity.[10] and references but not much about the American proclivity. I read somewhere (not in this historical review, though) that I cannot remember that it comes with immigration. American cities were full of strangers with limited command of English. Hence, smiling demonstrates that one is not dangerous.

Another Aeon article says the US is a melting pot of Christianity, Stoicism, cognitive behavioural therapy, capitalism and Buddhism, all of which hold, to varying degrees, that we are responsible for our attitudes and, ultimately, for our happiness.

--Error (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, and very helpful! Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

Unknown airline that goes to LHR

All i know is that they had black, green & blue. Could be asian or other airline? Serves lhr. 2.103.231.248 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be Saudia. An aviation nerd will be better placed to answer correctly if you could identify the shape and placement of the livery. Folly Mox (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. IT HAD A GREEN AND YELLOW TAIL AND A GREEN ENGINE. HAD BLACK TEXT. 2.103.231.248 (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually YES IT WAS SAUDIA 2.103.231.248 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was similar to saudi dreamliner livery 2.103.231.248 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasnt saudia 2.103.231.248 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is one of the airlines listed here: Airlines operating at London Heathrow Airport (LHR). Air Baltic has dark lettering and its tails and engines are a yellow-green. If it's not that one you could try searching imagery on some of the others listed. Modocc (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say with just some colours. Even more so as seeing those colours is hard, given the difficult lighting conditions that often happen when observing something in the sky. It would be easier if you also knew what type of aircraft this was. Also, many airlines operate some planes in special liveries, instead of their default.

If you remember where and when you saw this plane, try finding it on Flightradar24 or some similar site. Without an account, you can playback up to one week ago. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After searching the archives for yesterdays arrivals at 2-3pm gmt it was indeed saudia 2.103.231.248 (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shampoo Expiration

For the first time ever, I finished off a bottle of shampoo today. I had a bottle as a child, but never finished it before leaving home. I had a bottle in the military, but never finished it before finishing two tours and leaving. I had a bottle in college, but never finished it before I got my PhD and went off looking for a job. I bought one ten years ago (almost to the day) when I got a job and bought a house. It is now, finally, empty. So, I've been searching and found that there are a lot of warnings that using shampoo that is over two years old is very dangerous. But, I cannot find any data on the actual rate of complications. I do not doubt that shampoo can expire, but I'm trying to see if I've simply been overly lucky through most of my life or if the dangers of expired shampoo are exaggerated. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look here. My rule of thumb: If it's not stale, mouldy or dry, it's still usable. I guess shampoo can go stale just like anything else if the preservatives give in, but I guess it won't produce the best results because the chemicals that make up its advertised advantages could plain and simple break down and become little more than a mix of random simple substances. In other words, it will get you cleaner than you are, though the effect may not be as good as you'd expect and you probably won't smell your best on the next day. --Ouro (blah blah) 22:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ouro, I'm sure you're right, but the OP is referring directly to the online mishigas about people coming down with infections from expired shampoo. I think it's absurd, but this kind of concern, namely that about expired products, came to the forefront during the height of the pandemic when people were having trouble finding inventory on the shelves. This is a good example of a pandemic urban legend that may be rooted in some kind of kernal of truth, but is mostly fearmongering. It's super interesting to see how the lockdowns spawned an entirely new level of discourse. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the newspaper the other day a man was discussing the rations his father received when serving in the Second World War. They included tins of meat carried over from the First World War. 2A02:C7B:228:3400:5558:2319:26C2:7300 (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas... well, all right, so I responded a little off centre, but it's still valid. I'd say that to get a disease from using old shampoo one'd have to be quite unlucky or immunity-deprived. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think your response was great. What I’m saying is that the OP is talking about a meme that says you can get a bacterial infection from using expired shampoo. You and I think it’s baseless, but this kind of thing keeps making the rounds. There’s a lot of misinformation online and this is one of the more popular ones. It’s a huge problem in health discussion groups. For example, I can barely participate in vegan and vegetarian discussion groups (my chosen diet) because it is overrun by misinformation. There’s only so many times you can point out that people are spreading nonsense until they turn against you. These are the people that claim veganism cured their cancer and think that eating vegetables will solve every health malady under the sun. They have entire cults of supporters flocking to them. They are the same ones who think expired shampoo is the most dangerous thing in your home. Viriditas (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get Your point now, and I appreciate You taking the time to explain this to me. The healthy thing is, I believe... to step back. If people don't want evidence-based information then it's their choice. I know this attitude is one of indifference but one can't be saviour to the entire world. Anyone looking for proper information, having doubts or just plain being attentive to how their body operates will strive to seek answers. As for the rest, well... umm... yeah, step back. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nervous breakdown, what exactly is it?

For years, I've read about how psychoneurosis, or more popularly "nervous breakdowns" were responsible for the hospitalization of many of the biographical subjects that we write about. But for the life of me, in all this time, I've never quite understood the diagnostic criteria for what a nervous breakdown entails or why somebody would be hospitalized for it. For context, I'm currently writing about a monumental mural-like painting by Georgia O'Keeffe, completed in 1965. Much of the literature on this work expresses some wonder as to why a woman in her late 70s would even think about making such a piece. It turns out that it was something she had been trying to accomplish for her entire life. In 1932, at the age of 45, she was hospitalized for a "nervous breakdown", which was attributed to, in part, by her failure to complete a commission for a monumental mural that would have graced Radio City Music Hall, but also in large part due to her husband seeing another woman. So to conclude, in the 1930s, what would someone have to do to be hospitalized for a "nervous breakdown", and how and when did this fall out of fashion, and is there an equivalent to such a thing today? Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A family member of mine was hospitalised for a nervous breakdown in 1999, so it was still fashionable around the turn of the millennium. As to what someone would have to do to be hospitalised for it today, post-covid, I have no idea. Last I heard hospitals are still super short staffed. Folly Mox (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So, I'm just brainstorming here, but do you think a "nervous breakdown" is a culture-bound concept that we use as a euphemistic umbrella for people who might appear suicidal or unable to care for themselves? I'm just trying to figure this out. Are there examples in non-Western countries of this kind of hospitalization occurring, or would we expect it to be almost non-existent due to the presence of extended families living together and taking care of each other? In other words, is a "nervous breakdown" diagnosis due to our western cultural approach to outsourcing and medicalizing problems to so-called experts to deal with? I'm thinking back to all the literature I've read and films I've watched where the character has a nervous breakdown, and I've never really understood what it meant. On one hand, it feels like people aren't allowed to be angry and unhappy in an acceptable social context; it's demanded that you be productive, happy, and contribute to society. On another hand, with the lack of extended families in the developed world, people are somewhat at a loss of what to do with someone who may be facing these issues. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Mental disorder#Definition:

The terms "mental breakdown" or "nervous breakdown" may be used by the general population to mean a mental disorder. The terms "nervous breakdown" and "mental breakdown" have not been formally defined through a medical diagnostic system such as the DSM-5 or ICD-10 and are nearly absent from scientific literature regarding mental illness. Although "nervous breakdown" is not rigorously defined, surveys of laypersons suggest that the term refers to a specific acute time-limited reactive disorder involving symptoms such as anxiety or depression, usually precipitated by external stressors. Many health experts today refer to a nervous breakdown as a mental health crisis.

HTH, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you meant well, but that doesn't answer anything. I gave a specific example of how the term was used in relation to an artist who was famously hospitalized for it. Nowhere can I find what this kind of thing meant or entails, and this is a pattern I find throughout the literature on biographical subjects. For me, it reads as a euphemism to protect the privacy of the celebrity in question and the family in general. For example, in O'Keeffe's case, it is perfectly reasonable that she would be upset about losing a valuable commission and having her husband cheat on her with another woman -- all at the same time. But what exactly leads to a person like her being hospitalized for a nervous breakdown? My guess is that she tried to kill herself. In other words, is "nervous breakdown" used as a euphemism for attempted suicide? Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: found a bit more.

NYT called it depression, and another source described O'Keeffe's symptoms as "racing heart, ongoing headaches, and crying...symptoms of both her anxiety and her depression...By early 1933, she had checked herself into a hospital for treatment. She was diagnosed with 'psychoneurosis' which is a fancy way of saying that her emotions built up, didn’t have the expressive outlet they needed, and manifested in physical symptoms. In other words: depression."

So, what was the hospital treatment for these things in 1933? Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barbituates. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 07:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see this entire topic as analogous to the use of the term consumption, which nobody uses anymore, since the modern term "tuberculosis" has completely replaced it. But when you read a lot of older literature, you run into the word consumption over and over again, and it’s kind of annoying. This is how I see "nervous breakdown". It appears everywhere in older literature but it isn’t an actual medical term, it’s some kind of an umbrella term for other ailments. It bothers me because it doesn’t make sense to use an ambiguous term when there are obviously so many more appropriate, narrow, and specific terms available. Even the modern term listed above "mental health crisis" is almost useless. What exactly is a mental health crisis? Sorry, but this kind of thing really bothers me. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are brainstorming, I will brainstorm with you, Viriditas. A nervous breakdown, as I define it, is an acute and severe mental health crisis that renders a person who was previously able to engage in everyday activities and able to take care of themselves completely unable to do so. It may manifest in deep sadness, uncontrollable crying, extreme agitation and anger, serious sleep and appetite disorders, constant fidgeting and tossing and turning, refusal to converse with others, and lack of any apparent interest in getting their life back together. Unless almost forced, the person will not engage in routine personal hygiene, may refuse to get dressed, and may stay in bed for days on end. The important thing to remember is that "nervous breakdown" is not a formal diagnosis but rather a colloquial expression. Several types of mental illnesses may result in such an incapacitating breakdown, and treatments may vary depending on the unique circumstances of each case. Cullen328 (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a comprehensive discussion at suicidal ideation. 2A02:C7B:228:3400:5558:2319:26C2:7300 (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neurosis (which psychoneurosis redirects to) is also interesting. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compare also neurasthenia, in use as an officially recognized diagnosis until 2022. A century ago, hysteria was still a common medical diagnosis. A century from now, people may wonder how the medical establishment of the 21st century attached value to the diagnoses of the DSM-5-TR and the mental disorders section of the ICD-11. The neural and neurophysiological etiology and processes leading to specific symptoms are currently not understood. Once they are, this may lead to a completely different classification, much more precise diagnostic procedures, and hopefully a toolbox of targeted and effective treatment options. --Lambiam 21:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong in thinking that "fatigue, lethargy, stress-related headache, insomnia, irritability, malaise, restlessness, stress, and weariness" are a normal part of the human condition, and are commonly experienced by people as a part of their lives? Obviously, if these things make it difficult for someone to participate in society or complete normal, everyday tasks, there's a problem, but it seems odd to medicalize the human condition. This kind of thing reminds me of how homosexuality was widely considered a mental illness by the medical profession until very recently. Perhaps instead of making the human condition a disorder, we should instead teach people how to cope and deal with these things? Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These things are all normal temporary features of the human condition, but are not normal when several are present at once and they persist to the extent of causing prolonged incapacity.

And why is it "annoying" to run into the word 'consumption' in older literature. That was the contemporary term for what we now call tuberculosis, and there was a lot of it about. Are you annoyed by encountering early 20th-century mentions of 'shell shock' because we now call it PTSD? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until shell shock gets its own "steam punk" derivative. It stinks entering the mind of an author - I mean, his logic - using "consumption". What is it is to be expected with "shock" ? --Askedonty (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find your second sentence puzzling. "Consumption" was (in English) a common name for (one manifestation of) the illness before "tuberculosis", which originally had a much wider medical application, was narrowed to specify this particular disease: it was called "consumption" because typically sufferers became thinner and weaker, as if they were being 'consumed' – it was sometimes suspected to be a result of vampirism, and some vampire fiction is thought to have been symbolic of it. Why would an author in the period when "consumption" was the everyday name, or a modern author writing a historical novel set in that period, use anything different?

Your first and third sentences are incomprehensible to me, even though I am a Science Fiction & Fantasy (and therefore Steampunk) fan. 51.198.104.88 (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that the term had such a wide application. And that's true, with "consumption" it is not easy not to have the obsessive image of a candle burning low blurring the rest of the panorama. --Askedonty (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that ataque de nervios which to me was just a translation of nervous breakdown is defined as a psychological syndrome mostly associated, in the United States, with Spanish-speaking people from the Caribbean, although commonly identified among all Iberian-descended cultures. and categorized in Category:Culture-bound syndromes. --Error (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Spanish Wikipedia, the blue link Ataque de nervios on the disambiguation page Ataque sends the reader to the page Crisis nerviosa, which is linked to the page Mental breakdown on the English Wikipedia. --Lambiam 18:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

How are years written in India? (December 29)

It's so annoying when you draft a reply to a comment and when you come to post it the discussion has archived. Couldn't the bot be programmed not to archive discussions until at least 24 hours after the last comment? I did in fact read that article before my last comment, and I saw no evidence of the phenomenon you describe. It appears to me to be a discourse on numbers generally, with no specific reference to dates. I know thgere are terms such as lakh and crore (which the government is trying to stamp out) which create anomalies in the way a number is punctuated. 2A02:C7B:228:3400:A180:B29C:E1CD:CF6B (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a current discussion about this bot's archiving parameters at User talk:scs § Discussions updated very recently were archived. Additional

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2023 December 29 § How are years written in India? Folly Mox (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

Military and police face covers

I've noticed that many soldiers and police officers across various countries (from Ecuador to Azerbaijan and Russia) now often cover their lower face parts, also on some propaganda posters from social media as well. To me this looks like a relatively recent trend (wasn't that frequent say 10 or 20 years ago). Is it a known noted thing? Brandmeister^talk 22:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The gunmen who stormed a TV studio in Ecuador during a live broadcast were committing a criminal act for which they, if identified, could expect to be prosecuted.^[1] The fear of retaliation after having been identified has also become a factor for members of regular personnel participating in violent enforcement operations. Before everyone was going around carrying a camera cum video recorder the risk was minimal, so no precautions were needed. --Lambiam 09:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was my guess exactly. Somewhat amusing how this fear started to transcend many countries. Brandmeister^talk 10:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that's amusing. The fear of retaliation by someone using a facial recognition system to take a screen grab from a news report and find you on Facebook or Instagram seems easily doable. 20 years ago - not so much. 41.23.55.195 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 11