Wikipedia:Reference desk/all

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikipedia Reference Desk - All recent questions
WP:RD/ALL redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia:Redirect or Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This page lists all the recent questions asked on the Wikipedia reference desk by category. To ask a new question, please select one of the categories below. To answer a question, click on the "edit" link beside the question.

For information on any topic, choose a category for your question:

Computing reference deskP computing.svg
Science reference deskP physics.svg
Mathematics reference deskP mathematics.svg
Humanities reference deskP art.png
Computers and IT Science Mathematics Humanities
Computing, information technology, electronics, software and hardware Biology, chemistry, physics, medicine, geology, engineering and technology Mathematics, geometry, probability, and statistics History, politics, literature, religion, philosophy, law, finance, economics, art, and society
Language reference deskP literature.svg
Entertainment reference deskP music.svg
Miscellaneous reference deskP question.svg
Reference desk archivesP archive.svg
Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
Spelling, grammar, word etymology, linguistics, language usage, and requesting translations Sports, popular culture, movies, music, video games, and TV shows Subjects that don't fit in any of the other categories Old questions are archived daily
Help deskWikipedia-logo.png
Village pumpWikipedia-logo.png
New contributors' help pageWikipedia-logo.png
Help desk Village pump New contributors' help page
Ask general questions about using Wikipedia Ask about specific policies and operations of Wikipedia A range of services to answer newcomers' questions
Help manual MediaWiki handbook Citing Wikipedia Resolving disputes Virtual classroom
Information and instructions on every aspect of Wikipedia Information about the software that runs Wikipedia How to cite Wikipedia as a reference For resolving issues between users An advanced guide on everything Wikipedia



June 14[edit]

Firefox downloads failed[edit]

When the source is too slow downloading a file like a big mp3, Firefox gives up and says "failed". I've looked everywhere on the net for a solution. None found. Can anyone help? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

  1. Try another browser.
  2. Someone in some other part of the world who for some reason is able to download that file could send it to you through a cloud based file transfer service such as WeTransfer. (Other ideas here but they all require the use of some other human somewhere).
Basemetal 00:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Basemetal, thank you. :) This is for podcasts, etc. I thought there might be something in the about:config, but I guess not. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. Maybe there is. I don't use Firefox regularly so I wouldn't know. There's no reason to give up just yet. I suppose you've already searched through Mozilla Support. You can try asking your question at their Community Support pages. In any case trying first some other browser to see if they have the same problem can't hurt, can it? If that fixes your problem it will be much faster then trying to find a fix for Firefox. Basemetal 23:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
If you can cope with commandline, wget can retrieve with a large number of retries, and restarting from the point of failure. It can work on very low bandwidth, and has extreme patience. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Graeme! Ohhh, that looks complicated. Without a front end, I'd be lost. Odd that about:config doesn't have a setting that determines how long it tries before giving up. Oh well. You know, maybe another browser like Basemetal suggests. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both. You two are aces in my book (not sure people still say that). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Once you have installed wget for your operating system, you can open the command box, put in wget -c -t 300 url which tells it to retry up to 300 times, and -c will keep on adding to what is there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to try it,Graeme. Think lucky thoughts for me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I've just downloaded and installed wget on a Windows 7 system. Not that complicated to use. Gotta start it from the DOS-like shell they call "Command Prompt" which is a bit of a pain. But it worked. If you encounter problems just come back and ask for help. Good luck. Basemetal 01:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
For downloading podcasts, just schedule it to another time when the hosting servers are not that occupied. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 06:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Hans. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Graeme and Basemetal. It sort of works. It runs, and connects and tries hard. Then it says this:

20180621-Thu1700.mp3: Permission denied

Cannot write to '20180621-Thu1700.mp3' (Bad file descriptor).

I think it might be trying to save the mp3 in C:, and Windows 10 doesn't like things being saved there. Can I change the destination drive? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Aha! It's downloading.

I figured out how to add "-O H:/file.mp3" to the end of the line.

Of course this means, without fear of exaggeration, that I am the smartest computer person in the history of the universe.

I'll let you know if it doesn't land. Many thanks again!!! Double yay!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: Can it do a bunch of downloads at the same time? If I make a batch file, will it do one, then the other, etc? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Chenge the destination drive with "cd H:\". You can do a batch file, or if you change directory to where you want the files to end up, you can give it a list of urls instead of one url. You can also open up several command boxes and do a separate wget command in each box simultaneously. However if your internet connection is slow, this will just degrade it more. wget can also download all the files listed in a website, but that is more complicated (use -r). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Just to add one thing (though fortunately you didn't seem to have that problem in your case): when I tried wget I had problems with the security certificate or authentication or something of the website I was downloading my file from. But there's an option to ignore that and tell wget to download the file anyway. All the options available with wget (there's lots more) will be displayed if you type "wget /?" or "wget --h". In any case Graeme is a lot more knowledgeable and he'll be able to help on his talk page if this goes to archive before all your problems are resolved Face-smile.svg Basemetal 11:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Graeme Bartlett and Basemetal. Thank you! Actually, while running five batches at the same time, and saving the files to a second hard disc, the main disk with C: died. Nothing to do with wget, I'm sure. It had cause the big blue screen before and was on its last legs anyhow. So, I'm just putting in a new disc and will give it all a go again in a few days.
Oh, and I would like to say that my old XP C: could be copied to a new disc via Norton Ghost, while this Win10 requires a whole new installation of Windows and all the programs. A step backward if you ask me. XP was 5 min. Windows 10 is 5 hours. Boo to Windows 10! :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

June 16[edit]

How do I pass a file name as an argument to wmplayer.exe (Windows Media Player)[edit]

If I run wmplayer.exe from a "Command Prompt" window is there a way to pass the name of a MIDI file as an argument to wmplayer.exe so that it plays it? If you're wondering "Why?" (since in the "Command Prompt" typing the name of the MIDI file by itself will start the Windows Media Player anyway), it is because I'm trying to do it from Python. In Python there is a call where you can pass the name of the program as first argument and the arguments to be passed to the program as a second argument. I need to do it this way because if I try"<MIDI file name>") Python objects that "<MIDI file name>" is not a Windows executable. Any ideas? Thanks. (I'm running Windows 7) Basemetal 00:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If you invoke explorer MyAudoFile.midi, then the registered .midi will run asif the user had double-clicked on the file. LongHairedFop (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It worked beautifully. Thank you LongHairedFop. A small correction to what I said above: you don't pass two arguments to, you pass the whole "command" as first argument thus:"explorer.exe my_MIDI_sequence.mid"). The can take other arguments (though for now one argument serves my purpose) for which see the Python library documentation, specifically module subprocess. Basemetal 14:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The correct way to use subprocess is["explorer.exe","my_MIDI_sequence.mid"]): the command name and its arguments are all elements of one long list. (This makes unfortunately little difference on Windows because of its simplistic command-line mechanism.) --Tardis (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking for a small program that will play MIDI files in Windows 7[edit]

Do you know of a small program that will send a MIDI file (.mid) to an external MIDI sound module, etc. in Windows 7? Any DAW, or Windows Media Player, will of course play MIDI files, but I'm looking for something very small and simple that will just play the MIDI file and then exit. Thanks. Basemetal 00:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

June 17[edit]

What home computer systems used cassette tape before 1980?[edit]

Mel Croucher apparently broadcast some early video games over the radio in the 1970s: these must have been cassette-tape games since a radio broadcast is audio. But I'm not aware of any home computer system before 1980 that used cassette tapes. Which ones might it have been? (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Our article on magnetic tape data storage points to several possible options, including the Commodore Datasette that was really popular in the early 80's. WegianWarrior (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It could have been pretty much any computer, although it would have had to be pretty sophisticated for that time (Apple II, Commodore PET, Ohio Superboard / Compukit UK101). To give a large enough audience, it would have to be either a popular model, or one capable of running a fairly "universal" language, such as BASIC. The small systems such as the KIM-1 wouldn't have either. Despite this, even the smallest systems could have cassette interfaces - the Kansas City or CUTS standards would allow data files to be moved from one system to another via broadcast radio and it was certainly done with magazine cover flexidiscs, but it's not clear what you'd do with them once they arrived. What would one of these systems make of a game written for another? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    • It looks like it was Commodore PET software over Radio Victory, starting in 1977.[1][2] Perhaps it was others too. StrayBolt (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
      • When he broadcast his "games", they were for the C=Pet (which came with a datasette drive). They weren't so much games as quizzes. It would ask a few questions. If you got them right, it would give you a phrase. You tried to be the first to call back into the show with the phrase to win. When the Zx came out, he switched to that instead of the C=64. (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Some BASIC games, like Star Trek (1971 video game)[3] could be played on most computers because they were designed for a TTY. Or they were customized for particular computers, like Apple[4]. While many programs were published in books and magazines, it saved a lot of typing and searching for typos. StrayBolt (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The Bally Astrocade (Release date 1977) had a optional module that could be inserted into the system slot. This module had a 1/8th" jack that connected to the output of a cassette deck for either saving or loading programs. See: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by this. Considering that the SNR ratio is terrible on analogue broadcast radio, how did he prevent broadcast errors? It also musta sounded pretty weird if for half an hour or so, only weird noises were broadcast that people on the receiving end had to record to a cassette live off-the-air. --2003:71:4F76:836:E846:992C:14E6:9380 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Take a look at analogue modem encoding standards, particularly for 300 baud V.21 / Bell 103 AFSK standards. What is "signal" and what is "noise"? For these early low-bitrate standards, the only signal was in the frequency, with gross shifts of it. It takes a lot of noise to disrupt this. Many of the noise sources in AM radio are simply not relevant to this simple FSK - amplitude and phase changes just aren't noticed by the receiver. But then, 300 baud is a very slow way to move programs around (it's the speed a mechanical teletype could run at). It's barely usable for typing speed, or even the 1200/75 screen reading speed. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The Commodore PET - The whole story is described here in Mel Croucher's own book. It's an interesting story. When I read the question, I was sure that the date was wrong, or that the "radio" would turn out to be an obscure HAM Radio channel. Nope. 1977 and regular broadcast FM. He would broadcast the software well after the station's normal sign-off time, so nobody would be listening unless they were specifically looking for his software. Neat. Apparently it was part of a contest, and you had to beat the game to get clues to win the contest. ApLundell (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

Internal architecture of Operating System[edit]

I understand that operating system kernel is a collection of drivers built on top of hardware abstraction layer for the linux distros and windows versions and another thing operating system behaves like compiler where user triggered events are like a programming language.And thus new os can designed with some sort of compiler design methodology like BNF.I am asking the experts in this field if I am totally /partly wrong.I request an explanation or refutation from you.Wrogh45.120.17.7 (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It does not sound right. Have you read operating system, Device driver and Kernel (operating system)? POSIX can specify some of what you suggest. Backus–Naur form does not describe operating systems, but can describe the language that a compiler translates. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
When I teach operating systems, there is always a group of students who have it firmly placed in their minds that the operating system compiles programs to run them. That is not correct. The operating system executes previously-compiled programs. In other words, you compile a program. Then, you run it on an operating system. While the English is poor, it appears that the question is suggesting that an operating system is a compiler and further suggests adjusting the compiler design. (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It is confusing to say the hardware drivers sit on top of the abstraction layer. The drivers create the abstraction layer. They take the abstract operating system instructions on one side and issue hardware specific instructions on the other. Without hardware drivers, and operating system can simulate hardware, but can't actually use real hardware. 2600:1004:B126:1672:91F1:9E3F:F63A:4842 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Firefox custom keyboard shortcuts[edit]

Years ago, I used to able to config Ctrl+A as "previous tab" and Ctrl+D as "next tab" in Firefox using an add-on. Is that still possible in Firefox today?

I Googled a few such add-ons[5][6], but all of them have the red warning sign of "This add-on is not compatible with your version of Firefox." and can't be installed on my Firefox.

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely, Mũeller (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

Video: YUV, RGB, VLC, gamma, and colors[edit]

Due to the difference in color space between RGB and YUV (aka the digital version of the latter with a much longer name), I've generally set my VLC player's gamma a bit lower in order to compensate, since most videos stored on DVDs, BDs, etc. are in YUV and my comp monitor is RGB. But now I have a problem: Russian studio Mosfilm have released a bunch of their Soviet-era films into the public domain and uploaded them in brilliant HD telecines to their YouTube channel and I've downloaded the Tarkovsky films...only to find that Mosfilm has uploaded them not as YUV but as RGB because they're meant for YT playback!

Now, you may say that I could just turn off the gamma correction in VLC, but I want real YUV files that I can also watch on a regular TV. First I tried the according RGB --> TV filter in Avidemux, but it only gave me incredibly blurry and washed out images with lots of artifacts, even if I was simply outputting to a visually lossless codec or converting the videos to one of my default household codecs and container beforehand. So next I tried Adobe PPro, where the issue could be easily fixed by setting a gamma filter from default 10 to 9, which then looks correct on my external RGB control monitor. Okay, exporting the gamma-fixed file from PPro...

But when I open the file with fixed gamma in VLC to play it back with my usual gamma setting for YUV videos, I notice that VLC's gamma filter also messes with color! Everything is shifted to green and yellowish, which is especially noticeable with the b/w films, but once I'd noticed, I also see it in the color footage. So I notice one downside to the VLC gamma filter is that you can only turn it on globally together with the hue filter, brightness filter, contrast filter, and saturation filter. I first suspected that the hue filter was set incorrectly, but fiddling with it only made matters worse, so I suppose that's not the issue.

It *SORTA* makes sense, remembering that unlike RGB, the bandwith or bitrate of each color channel is different in YUV, where green aka Y is the channel with the highest resolution or number of steps between clear white and clear black. None of this usually matters with all the proper YUV footage because the gamma ratio between all three channels is right, so the global gamma correction for all three channels in VLC for an RGB monitor will give me exactly what the raw footage looks like on a YUV monitor. But with RGB videos like this, all three channels have the same bitrate between clear black and clear white and thus relate differently to each other than they do in YUV, so it *SORTA* makes sense that gamma correction will result in an unwanted color shift here. But what's also weird is that I see no color shift at all in PPro when I'm correcting the RGB footage there, whether I'm shifting gamma up or down.

Anyway, so I figure I have to change the gamma in PPro for every single channel by means of the RGB color correction filter, in order to not only get proper gamma but also proper colors. Question: Do I do it on top of the global gamma filter from 10 to 9, or do I do it without that global gamma filter? If the default gamma on every channel on the RGB color correction filter is 1.00 and each slider has a minimum-maximum range from 0.10 to 9.99, how do I set each channel? The math in YUV and YCbCr looks too awfully complex for me. --2003:71:4F76:836:E846:992C:14E6:9380 (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

And just saying, the original files were in HD and the RGB footage was encoded as ITU-R BT.709 (as such that the colors and gamma are still RGB, i. e. show correct on an RGB monitor but not on a YUV monitor), but I'm going for a DV/MPEG SD destination, so I need the right values not for RGB to ITU-R BT.709 but for RGB to ITU-R BT.601. --2003:71:4F76:836:E846:992C:14E6:9380 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

June 21[edit]

Android on Samsung calendar alarm.[edit]

Does anyone know how to get the calendar notifications I have setup to actually raise an alarm. They don't do anything until next time I open Calendar when they pop up several hours/days late.

I suspect it has to do with the fact that most of the time the Calendar is closed! But if I set an alarm clock, that notifies me at the right time, even when the clock is closed.

So ??? -- SGBailey (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

Version controlled spreadsheet editing[edit]

What are the best tool(s) for version controlled editing of spreadsheet-style data? I have spreadsheet with several thousand rows and ~50 columns, that needs to be edited by several different people. We would like to be able to work in such a way that updates will be easily exchanged between different contributors but that changes to the spreadsheet are also traceable and version controlled. What are the best tools for doing that? Dragons flight (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Google Docs has spreadsheets with version control and it allows multiple people to edit simultaneously. (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Google Sheets has version control for spreadsheets? Did I miss that feature? I've used it for collaborative editing in the past, but I didn't think it did versioning. Dragons flight (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I see it by clicking on File > Version History to see previous versions. I can roll back to a previous version or just see differences. I assume it is a standard feature. I don't have a special Google account. (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if you really want some kind of SQL editor instead of a spreadsheet. That would be able to handle concurrent activities much better, but the interface would be less whizzy. (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Bluetooth mice[edit]

I've read on numerous occasions that bluetooth mice are (usually) less responsive than USB wireless mice. Given that bluetooth is used for game controllers, why should that be?--Leon (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Both devices will sleep when not used and need to wake up when you start using them. When they wake up, they pair up with the receiver on the computer. My experience, which is backed by numerous web search hits, is that Bluetooth devices take significantly longer to pair up compared to an RF/USB mouse. Once paired, both are a little sloppy with fine movement compared to a wired mouse. Similar to video game controllers. Wired controllers are more responsive than wireless. (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The truth be told, I've never used a bluetooth game controller (I don't play games), but don't most games require something suitable for fine movement?!--Leon (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Games are programmed to allow for sloppy controls. Players get used to sloppy controls. If you want precise controls, you need to be hard-wired to the console. Because of the programming, you won't notice it much on most games. If you play a game that requires precise controls, such as Madden Football, you will really see a difference between wired/wireless controllers. (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
We have an article on computer system latency. User-perceived latency can be caused by hardware and software details - and those are pretty complicated on a modern system - so I'd be reluctant to compare response-time and latency unless I had actual numerical comparison data.
Here's a blog, Mouse Latency Measurements, by a guy who programmed several popular commercial and open-source human-interface device enhancements. In his testing, on macOS, the wireless mouse performed with latency about 1 ms slower than a wired mouse - but only if the mouse was plugged in the left USB port! If the wired mouse is plugged in to the right port, the wireless mouse had faster latency by 3 ms! And if you're actually a bluetooth mouse programmer, you get to choose from a set of three profiles - "low, medium or high" latency for Bluetooth peripherals. It hardly presents a detailed breakdown about any system or hardware details that cause that latency!
The point is, human interface devices are complicated pieces of software and hardware. Latency benchmarks are plagued by inconsistencies in the data; by software and hardware details that end-users don't know or care about; and by the absolutely immense variety of very complicated special-purpose software and hardware that's out on the marketplace.
And yet, the user may actually notice very tiny differences in latency and performance - so this is a really hard and important problem. The OP asked "why" it's complicated - well, for starters, have a look at the bluetooth protocol specifications: the current version starts off with a thirty-page book listing all of the sub-specifications of the current protocol specification, and the core specification comprises almost 3000 pages of technical details!
Nimur (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

IME bluetooth devices just generally suck. Used wired devices when you can, or well-designed (i.e. non-bluetooth) wireless devices when you must. (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

How to post from a php page with this code[edit]

I want to post the selected contents or user entered content in the editable combo box to a php page The editable combo box page has this code I want to post from form after completing code either user entered content only or selected content only but with no success.I request the learned experts here to get me out of this mess <script src="jquery.js"></script> <script src=""></script> <link href="" rel="stylesheet"> <script>$('#editable-select').editableSelect();</script>

<select id="editable-select"> <option value="HP LaserJet1606dn">HP LaserJet1606dn</option> <option value="HP MFP Pro1005">HP MFP Pro1005</option> <option value="HP LaserJet P1007">HP LaserJet P1007</option> <option value="HP LaserJet P1008">HP LaserJet P1008</option> <option value="HP OfficeJet1020">HP OfficeJet1020</option> <option value="No requisition">No requisition</option> </select> <script>$('#editable-select').editableSelect();</script> (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Where's the form tag? To submit form data, you need a form tag. Otherwise, you have to do it all through scripting, which is a pain. (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

June 24[edit]

I know that in a website that uses Javascript, I can navigate to a file and upload it. But what prevents the Javascript from uploading a file without my knowledge? Jc3s5h (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


June 15[edit]

Phobos orbital height - I must be missing something[edit]

Phobos orbits at a height above the Martian datum of 6km. Olympus Mons is 26km in height. Maybe Phobos has a stable orbit and won't collide with it, but I feel like I'm missing something or misinterpreting the data? Surely Phobos can't really be that low? Dr-ziego (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that Phobos orbits 6 km above Mars? It's about 6,000 km, per our article. Matt Deres (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It'll collide eventually causing a titanic explosion. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Phobos has an orbital inclination of 1.093° degrees, relative to the Martian equator. Olympus Mons is located 18.65° North of the Martian equator. Therefore, Phobos never overflies Olympus Mons. LongHairedFop (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh right, that too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
On another hand, Pavonis Mons is on the equator. —Tamfang (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Pavonis is 1.48°North, so Phobos doesn't overfly it. However, IIRC, the inclination of moon's orbits can vary over times, so eventually Phobos will overfly it. LongHairedFop (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what's at 1.48°; the highest point? the middle of the caldera? The south rim crosses the equator. —Tamfang (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It could make a Hole around Mars as postulated by Jerome Bixby. Sjö (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

What airliner requires the most runway at over 40 Celsius and 0 to 1000 feet elevation?[edit]

I've heard it might not actually be the Airbus A380. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

For passenger aircraft, it is the Airbus A380. If you look into cargo planes, the AN-225 Mriya requires more (about 9,000 ft for the A300 and 10,000 for the Mriya). (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Isn't there a big difference in minimum recommended runway between frigid, low ladenness and good weather and hot, highly laden and unfavorable wind? Or landing in tropical rain while highly laden for landing lengths? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. A pilot should use the temperature, humidity, wind speed/direction, and air pressure to calculate the "density altitude", which is the altitude the aircraft appears to be at if the conditions were optimal. Then, with the density altitude, the minimum required runway length is calculated. There are cases where normal airports shut down runways because they are too short for the calculated density altitude. Minimum length can get very long. In Tibet, there is a runway that is at least 3 miles long - and sometimes it can get too short. (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
[citation needed] This isn't under the above conditions and also doesn't seem to clearly specify it's referring to the rare 747-8I (passenger) variant but for "minimum requirements that apply to an aircraft at Maximum Certified Takeoff Weight (MTOW), taking off at sea level under ISA condition" gives Airbus A380-800 2900 metres and Boeing 747-8 3050 metres [7] Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
This quick guide also gives similar figures for the MLW [8]. Actually the 747-400 is the also higher. Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you should be able to work out from these documents if the above is correct for the specified conditions [9] [10] Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
So it appears that at maximum takeoff weight, 0 pressure altitude and 30C sea level equivalent (it doesn't give more) the 747-8I needs a longer takeoff than the A-380-800 but it's roughly the same at 1,000 feet and the other way around above that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Solar noons and midnights[edit]

Earth in its Orbit

The occurrence of the "Number of solar noons (middays)" is always equal to "Number of solar midnights"

The diagram (not to the scale) on the right-hand side depicts the path traced by the earth for day and night in its orbit (either circular or elliptical) around the sun. Any point on the outer circle represents solar midnight while on inner circle solar noon. The length of an outer circle is greater than the length of the inner circle and hence Arc I > Arc II. This means the appearance of midnight points (anti noon) are more than middays points (solar noon) when the earth revolves around the sun in its orbit – Any special reasons

As # of midnights = # of solar noons when the length of arc I = length of arc II but since arc I > arc II, therefore

Are solar noons and solar midnights equal in numbers in the arc I and arc II or after the completion of 4 years?--Eclectic Eccentric Kamikaze (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

... or another way of looking at the situation is that the midnight point is always moving faster than the noon point. Dbfirs 14:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The first thing to bear in mind is tidal force. If the Earth did not rotate, or more precisely, were tidally locked, its outer edge would have to revolve faster than the inner edge, like a phonograph record. This doesn't precisely match the expected orbital period, so there are tides raised by the Sun - the other part of the planet gets a gentle nudge like it should fly off to space, while the inner has a gentle nudge to fall toward the Sun, though of course if separated somehow neither would get far before returning where they were in some sort of elliptical orbit, sans planetary integrity. So the point is, the "midnight" part of Earth is always going a bit faster to make up the distance. Wnt (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
In other words: there are just as many middays on the inner circle as midnights on the outer one, but space (not time!) between midnights is a bit larger. Right? (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
With rotating systems, it is often more useful to consider things in terms of angles, rather than distances. The earth is moving 2pi radians per year. There are 365.25(ish) middays and midnights for a point on the surface in each year. Therefore, each successive midday is separated by 2pi/365.25, and the same for each successive midnight. The midnights are further out, so the linear distance between them is greater, but that's not relevant here. MChesterMC (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Does it mean time dilate during nighttime when the earth orbits the sun? - The Earth spins at the same speed no matter if it's day or night.

Any point on the outer circle, which represents midnight if connected to the center of the sun via a straight line passes through the noon (inner circle). When there is midnight, there is a noon, therefore, duration/occurrence of midnights must be equivalent to the duration/occurrence of noons and hence their lengths. (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)eek

Attribution note - the diagrams at Talk:Season#Earth's Rotation and its Orbital Motion were uploaded by Eclectic Eccentric Kamikaze, and not as stated by Dbfirs. Just to clear up any possible misconceptions from the present discussion, clocks set to mean solar time and sundials when adjusted to mean solar time measure time at the same rate whatever the time of day and wherever on the surface of the Earth they may be located. (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The statement I made was about the text, not the diagrams, but I agree with your comment about normal clocks. A sundial could be adjusted to mean solar time by using a clock. Dbfirs 19:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe most people who are not dab-hand in astronomy are messed up with sidereal and solar times. Astronomy isn’t my field - My biggest apology for the diagram in Talk:Season#Earth's Rotation and its Orbital Motion.

Please read EEK 139 if it doesn’t bother you. Scroll up couple of posts to "Reply #23 on: June 20, 2018, 02:38:00 PM". I believe it may help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Bees and butterflies question[edit]

There has been an abortion debate in Argentina in those days, as the Congress is discussing a bill to legalize it. But there is a part of the text of the bill that I did not understand: translated to English, instead of talking about women, it talks about "women and people that may become pregnant". It feels weird having to ask this, but does such wording make sense, can someone other than a woman become pregnant? I know that there are transsexual people and sex reassignment surgery, but is that enough to make a person that was once a man to become pregnant and deliver a baby? Did that ever happened? Or is it just political correctness gone mad? Cambalachero (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"No results found for 'women and people that may become pregnant'".[11] Maybe it is not available in English. Can you post the text in the appropriate language? Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
If "women" is taken to mean "adult females" then of course other people who may become pregnant are females below the age of adulthood. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
And see also male pregnancy. DuncanHill (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, women can consider themselves men and still become pregnant. Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
That's under transgender pregnancy. Also, some people regard themselves as a third sex, etc. My feeling is that "women and people who may become pregnant" is inelegant; one (presumably the latter) should suffice for most intentions. True male pregnancy in humans is probably not far off anyway, so "people" would seem like a reasonable replacement in a forward-looking statement. Wnt (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It's downright criminal that every news outlet to discuss this bill doesn't tell us what it's frickin' name is!. Makes it very hard to search for. Still looking - I was hoping to just read the Spanish version directly. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, I think this is the bill that was just voted on, but I don't see what the OP is referring to anywhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The term in Spanish is "mujeres y personas gestantes". I have not found a single-word translation of "gestante" to English, so I made the translation myself. The word would be an adjetive for a living being with the hability of becoming pregnant. In any case, I was not asking about the bill (that's a local bill in a Spanish-speaking country, after all; I do not expect many people abroad to be following those news events) but about the pregnancy aspect. If I understood the article, barring discussions of what would be theoretically possible there are no actual cases of children born from male-to-female transgender people. There are some named cases of children born from female-to-male transgender people (that is, someone who was born as a woman, and retains all the required organs), but how often does that happen? Do they get pregnant as easily and frequently as straight women, or are those special fortunate cases? Cambalachero (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
[12]. It has apparently been the standard language used by the Ministry of Health since 2015 in cases regarding abortion, and explicitly with transmen and similar situations in mind. As for how often this happens, we have an article on Transgender pregnancy, but no statistics, and I also could not find any statistics on this in the scientific/medical literature. I would assume that it is quite rare. However, as to how easy it is, that depends. The majority of transmen do not undergo sex reassignment, leaving them physically as capable of conceiving and bearing a child as they would be otherwise. There is insufficient data to say what the long-term effects of hormone transition therapy are on the fertility of transmen. It's believed that such therapy impairs fertility, especially while it is being taken (and may also impact fetal development), but it's not clear to what extent. There is a review on the subject here, but mostly it just clarifies that we don't know a lot. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
"Pregnant people" is also used more and more in English these days, rather than the phrase "pregnant women" that was nearly exclusively used historically. Some examples: [13] [14] [15] [16]
Something of an aside, but "bees and butterflies"? Are they the Argentine equivalent of the birds and the bees? DuncanHill (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The equivalent of Spanish gestante is English gestant from gestation, which is a rather unsual word compared to pregnant. -- (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I am reminded of the term Embarazada. Bus stop (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Public Health England no longer offers cancer screening to "women". It offers it to "anyone with a cervix". (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

June 16[edit]

if the half-life of estradiol cypionate is around 8 days, what would be the half life of estradiol dicypionate?[edit]

Is there a rule of thumb for estimating the half-life depot steroid medications if both hydroxyl groups on a steroid are esterified versus just one hydroxyl group? I note that estradiol dipropionate is an ester described as having a relatively long half-life, but this article seems to imply that diesterification can lengthen the half-life by two to eightfold, since before the innovation of estradiol dipropionate, most esters were injected 2-4 times a week, now could be injected once every 1-2 weeks. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

According to Ullmann's "Hormones", esterification of estrogens increases their duration of action. A similar approach would be increasing the carboxylic acid chain length (like in the series Estradiol valerate, Estradiol enanthate, Estradiol cypionate). Furthermore, alkylation of estradiol derivatives at position 17 (ethinyl estradiol, quinestrol) increases their oral activity many times. -- (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
This doesn't answer my question. I already know that!! I can't figure out how to apply Bates' equation in radioactive decay for a decay chain to this problem. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Do I add the half lives?? Do I multiply the half lives? I've tried all sorts of approximations and differential equations. Is the half life more like 16 days or 64 days?? The problem with the Bates equation is that it does a poor job when k1 and k2 are very close in magnitude, because you have to divide zero over zero. Agh! Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought you were trying to deduce the pharmacokinetics of some hypothetical estradiol esters. But is it first order, zero order, nonlinear? First there is hydrolysis of the ester, then there is the metabolism of the estradiol, each of which seem to follow different kinetics, also depending on the route of administration. A Google search for "estradiol ester pharmacokinetics" and "estradiol ester metabolism kinetics" throws up lots of interesting hits. -- (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a a depot *diester* prodrug. Both functional groups must be removed to produce the active drug. I'm not interested in monoester pharmacokinetics and I already did the relevant research, hence why I'm here. I also tutor biochemistry... Also why aren't people reading my entire question?  :( I really need help with the Bateman equation. I don't need a lecture on routes of administration for a depot formulation? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Yanping Nora Soong: The Bateman formula gets very complicated for intermediates in a decay chain. However, the stability of the first isotope, or compound, has nothing to do with anything that comes afterward (some of those pi terms where you multiply a series of numbers don't have anything to multiply). In this case it probably is easier to redo the derivation of the math than to figure out what the formula means. You are looking at estradiol dicypionate -> estradiol cypionate -> estradiol, I think. Now do you already know the biological activity and the rate of decay for each of these intermediates? Then we can go over it. But if your assumption is that the first ester is broken at the same rate as the second, well, to begin with, we have no idea if that's true since this is biology (and chemistry...), but if it is true, then half-life of estradiol cypionate should logically be the point where just 25% of the estradiol dicypionate has been broken down to estradiol (a 50/50 chance for each bond), and two half-lives for estradiol (that would leave 25% left) would correspond to leaving 1-0.75*0.75 = 44% of the estradiol dicypionate or cypionate left. Note I'm not expecting a true half-life relationship for the "E1-2C -> estradiol decay" starting with E2C because the nature of "E1-2C" will change over time. Wnt (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

1 AU[edit]

How thick is the belt? What is the height and width? (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

What belt? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
See Astronomical unit. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
See also Kuiper belt, possibly. If by 'width' the OP means 'span of distances from the Sun, then that article suggests 30–50 AU, hence a 'width' of about 20 AU. Thickness and height presumably mean maximum (known) distance span perpendicular to the Ecliptic plane, which the article does not specifically state, but applying simple maths (I actually drew a diagram) to the stated orbital inclinations of "up to 30°" I come up with about 35 AU either side of the ecliptic at 50 AU out, so about 70 AU. Doubtless others can find Reliable Sources for an answer better than my Synthesis/OR. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Retaining carbonation[edit]

Suppose I want to open a cold, carbonated beverage and have it retain the maximum possible carbonation when I take the first sip, right after the pressure has dropped to atmospheric. Holding constant things like starting temperature and without previous agitation, do I lose less carbonation by the most sudden pressure drop, like popping the cap on a glass bottle, or by lowering the pressure as slowly as possible, like v-e-r-y slowly unscrewing a screw cap, and letting the pressure drop infinitesimally slowly? Or would just unscrewing a cap at a typical fast rate retain the most bubble? What is the scientific basis for the conclusion? Edison (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If you open the cap as slowly as possible, the bottle will have been open for a long time, and will thus be entirely flat. For openings that last no more than a few seconds, I don't think it makes any appreciable difference, except that if you actually let the gas undergo free expansion it won't cool off and will thus keep the interior a bit warmer (which accelerates loss of the dissolved gas). --Tardis (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess my phrasing left open the prospect of taking an hour or more to unscrew the cap, leaving the pop warm and flat. In practice, I might do it “fast” in one-half second from first escape of pressure up to 10 seconds to very slowly release the pressure from the time it is first heard hissing out. I wondered if a sudden drop, like rapid unscrewing or popping a metal cap from a glass bottle would produce a shock causing a greater loss of carbonation, similar to shaking it or setting it down hard before opening it, which clearly causes a massive loss of carbonation. As I asked initially, what topics in chemistry address the issue of the rate at which gas dissolved in liquid is liberated in a solution at atmospheric pressure. From experiments done long ago I think the volume of carbon dioxide might initially be equal to or even greater than the volume of the liquid, which itself is amazing. Edison (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
From a knowledge of brewing and beverages I can confirm your last point. The volume of CO2 per volume (of liquid) is for real ale in good condition considered to be a little over 1. However, in other beverages it can be several times this. To quote from Beverages: Technology, Chemistry and Microbiology by Alan H. Varnam & Jane P Sutherland (Chapman & Hall 1994), p 92: "The optimum level of carbonation varies according to the flavour and perceived character of the different drinks. In general terms, fruit drinks are carbonated to a low level (ca. 1 volume CO2), colas, ginger beer, alcohol-containing drinks, etc., to a medium level (2-3 volumes CO2) and mixer drinks such as tonic water and ginger ale to a high level (ca. 4.5 volumes), to allow for dilutions in the non-carbonated liquor. Soda water filled into syphons, however, contains up to 6 volumes of CO2 to maintain internal pressure during use."
My personal experience (OR warning!) of opening bottles of carbonated drinks with a higher than usual overpressure, perhaps due to warming, agitation, prolonged secondary fermentation in the container (which for real ale is by definition mandatory), or a combination of these, is that rapid opening may lead to immediate excessive foaming (aka 'fobbing') but that this can be mitigated by slower release of pressure taking at least several seconds – longer than that might reduce the over-foaming even more, but who would have the patience? {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Mystery tide pool creature (Southern California)[edit]

What is this thing? I assume it's just the mouth/siphon of something hiding in a rock crevice, and it was shooting jets of water. (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Dejavacrapped link: [17] Every pageview you make on the internet that Google doesn't know about is a theft, and therefore, a revolutionary act. Wnt (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Kind of gross looking. See Trypophobia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I see the extremities of many thin tentacles sorrounding some thick ones sorrounding a mouth. It seems to me to be a retracted sea anemone waiting for high tide. Some see anemones do live in rock cavities, although I don't know whether they can dig one themselves. (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

June 17[edit]

Bateman equation[edit]

Suppose A decays to B via first order rate constant k1 and B decays to C via first order rate constant k2. All the treatments of the Bateman equation in radioactive decay I've found assume that k1 is never close in magnitude to k2. This is really frustrating because I want to use it to approximately model to my pharmacological diester duration of action problem. If k1 = k2 (you would think this is a simple situation!!) then you get division of zero over zero and l'Hôpital's rule doesn't solve the problem. (I've even tried using the ratio k2/k1). Help? If k1=k2=0.086 (corresponding to half lives of 8 days each), then how much time does it take for half of A to break down to C? Is it more like 16 days or 64 days? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I get about 18 days, just using a secret engineer's method (a spreadsheet model, renders most calculus redundant). The mass of B is a maximum at about day 11. Greglocock (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
In your problem when and , and
which, when , leads to and days. Ruslik_Zero 10:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you!!!!! I am also going to write a script for a Monte Carlo method later. Now I suspect because of increased steric bulk that k2 is slightly bigger than k1 (but around the same order of magnitude), but the problem k1=k2 was bugging me because I was worried that the half-life was unbounded. It turns out that HRT users report that a med that includes this diester (Climacteron) is injected every 30 days (although manufacturer monograph says 4-8 weeks). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Your problem is the repeated eigenvalue issue in linear differential equations. It’s usually as far as i know solved by multiplying C1e^kt by t and then adding C2e^kt, which is the same thing really as what the engineer said above. Something similar in decaying harmonic motion is called “criticallydamped.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmmmm... per my logic in the last question section I would think that if the half-life of each of two bonds is 8 days, then after 19.2 days, each bond is only unbroken 19% of the time, so the amount with both broken at that point is 81%*81% = 66%. I think the difference in the math above is that you suppose the half-life of A is the same as the half-life of B -- but in the previous question A has *two* ester bonds either of which can be broken while B just has one, so we'd expect a different rate constant. Again, I don't really know the stability of A and it doesn't have to be half of B or any other particular value, but I just thought I should point this out. Wnt (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I've realized this -- there are two intermediates -- but I made that approximation to try to obtain a value that made sense. I saw a "complex" chain treatment that looked like my problem, and I'll try a Monte Carlo method later. Thank you so much!!! Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Dividing line between angina and heart attack[edit]

Doesn't angina always involve at least some loss of oxygen to the heart, and therefore a possibility of damage? So if a self-interested hospital wants to increase revenue, what’s to stop the hospital from calling a case of angina a heart attack? Is there news or opinions in media about this as a conflict of interest? Thanks (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There are tons of literature about differential diagnosis of heart attack and angina pectoris. You can search yourself in Google. Ruslik_Zero 12:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
”you can search yourself in Google” is a weird response for a volunteer at reference desk. (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
At an academic reference desk, the answer is sometimes "here are the search terms you need; look through them, and feel free to come back if you want further assistance". Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
(I am assuming, based on your IP address, that you're interested in the U.S. "healthcare system".) Most U.S. hospitals bill on a fee-for-service basis; that is, the charges are based on the services and procedures performed, not on the specific diagnosis attached to a particular patient. If a patient undergoes cardiac catheterization, the bill is the same whether the diagnosis is "angina" or "infarct". (That oversimplifies a bit; in practice the billing goes into rather a lot of arcane detail, with separate charges for staff, operating room time, drugs, instruments, tests, etc.)
Now, if a hospital makes a habit of over-diagnosing and thereby performing unnecessary tests and procedures, pushback happens in a number of ways and places. Insurance companies tend to notice when one hospital seems to have unusual patterns of diagnosis and treatment, and will start to deny reimbursements that aren't accompanied by sufficient documentary evidence. Overdiagnosis to increase billings is a gross breach of medical ethics, and can lead to both civil and criminal penalties for the parties involved.
(More common and more difficult to deal with is over-testing and over-treatment done in good faith. For physicians, it's hard – and sometimes legally risky – to tell a patient that expensive tests aren't necessary; it's hard to tell a patient that the best way to treat their condition is sometimes to do nothing. This New Yorker article is an accessible overview.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC::thanks good response67.128.146.22 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

Terminal dehydration mechanism[edit]

I looked for this on Google, but all the results I saw were too technical for me to understand.

If you die of terminal dehydration, what's typically the reason of death? Is it dehydration itself (and in particular, what fatal effect does extreme dehydration cause), or is it some side thing, like a simple illness (e.g. the sufficiently dehydrated immune system can't function properly), or urea poisoning (you don't have enough water to urinate, so you build up urea to a fatal level), or something else? Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I dont have expert medical knownledge. Good chance someone else can answer this way better but i think i have the basics right and you wrote that you didnt want tomuch detail anyway: It depends on your body's condition, training and your surrounding. In a hot area you will fail to regulate your body temperature, overheat and then multiple vital organs may fail. If you are used to living in a hot desert your body will adapt and you likely already have allot of experience with dehydration. So you may survive a level of dehydration that would kill anyone else even in an earlier stage. In a mild climate your kidneys will likely stop working first and as a result you slowly become "toxic", which will affect other organs. So the typical reason of death is some (or multiple) Organ dysfunction(s). Because many organs have a vital function its hard to pin the cause down to one. --Kharon (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Popular Science magazine says likely liver or kidney failure. Rmhermen (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Giordano Bruno crater[edit]

Per our article, Giordano Bruno (crater) is on the far side of the Moon "that always faces away from Earth", so how five Canterbury monks could have observed the crater's formation? Thanks. (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no actual evidence that they did, but the location of the crater isn't the real issue. It's just behind the limb, and from our article "At this location it lies in an area that can be viewed during a favorable (sic) libration". Also, debris would be thrown much higher, out past the limb, even if the impact itself wouldn't be visible. Fgf10 (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.
Or favourable (sic). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Not what the article says, so would be an incorrect quote. Do you have anything factual to add to my answer? Fgf10 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2018 (UT
Can you restrain yourself from gratuitously provoking Americans in an otherwise useful answer? --Trovatore (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
What on earth did I say that was a gratuitous provocation?! I gave a correct and useful answer to the OP. Is that against the Trump ethos or something? Fgf10 (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Favorable is not (sic) in America. I'm not offended but some might be. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Really? That's it? I would expect Americans do to exactly the same the other way around. That's how language works. Christ, you people need to grow some thicker skin. Fgf10 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Probably only the unusually nationalistic would be offended. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Or would feel the need to say (sic) after an acceptable spelling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not acceptable in Fgf10's language, which is British English. Why do you assume that he/she must be familiar with all spellings in a foreign language, namely American English? {The poster formerly known as 87.981.230.195} (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
English is English. It was originally "-or". The Brits changed it.[18]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

Viscosity from DFT (VASP) using the Green-Kubo relation[edit]

Hello! In this paper the authors use VASP to determine MgSiO3 viscosity using the Green-Kubo relation where (i and j = x, y, z) is the stress tensor, t is time and t0 is the time origin. But I've seen other papers use: , where is the off-diagonal component of the stress tensor ( α and β are Cartesian components).

OK, so clearly these are essentially exactly the same equation but the second uses only the xy component whereas the first seems to suggest a summation? So which is correct?

Also, VASP outputs the stress tensor components as XX YY ZZ XY YZ ZX. So which of these should I use to input into the Green-Kubo equation? And are there missing components? what about yx, zy, xz?

Thanks in advance. Polyamorph (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  • For your second question, per our article Cauchy stress tensor, the stress tensor is symmetric, thus having only six independent stress components, instead of the original nine, see also Stress_(mechanics)#General_stress. For the first question, I am not sure; it could be that only one off-diagonal component is nonzero in the context (for instance in a shear flow where water flows in from (x=±Inf,y=0) and out from (x=0,y=±Inf), and the flow is uniform across z), as is the case in many viscosity-measurement experiments; or it could be the Einstein notation by taking x and y as free variables (but then a factor 1/2 is missing). TigraanClick here to contact me 16:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that in both case sum of off-diagonal components is implied. Ruslik_Zero 20:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Tigraan and Ruslik0 Cool, symmmetry reduces the 9 components to 6, makes sense. But I'm still not sure that the sum is implied in the second equation, only that the xy off-diagonal component of should be used, at least that's how I interpret how they've written it. But in any case, to clarify if it is the sum to be taken then should I take the sum of the ? Many thanks for your help. Polyamorph (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that the second equation is just an example, and xy is just one of the components to be used.Polyamorph (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Aerial refueling a commercial jet?[edit]

Apparently aerial refueling doesn't make much economic sense for commercial jets. [19] But suppose radar operators were scanning for MH370 on the day of its disappearance and after almost all hope (and fuel) is lost, a passenger had gotten on the radio and said the pilots are dead, but some of us woke up, where are we, all we see down there is water!... Is there any conceivable way that some fast military aircraft swoops up from a carrier and slows down, and we see a boom projecting forward from it or a hose dangling down from in front of the wing, with a hard-bitten soldier or a decently designed robot on the end that can unscrew a gas cap and start pouring gas into the plane's tank so that the passengers don't end their adventure in the Indian Ocean? Or is it completely hopeless? Wnt (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Bear in mind that tanker planes aren't particularly fast; they're primarily freight aircraft. The first picture at aerial refueling shows a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker, with a cruising speed of 530 mph and a maximum speed of 580 mph, while another picture shows an Ilyushin Il-78, whose maximum speed is similar to the cruising speed of the Stratotanker. If the plane's virtually out of fuel, there's no way you can get a tanker on-site unless it's already really nearby. This assumes that the airliner is comparatively close to land, or that it's not far from a carrier-based tanker. Also see Aerial_refueling#Buddy_store, which notes that carrier groups don't generally have tanker aircraft, so the chance of finding a carrier-based tanker is even tinier. Nyttend (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
PS, see Gimli Glider and its paragraph beginning with "On airliners the size of the 767"; a recent commercial airliner without fuel is exceptionally difficult to control, even by professionals, since a Ram air turbine doesn't have much power compared to jet engines. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Modern airlines are set up for single-point refueling, also known as underwing fueling, which requires a fairly complex set of motions when connecting the refueling nozzle. To add another level of complexity, the refueling point is commonly found under an access panel, which will either be held shut by the slipstream or act as a impromptu air brake when opened. So ignoring the logistics of getting the tanker in the right place at the right time... once you have it there, it'll be near impossible to connect and refuel on a commercial airlinger not designed with air-to-air-refueling in mind. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's a 747 refueling in-flight: [20]2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Might that be Air Force One? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
There's a doghouse, so that's a NEACP, not the Trump Tourbus. Some other civilian aircraft in long-duration military service (such as covert ELINT) have been fitted for refuelling too. The current Airforce One was built as a Boeing VC-25, the designed-in Airforce One variant, but the new Airforce Ones are to be recycled from bankrupt Russian oligarchs (seems appropriate), so will require conversion.
Outside the US, there are also Airbus variants, such as the A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport, which can offer both refuelling supply and consumption. So if you're writing a Dan Brown novel, it's off-the-shelf parts. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Unrelated question: At Aviation fuel what does this mean: "Aircraft have a high peak power and thus fuel demand during take-off and landing"? Does that mean that a disproportionate amount of fuel is consumed "during take-off and landing" relative to the rate of fuel consumption at cruising speed and cruising altitude? Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Not so much "take off" itself, but the climb to altitude. This is why many military mission profiles involve refuelling very soon after take-off - the aircraft can take off and climb in a much lighter state. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
"disproportionate amount at take off?" It seems so. According to a Jumbo Jet consumes 1 gallon per second at cruising regime and 8 gallons per second at take off and climbing. Somewere else it talked of three tons in the first three minutes and eight tons per hour cruising. (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
Among other things, you're using a richer mixture at those times. It's vaguely like with a car: you use less fuel when you're cruise-controlling down a straight and flat highway than when you're climbing a hill and accelerating from a stop. Cars don't use much fuel when descending hills, but they don't have to worry about maintaining power in order to avoid stalling too soon and falling out of the sky too fast; the aircraft has to maintain lift until it's ready to stall over the runway, so lots of power has to be used. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks everybody. That is interesting. And I guess the fighter plane has a much further distance on its itinerary than the tanker plane, and that one tanker plane refuels many fighter planes. Bus stop (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Fighters have to be fast and maneuverable, so they can't carry enough fuel relative to their empty weight to provide a long range as well. -- (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Fighters can, but they do it with drop tanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. This is an interesting topic. Bus stop (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

Trumpeter Swan question[edit]

Ok, this is kind of a weird one. I was kayaking on one of our local lakes just now and saw that Trumpeter Swans were again present there. They used to only come by during migration but the last few years there has been a pair of them summering there. As I paddled around I came upon what had to be their nest. It was two vegetation-covered rotting logs in shallow water, with lots and lots of shiny white feathers scattered all over. They looked more or less like one expects from a waterfowl nest except for one thing: the poop. I declined to take a picture as I assume words will suffice here. Normally bird excrement is a runny, whitish sort of thing. These two nesting areas each had at the outer corner a pile of very solid turds, as one would expect from a dog or a human. I can’t find anything in our article on these birds about this, but it seems highly unusual to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking "what do their feces look like"? Can't speak directly to swans, but if you've ever seen Branta canadensis feces, you'll remember that they're nowhere close to runny or whitish; it's one of the biggest reasons large populations of them are often considered pests in the lower 48. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I used a well known search engine to find images of 'swan faeces' and it provided a few which showed large solid cylindrical motions. For what it's worth it also showed motions from geese and chickens which are solid and shaped, so by no means are all bird faeces liquid. Having kept finches for a while my experience was that liquid faeces usually indicated a digestive problem. Richard Avery (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess it’s just something I’ve somehow never run into before, or at least not recognized it for what it was before. Thanks for your replies. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI, the white part of bird waste is their equivalent of urine (white crystals of uric acid, much more concentrated than our pee); bird feces are typically dark and more or less solid. However, since it all tends to be voided at once from the same fissure (the cloaca), it's easy to conflate the two. Matt Deres (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

How to figure out the most energy-efficient way to eat food in an industrialized country?[edit]

Corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, and hay account for 90% of harvested acreage in the United States. Corn, wheat, and soybeans are grown for both animal feed and human consumption. Per 100 grams, cooked yellow corn yields 96 calories. Wheat cannot be eaten directly. It can be turned into bread, noodles, and other wheat-based products, but who has the time to let the bread rise? Home-made bread may be eaten on occasion, but making bread everyday may be tiresome. Also, the inexperienced person who has zero cooking skills may not know how to knead dough. I suppose one can buy dried soybeans and make soymilk, but that's mostly liquid. The okara of the soybeans may be used to make less-filling dishes. Per 100 grams, Russet potatoes yield 97 calories. Per 100 grams, cooked black beans yield 132 calories. Per 100 grams, cooked white rice yields 130 calories. So, judging solely by energy content per weight, cooked black beans and cooked white rice win. However, what about the amount of energy that goes into producing the food or the amount of energy that goes into transporting food from the farm to the supermarket? By taking all things into account, which food would be most economical for a random person in, say, New York City? SSS (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This is why McDonald's was invented. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There are many additional variables here. Take wheat and bread. It is more energy-efficient to make bread in a bakery than at home. This has been true since ancient times. Or look a soy beans in the US: almost all (more than 90%) of the beans and the oil are shipped to China for use as animal feed there. One crude measure of the pre-consumer energy cost is the price per calorie. This works better than you might expect, because it accounts for the energy cost of all of the inputs, including things like marketing, where the money goes to pay the salaries of people who use energy. It does not account for "free" inputs like un-captured environmental costs. You then need to add the consumer's preparation costs and the costs of post-consumer waste handling. -Arch dude (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
As an aside, use a no-knead recipe for home made bread. Makes very good bread. Not, perhaps the best I've ever had, but better than all but the best, and of course we fine tune the recipes to taste, lots of caroway in the dark rye bread for example.Greglocock (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Check out Soylent (meal replacement). Eat it for a week and then watch the movie Soylent Green. --Kharon (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
"Soylent Green is ... a brand of meal replacement products !?" Gandalf61 (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It will likely make a difference whether SSS means "most energy efficient for the individual eater" or "most energy efficient for the planet overall". {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The question title asks about "energy-efficient way to eat" but the question asks about economical food, not exactly the same thing. The human energy and time involved in one person planning, shopping, preparing, cooking, serving, and clearing away meals (for him/herself or for a household) is significant; arguably, the more you care about your health, the more thought and time goes into this. If on the other hand "economical" is used as a synonym for "as cheap as possible, who cares about the externalities", then meal replacements, as pointed out above, are a possibility, as are Pot Noodles. You might want to read Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma to give some context to your questions. E.g. "Pollan also accuses large-scale organic agriculture of "floating on a sinking sea of petroleum" by analysing that a one-pound box of California-produced organic lettuce – that contains 80 food calories – requires 4,600 calories of fossil fuel to process and ship to the East Coast." Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Why do small children put stones in their mouth?[edit]

Has this behavior evolved to get to a healthy microbiome, or could stones in the stomach work as gastroliths? Count Iblis (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

What children do that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
[21] Antepenultimate para. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Moonrise Kingdom appears to be fictional. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Err. The bloke they were talking to wasnt  :D —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Typing "Why do small children put stones in their mouth?" into Google produces lots of results such as: "Babies putting things in their mouths, otherwise known as mouthing, is not only normal, but also signals a growing interest in the world around them. In the first year, children explore their surroundings through their senses -- seeing, touching, hearing, smelling, and tasting. The more they explore, the more they learn". [22] Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I've heard that described the same way, as "exploring their world." No indication that they're swallowing them, just tasting them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Besides taste, the tongue and lips are also far better at discerning fine texture detail than fingers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide a cite for that? It appears to be at odds with the various representations at cortical homunculus, though I acknowledge they're not quite mapping the same thing. Matt Deres (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Small children, or babies? The former are more likely to have access to stones. The latter, well, they put everything in their mouths; it's the oral stage, and some never really outgrow it. From that article: "In Freudian psychoanalysis, the term oral stage or hemitaxia denotes the first psychosexual development stage wherein the mouth of the infant is his or her primary erogenous zone. Spanning the life period from birth to the age of 18 months..." Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

How many cities have used subway/metro/underground/el/u-bahn/rapid transit cars ≥54 years old for revenue service?[edit]

I only know of the R32 and Buenos Aires. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

F Market & Wharves in San Francisco uses historical cars, for revenue service, some pre-WWI. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
But that's streetcar, not subway / rapid transit. -- (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The Island Line on the Isle of Wight uses refurbished British Rail Class 483 stock. They were built in 1938, and refurbished between 1989 and 1992. They originally worked the London Underground, but the Island Line is a surface service, so I'm not sure that they meet your criteria. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Apparently the cars for Budapest's line 1 were in use from around 1900 until the 1970s. Rmhermen (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, here's a good one. The Glasgow Subway opened its one and only route in December 1896 with cable-hauled trains, converting to electric motors in 1935. (By the way, they converted the two directions of travel one at a time, so for several months they had electric trains going one way and cable ones the other—which was sensible enough, because the route is a loop and had no connection between the two tracks.) They made the change by modifying the existing trains rather than buying new ones, and many of the subway's original cars remained in revenue service until May 1977 when the line was shut down for modernization. So the oldest cars were then 80 years old. -- (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The poles and towers for the overhead electric cables of the Gospel Oak to Barking line were constructed by February 2017. The wires were added later. There is still no electric train service. Is this a record? (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The Pyongyang Metro uses ex-german "Dora"-class rolling stock, which is between 53 and 61 years old. WegianWarrior (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Vehicle retroreflectors[edit]

In one place, the California vehicle code says "this section applies to the color of lamps and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candela or more per foot-candle of incident illumination."

Vehicle Code
DIVISION 12. Equipment of Vehicles
CHAPTER 2. Lighting Equipment
ARTICLE 15. Light Restrictions and Mounting

I am trying to figure out exactly how to measure this in the context of a plastic retroreflector of the kind normally found on vehicles.

My problem starts with the light source. I can hit it with a foot-candle from a near point source, and the output will be vastly different that if I hit it with a foot candle from a diffuse half sphere. In the former case, the output is much larger at one angle and much smaller at all other angles, and it changes as I tilt the reflector slightly. In the latter case, I get a more even output compared to angle, but it is still a bit "lumpy".

So how do I set up my light source and light meter to measure whether the section in question applies to a reflector? Or do I just forget all that and assume that even the cheapest plastic reflector is good enough that I can assume the law applies? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The point of a retroreflector is to reflect the light source back to itself. The best retroreflective shape is an orthogonal trihedral surface. I used to teach classes about stealth technology. As a demonstration I had three 1-foot-square mirror tiles taped together forming a corner trihedral. No matter what angle you looked in it, you always saw a reflection of your face looking back at you. That's the worst possible shape for a ship to have on it, and easy to create accidentally, say, by laying a toolbox on the deck next to a bulkhead at right angles. An anti-ship missile will go right for that.
The plastic retroreflectors in cars typically employ an array of little cube-shaped prisms to accomplish the same effect. They are arrays of trihedral prisms In this case the light enters the plastic from flat outer surface and bounces off the surfaces inside the prisms, and comes right back out.
In the case of that spec, the requirement likely applies only to normal incidence to the reflector, from a point source. The intensity of reflection will change because the projected area of the orthogonal surfaces change with angle of incidence. A diffuse half sphere source will illuminate the reflector from a wider range of incident angles. You wouldn't be able to make a valid measurement with a meter the size of a point source.
Your measuring device should be approximately the same location as your light source. In an ideal retroreflector it shouldn't matter how far away your light source is. Distance will only change the illumination incident on the retroreflector. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I am well aware of how retroreflectors work and the geometry of corner reflectors in general (years of experience in optical engineering), but I am not convinced that your answer is correct. Yes, that is indeed one way of doing the measurement, but I am asking which of the several ways that I can measure the light is the method that the vehicle code specifies. The requirement "foot-candle of incident illumination" can be satisfied with the light coming in from a point source at any angle or from a uniformly illuminated half sphere. On the output side a candela is the luminous flux per unit solid angle, but which angle? Do I pick the one that has the highest number? I know that averaging the output from all angles is wrong -- if they wanted that they should have specified lux instead of candela.
On a previous project involving lights as opposed to reflectors, I got an answer from the DOT that we should measure what hits a driver's eyes, keeping in mind that some people are driving low-slung sports cars and some are driving tractor trailers. By that standard, an ideal corner reflector sends 100% of its output right back into the headlight of the car behind with 0% hitting the driver's eyes. And indeed if you break open a standard plastic reflector you find that the geometry is not exactly 90 degree corners, but is a bit off (and sometimes the surface isn't quite flat) -- obviously so that the returned beam spreads out some. They also twist some sections compared to others, and in use some sections are much brighter than others, depending on the angle.
Optical engineering is easy. Lawyering (as in "properly interpreting the requirements set forth in government regulations") is hard. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Hmm. Which angle indeed? Intuitively it seems like an integration problem. Measure the luminous flux in the solid angle emanating from a point on the retroreflector and ending at the pupil of the eye, with the radius of that pupil. Integrate over all points of the reflector. That has to be wrong, because it's too hard and seems backwards.
All I can do is make guesses..... OK, how about defining the beamwidth from the reflector as the solid angle formed by the boundary 3 db from the peak brightness, and that solid angle is large enough to cover sports cars and trucks. Then you can figure out the luminous flux per unit solid angle within that boundary? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
That has some real promise. It also has the distinct advantage that if someone on the government end thinks that it is the wrong way to do the measurement they would have to tell me what the right way is. I can pretty much set up any measuring geometry in less than an hour on my optical bench. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Improving one's palate for subtle flavor differences[edit]

A Youtube video I saw last year, in which Penn Jillette describes his diet of eating only potatoes for a month, eventually prompted me to write the monotrophic diet stub article. It's a risky and dangerous fad diet. What interested me, however, is a side-effect that Jillette reported: eating nothing but potatoes for a month reset his palate to the point where he can now taste subtle differences in foods that he couldn't taste before, and no longer desires typical American dishes having flavors dominated by salt and sugar.

So this got me to thinking: setting aside the fad mono diet, if I wanted to reset my own palate while consuming nutritionally complete but bland foods, what would I eat? What ingredients would I buy? I do enjoy cooking challenges... Or would it be simplest just to buy a month's supply of unflavored Soylent (meal replacement)? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The product you are looking for is unflavored Huel. See [ ].
It is well-known that when you reduce salt in your diet, after a while foods that used to taste slightly salty taste very salty. And the opposite effect is well-known with hot peppers; you build up a tolerance to them.
Is this the case with all flavors? I can think of a couple of interesting tests you could do.
One test involves experiments with sugar and purified water. At what concentration can you no longer tell sweetened water from pure water in a blind taste test? Now cut all sugar from your diet for a month and repeat the test.
Or you could pick one of those strongly flavored candies (Jolly Rancher, Jelly Belly) and suck on just one flavor for a month. Can you make it so that, say Apple flavor seems less strong while the others seem normal strength?
Please post a note on my talk page if you do something like this. I usually keep the reference desks unwatched for obvious reasons. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Thanks, I had never heard of that. I'm not sure how nutritionally complete that is... I don't see any fats, unless the "MCTs from coconut" is a sufficient substitute. No animal protein either, but I guess that's OK for a month. A month's supply (9 pounches) to maintain a 2000 calorie/day diet seems expensive at first but not on a per-meal basis.
Yes, I knew about the peppers. I had read several research articles about how people who regularly eat spicy foods are not sensitive to other flavors. I can also see that in people I know who eat a lot of spicy food and find their sense of taste is not stimulated by subtle flavors that I can distinguish, but my own palate is by no means very sensitive either. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
4 cups of Unflavored & Unsweetened Huel have 2000 calories, 66 grams of fat, 186 grams of carbs, 148 grams of protein, 9 grams of fiber.
37% of the energy comes from carbohydrate, 30% from fat, 30% from protein and 3% from fiber.
See [ ].
Are you under the impression that for humans animal protein is somehow better than plant protein? (Cats, on the other hand, get really sick and eventually die on any vegan diet. Cats need the amino acid Taurine, which plants do not produce. Humans, like most omnivores, can produce taurine from other nutrients.)
I would be interested in reading those research papers about spicy foods. That wasn't my understanding, but I have not studied the question other than running across stuff like this:[23] If only there was some sort of online encyclopedia where we could look this sort of stuff up.... --Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: I freely admit I have no informed opinion about the value of human protein versus animal protein, other than knowing the human organism is adapted to neither a vegetarian nor carnivorous diet, but rather to an omnivorous diet, which implies we are adapted to require protein from multiple sources, not just from plants. I am skeptical that a vegan diet is healthy over the long term, but there is no harm in it for the purpose for which I started this conversation.
OK, I dug up some searches I had done way back in 2007 about spicy foods and taste desensitization. At the time I was unable to find references indicating that the desensitization is permanent. I concluded that it may seem permanent if a person eats spicy foods on a daily basis. Here are quotes I had found back then. I haven't looked to see if there's been anything more recent.
  • "With respect to desensitization following an initial series of stimuli, the present results appear to confirm that, given a particular hiatus in stimulation, the recovery period differs markedly between these irritants. Previous research has shown that the recovery time of capsaicin from desensitization is in the order of hours to days, depending on the concentration (Green, 1989; Karrer and Bartoshuk, 1991),..." [24]
  • "Immediately after capsaicin, responses [by rats] to each tastant were in nearly all cases depressed (mean, 61.5% of control), followed by recovery in most cases.... These results support a peripheral site of capsaicin suppression of taste possibly via direct or indirect effects on taste transduction or taste receptor cell excitability. The depressant effect of capsaicin on gustatory transmission might underlie its ability to reduce the perceived intensity of some taste qualities."[25]
  • "As to the reason why some people can cheerfully withstand the ravages of irritant-packed food and others bolt for the water fountain at the first nibble on a wayward jalapeno, part of it is no doubt genetic, but there's also a phenomenon known as "transient desensitization." Keep eating chili after chili, and your mouth is going to get hotter and hotter. Take a break, though, maybe two or five minutes, and when you resume your meal, the burning sensation won't be quite so fierce. Desensitization can last hours, and people who make a habit of eating spicy food may be partly desensitized virtually all the time." [26](link is now dead, try instead)
FWIW. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting! One thing you wrote caught my eye; "the human organism is adapted to neither a vegetarian nor carnivorous diet, but rather to an omnivorous diet, which implies we are adapted to require protein from multiple sources, not just from plants" I am not sure that it implies that. I think that it implies that we are adapted to thrive on protein any one of multiple sources. We know that this is true of bears; in some seasons they pretty much live on berries, while in other seasons they live on a pure salmon diet. Likewise with humans, some thrive on a vegan diet (if they get enough protein, vitamins, etc), while others thrive on a diet of nothing but meat and seal blubber. Evolution should select against requiring multiple food sources (but could at the same time evolve a preference for them). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
You're right of course, evolution shouldn't require multiple sources of protein, but simply allow for multiple sources. However, surviving isn't equivalent to thriving. In my view, the best diet includes both animal and vegetable protein, assuming that no protein is "complete" and that "thriving" requires completeness. I would argue that the human body has features, such as a long intestinal tract, that makes it hard to "thrive" on a carnivorous diet. Digesting meat produces toxins that are best evacuated quickly, which is why carnivores tend to have short intestinal tracts compared to vegetarian animals. Meat-eating cultures do have a higher incidence of colon cancer too. This would qualify as a MEDRS-compliant source: ~Anachronist (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, back on the original topic, here's the original video of Penn that I saw: — the relevant part that struck me starts near the end, at 7:35. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

June 21[edit]

Please Help me find a botanical term and an existing page[edit]

Originally published in Teahouse ( and I was guided to reference desk.

There is a terminology for when due to secondary growth a tree engulfs surrounding foreign objects . But I forgot the term and can't recall it back. There was an Wikipedia page about the term; which contained an image of a tree engulfing a barbed wire fence; upto best of my recall. (The image was from side view, and not from oblique view). Today I searched a lot of page; but could not find the page. Please help me to find the term and the page. Thanks in advance.

If I've asked the question in an inappropriate location or formatting then please do necessary guide/correction.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • This is the right place, but I haven't found it yet. In the mean time, look at these: [[27]]. -Arch dude (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
That site asks at one point: "Is it possible there are items entirely consumed by trees that we don't know about?" I can confirm from personal experience (yeah, OR) that this is so. About 5 months ago I had a tree felled at the bottom of my garden which had grown too large (approaching a yard/metre thick at the bole) for its surroundings. The fellers discovered that it had entirely engulfed at least one metal fence post that had originally marked the garden boundary – they broke some chainsaw teeth when they unexpectedly hit the metal. Outside of the tree so few remnants of the fence remained that I (resident 27 years) had no idea it had once been there. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I've found a few words, but none that are quite as specific or correct for "engulfment of foreign object". For example, burl (found where this question was asked at Talk:Tree archives and did not receive an answer), engulfment, inosculation, espalier, pooktre, edaphoecotropism. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There is such an image here but it doesn't seem to be used in any other articles.--Shantavira|feed me 14:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Plenty more pictures at commons:Category:Ingrown things in trees. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Spiders looking like ants[edit]

I've heard some spiders and other bugs appear like ants so they can sneak around among them and then eat them. That's right, isn't it? I've actually seen some bugs like that.

So, if ants cannot see well, why is looking like an ant so important? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Batesian mimicry seems to be more about evolving to protect yourself not infiltrating other species communities. Ants rely very heavily on pheromones for communication (as stated in Ant) It would seem unlikely that looking like an ant but not smelling like an ant would be a successful strategy. And remember there are hundreds of ant species and most of these do not rub along too well together. So the answer to the original question is - no, that's not right. Richard Avery (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • So, you think maybe the article is (partly) wrong? Abductive (reasoning) 16:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
In the case of the Large blue butterfly, the caterpillars are mimicking the ant larvae rather than the adult ants, but this broadly fits your scenario. The first article Richard Avery linked says, in the lede: "Some arthropods mimic ants to escape predation (protective mimicry), while others mimic ants anatomically and behaviourally to hunt ants (aggressive mimicry)" [my italics], and cites a paper. In all such cases physical resemblance will be necessary but not sufficient – the mimics will have to smell and move similarly to the ants as well, which means they will have to be mimicking a specific ant species and perhaps even a specific colony population. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you for clearing that up. And thank you for taking the time. It is appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Mandatory swim caps[edit]

Is the mandatory swim cap thing baloney? So what if hair gets into filters? Isn't that what filters are for? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Where is this rule in place. It's not in my little corner of the world - Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The idea would be to prevent too much hair from getting in the filter and clogging things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
This is probably a health and safety issue [28], [29], [30]. In one case, a young woman was only saved when a bystander who had been in the bar the previous evening when a huge knife was delivered for cutting ice cubes rushed to get it. He handed it to the father (who had been attempting to cut her loose with a penknife) and with one slice she was free. (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It's also quite unpleasant while swimming to suddenly get a faceful of floating hair that has been shed by others and has then clumped together. I myself tend to gag if I unexpectedly get one of my own hairs in my mouth. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. Good points. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Having worked extensively with swimming pool filtration in my younger days, I'll say that pool filters are best at removing particulates (dirt, bugs, leaves, and other solid materials). Hair, on the other hand, isn't friendly. It's like trying to suck a string through a pump. What gets through the first stage basket gets tangled around the pump impeller and shaft, and accumulates. Short hair doesn't present a problem. But long hair (or thread or string) doesn't just get caught in the first stage basket or the final stage filter, it gets caught in the machinery. And if there's enough of it, the only way to get it out is to take apart the machinery, which is a lot harder than simply backwashing the filter or cleaning the removable components.
The UK Health and Safety Executive lists compulsory swimming caps amongst Health and safety myths; "There is no health and safety regulation which requires people to wear hats in swimming pools". I recall caps being compulsory in some public pools in France and Luxembourg a few decades ago, on the stated grounds of hygiene. Alansplodge (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, I see no hygiene reason to require swimming caps. I think the reason is more practical: Keep hair out of the machinery. Also there may be an added benefit to keep hair oil (if people use it) from scumming up the tiles on the pool walls. And to make the overall swimming experience more pleasant for everyone by keeping long floating hairs out of the pool. A good hair-band to tie back long hair, or wearing the hair in braids, would be just as effective, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, mainly hair in the works, understood. Still, I'd say tying one's hair back plus better filters would be better than requiring everyone to wear those daft caps. They're uncomfortable and rather spoil the experience. I do miss Canadian lakes. Thank you all again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Japan Meteorological Agency[edit]

Is there any reason why in Japan the Meteorological Agency handles the earthquakes instead of dedicated seismological authority, given the frequency of their earthquakes? Brandmeistertalk 08:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It also covers volcanoes and tsunamis. Given that these as well as extreme weather, floods and earthquakes all require a warning network as well as sometimes being causationally linked, it makes sense to group them under the same umbrella rather than having separate agencies trying to co-ordinate. The article's reference 7 links to a 32-page PDF here which may shed light on the historical reasons for this arrangement having come about. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The Philippines' hurricane warning center (PAGASA) is even broader. It handles meteorology, geophysics and astronomy (!) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Australia, where I am, is at the other end of the seismological activity scale from Japan. Earthquakes are very much rarer and less extreme here. We don't have a "dedicated seismological authority". (Or if we do, it's low profile enough for me not to have noticed it.) I do know though than when earthquakes do occur (usually small tremors by global standards) people tend to phone up the local weather service to ask/tell them about it. I guess there's something in human nature that lumps these physical environmental things together. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Squashed molecules[edit]

A few years ago there was a new Wikipedia article on a kind of molecule where the two atoms were abnormally close to each other and electrons were pushed up to higher energy levels to accommodate. This type of molecule was very unstable emitting X-rays to drop energy and push the two atoms apart. I cannot find the article though. What is this kind of molecule called? It's not in Category:Chemical bonding. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember that WP article--do you remember if the two atoms were bonded or nonbonded? In the mean time, here is an item describing pushing the limits of nonbonded close contacts.[31] Perhaps WP:CHEM could help--lots of active editors there with diverse interests. For a newer ref that includes intermolecular not just intramolecular-cage, see doi:10.1021/jacs.7b01879. DMacks (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The molecules were much more compressed than in the blog, so much so that one atom appeared to be embedded in the other. The repulsion was much stronger than the bond due to the closeness, but I would guess that the bond would be much stronger than a normal bond. However they still had defined quantum states. (They may form inside white dwarfs for example of the pressure needed). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
By chance, was it related to Rydberg polarons? Those allow you to put atoms inside another atom. (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
That is a good suggestion, and the atom combination is like that but at much higher energy. So it was actually another article. I think they needed particle accelerators to get an ion with enough energy to penetrate into another atom. (I should have put the page on my watch list!). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Diet pills[edit]

For me, any 'fat burning' claim of diet pills is automatically suspicious. However, some diet pills claim to block the absorption of fat, something that, at a first glance, seems possible. Could indeed something as small as a pill make our bodies extract less calories from fatty food? I assume ingesting some substances with more volume than a mere pill, like lots of fiber, would have it easier. But still, a pill could de/activate some mechanism, resulting in blocking fat digestion.--Doroletho (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Eating fats don't make you fat, so blocking absorption of fats just seems counterproductive to health. Eating excessive carbohydrates make you fat. If there's a pill that is proven to block absorption of starches and sugars, I don't know what it is. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
You just haven't looked in the right places.*800/TapewormDietPills.jpg
And please don't tell people that "Eating fats don't make you fat". Eating more calories than your body burns makes you fat. It matters little what form the calories take. See Healthy diet#Obesity. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Beware of Products Promising Miracle Weight Loss, from the FDA, the agency responsible for regulating drugs and medical products, and making sure the advertisements do not make unscientific claims.
In particular:
  • "Dietary Supplements are not FDA-Approved" - this means that if a product "isn't technically" a drug, the FDA will not validate the claims they make - even if the seller wraps the product up in a pill shape and puts it in pill-bottles for retail sales... as long as they technically make no medical claims
  • Any products that make medical claims - including drugs and things that technically aren't drugs - are still subject to regulation
  • A huge variety of products are sold in stores, and are not approved by the FDA. Such products were not put through rigorous independent scientific testing - but you can buy them and eat/drink them anyway (at your own risk of harm, let alone risk of being cheated by the merchant)
  • A huge variety of products, including drugs, are approved for treating obesity, or otherwise assisting with weight loss, but those products must be subjected to intense scrutiny - especially about the way they are advertised to consumers
  • Widespread efforts by scammy companies to circumvent that scrutiny are the reason why FDA publishes consumer protection messages, like this video: Health Fraud Scams - Weight Loss
I can't find a short statement by FDA that clearly specifies whether the words "weight loss" or "diet pill" are categorically regulated as "medical claims," which probably means that they evaluate each product or situation on an individual basis. Egregious violaters who get caught lying about their unregulated medical products can be subject to civil or criminal action.
Nimur (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Excellent post. I would add that if you sell a pill with nothing in it but inert filler, the FDA will approve it as being safe without approving it as being effective, then the ads scream "FDA Approved!". Homeopathic quackery does this all of the time. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't a hoemopathic pill that contained nothing kill you from an overdose? (slightly labored reworking of an excellent joke) Greglocock (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The Amazing Randi regularly starts out lectures by sending someone to the local drug store to purchase homeopathic sleeping pills and then when they arrive he "overdoses" on stage. I think that CVS, Walgreens, etc. should stop selling things that they know don't work.
BTW, I created 37 new homeopathic articles on Wikipedia this week. no, not articles on homeopathy; I wrote an article, diluted it a million times, and posted the result. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't underestimate the power of such pills. And they can do harm. Count Iblis (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Some of the stuff sold over-the-counter can be actually harmful. "And if you’re about to take what you think of as “natural” dietary supplements, aware that FDA has found some of these products also contain hidden active ingredients contained in prescription drugs.", In general, it is not safe to assume that a material is inert, let alone safe in large quantity, simply because it's a "homeopathic" remedy. Worse still, some of these products are (accidentally or intentionally) mislabeled, tainted, or contain active substances that can cause serious harm.
Here is a list of a few hundred products including "herbal remedies" and "natural bee pollen pills" that were found to be illegally tainted with hidden ingredients, often including active drug ingredients that would normally be prescribed by a real medical doctor for totally different medical purposes. Selling a controlled substance and calling it a natural remedy is not only bad, it is actually the most prevalent and widespread drug crime in the United States. Real actual drug crime! The very stuff they don't turn into big-budget Hollywood action movies! In 2016, deaths related to illegal use of controlled prescription drugs exceeded deaths from cocaine and heroin combined.
Even if we know or suspect that a product's claims are pure "quackery," we would be wise not to automatically conclude that the product itself is a totally safe and inert substance - especially in large doses. Nimur (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a citation that shows that any FDA-approved (for safety, not effectiveness) homeopathic medicine has ever been been tainted in this way? "Since 1988, it has been the de facto policy of the FDA to treat homeopathic remedies listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States (a collection of homeopathic ingredients and practices continually updated since 1897), as safe and legal to market — so long as that marketing does not meet the FDA’s definition of making fraudulent claims."[32] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC), yes. There are just so many more - hundreds of cases each year - and this one example is simply the very first instance I found, after a very cursory reading through the FDA informational page.
In fact, just this week: June 18, 2018, "A 35-year-old Corpus Christi woman has pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute and one count of receiving a misbranded drug in interstate commerce..." "The FDA found a number of the products X2Zero sold as “herbal weight loss supplements” to contain misbranded or unapproved foreign drugs." The defendant "knowingly possessed and sold diet drugs containing sibutramine," a drug illegal to sell in the United States because it "increased risk of heart attack, stroke and death."
Point being, we don't have to look hard for examples of herbal diet remedies with nasty, often illegal, contaminants.
Nimur (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The pill that blocks fat absorption is orlistat, which is, in fact, FDA approved. I have never personally seen a plausible explanation for the "fat burning" pills, and honestly, that sounds like a really dangerous thing to do, just messing with your metabolism. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

Ecoregions follow-up[edit]

OK, here's Part 2 of the question I asked earlier about ecoregions of North America (and the real reason why I asked in the first place): Which ecoregions of the United States do not have any native Papilionidae (swallowtail butterfly) species, except maybe near boundaries with other ecoregions, or as very rare vagrants? (NO PHOTOS OF SWALLOWTAIL BUTTERFLIES PLEASE, but maps of their native range are always welcome, especially if these have state lines, major cities and/or ecoregion boundaries shown for reference!) Oh, and I'm asking only about the continental USA -- I know that these critters are found pretty much everywhere in Hawaii, but you won't find them at all in Alaska! 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:4960:40AC:D40E:12AC (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No swallowtail butterflies here
The Imperial Dunes in the Yuma Desert
See distribution map: [33]
Note: Canadian tiger swallowtail (Papilio canadensis) is indeed distributed in Alaska.
The main blank area in the map roughly corresponds with the Yuma Desert section of the Colorado Desert region of the Sonoran Desert.—2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks... for the bad news! :-( So, how big can each of these critters grow (maximum size)? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:4960:40AC:D40E:12AC (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The largest butterfly that can be found naturally in the United States is the Giant Swallowtail (Papilio cresphontes) with a wing span of 4-6 inches.[34]2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
And the ones which are shown on the map? How big can they grow? (BTW, I was pretty sure P. rutulus could grow to 6 inches or more -- but maybe that's just me being too frightened to estimate size accurately! Or maybe it was P. cresphontes I saw on all those occasions -- is it native to California and/or Oregon?) 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:4960:40AC:D40E:12AC (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Trademark symbols in academic writing[edit]

In academic writing is there any point in putting trademark symbols for company names and products like Thermo Fischer Scientific or SYBR Safe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

For company names, probably not, unless confusion is likely for some reason without it. For products, it may sometimes be useful. I have seen quite a number of papers using a trademark symbol when giving the proprietary name of a drug. For example, even doctors seeing the names diltiazem and Cardizem might not be certain which is the generic name and which is the proprietary name. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I've never used or seen it in published academic writing. I wouldn't. If it was a requirement, the author guidelines for your journal of choice would say to do it. In my experience. none do. Fgf10 (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's one (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd say omit ™ (and the related ® too) in general, if possible. Just use consistent and proper capitalization and spelling. From the Chicago Manual of Style: "Although the symbols ® and ™ often accompany trademark names on product packaging and in promotional material, there is no legal requirement to use these symbols, and they should be omitted wherever possible." source

--Doroletho (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Estimating tree mass: is height and species enough?[edit]

How accurately can a tree's mass be estimated, given only its height and species? NeonMerlin 22:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Try GlobAllomeTree. Alansplodge (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

Where is the south pole of a power meter's north pole?[edit]

I've read that a magnetic monopole has never been observed. In Toronto in the early 2000s, I used a magnetic compass for some science-class work and noticed that when close enough to a power meter, it would always mark the meter as the magnetic north pole. (My neighborhood was of older semidetached houses; I was told my home at the time had been built in the 1950s.) Where is the south pole of a magnet, whose north pole is a power meter of the type I would have observed? NeonMerlin 03:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

If I understand your question properly, the "north pole" would be the compass needle's attraction to the meter's electromagnetic field (EMF) -- and in effect, the "south pole" would be, in this case, "ground". 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
No. The compass needle aligns itself along a Field line that emerges from a south magnetic pole and curves through space to return to a north magnetic pole. Both these magnetic poles are located inside the electric power meter and produce an external Magnetic field. This could be prevented by shielding the meter with an iron case. DroneB (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

June 24[edit]

looking for news about some guy who dies due to using deodorant or perfume[edit]

I'm looking for news from many years ago (maybe 10-15 years ago) about a guy that died due to using of deodorant or perfume. In this news they explain that it's not healthy to use them because of that. I don't have any lead for these news. (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Capewell or Daniel Huxley, mentioned in our List_of_unusual_deaths#1990s. Brandmeistertalk 09:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Highest possible limit in nature[edit]

What accelerates the fastest particles in nature? Something that's moving below that speed?

And what is the highest possible frequency of an electromagnetic wave? Can a process cause a frequency higher than its own frequency? --Doroletho (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you reviewed Electromagnetic radiation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Yep, but there's no hint of a frequency limit. --Doroletho (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question. The sun gives off sunlight, which moves at, well, the speed of light while the sun itself moves at a much lower pace (it will depend on which POV you measure from, but it's much less than the speed of light). The highest frequency electromagnetic waves are classified as gamma rays; the article lists some sources, including thunderstorms here on earth. Matt Deres (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The Speed of light 299,792,458 metres per second is a limit that particles cannot exceed so a particle's acceleration is described in terms of its energy or momentum, usually measured in electron volts (eV). Among Particle accelerators the Large Hadron Collider located underground near Geneva reaches a record 6.5 teraelectronvolts (TeV) per beam. Higher energy accelerators will require even larger curved tunnels due to the increased beam rigidity, see Particle accelerator#Higher energies.

The highest possible frequency of an electromagnetic wave is when its wavelength is in the vicinity of the Planck length, such as a Gamma ray of frequency 1020 Hz.

Can a process cause a frequency higher than its own frequency? Yes, when a single frequency (sinusoidal) signal is distorted by a non-linearity then harmonic component frequencies are produced at integer multiples of the input frequency, see Frequency multiplier. DroneB (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

How fast would a lineac have to accelerate protons and nuclei to disintegrate them without collision?[edit]

The neutrons and down quarks would be left behind if the electromagnetic field was strong enough to overcome the strong force right? How hard would it be to actually build a lineac that can make an electromagnetic field strong enough to break nuclei or protons? Is it like something we could build (in space?) with $100 billion or $10 trillion or is it forbidden by the known laws of physics or somewhere in between? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


June 15[edit]

Generalizing Markov chains of a certain type to the continuous case[edit]

Consider Markov chains where the transition matrix is a doubly stochastic matrix. Is there any natural generalization of this to continuous-time and/or continuous-state-space stochastic processes?

In particular, Markov chains of this type with transition matrix have the following property:

for all

In English, the entropy of the probability distribution vector over the states always increases as the chain evolves.

Is there a family of stochastic processes which generalizes this to the continuous case that preserves (the equivalent of) this property? PeterPresent (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's been a couple days and while I don't know enough about the subject to give a definitive answer, I do think it's an interesting question and deserves a response. First, from what I'm reading, the definition of the entropy of a continuous distribution is open for debate; the simplest version is Shannon's Differential entropy but there is also the more complex but more rigorous Limiting density of discrete points put forward by Jaynes. In any case, it seems simpler to tackle the continuous time/discrete state space variation first.
It's clear that whatever variation you're talking about, if entropy is do be non-decreasing then the process must leave the distribution with maximum entropy unchanged. For a discrete state space you get the maximum entropy with the uniform distribution, so the process must leave the uniform distribution unchanged. For discrete time (a Markov chain), this amounts to saying that DJ=J where J is the vector of all ones, and this is just another way of saying that D is doubly stochastic given that D is already stochastic. Another necessary condition is that small variations away from the uniform distribution don't get larger. For discrete time this is guaranteed by the fact that a stochastic matrix has no eigenvectors with absolute value >1. A simple model of continuous time is:
where P is a vector representing the probability distribution and A is matrix whose columns sum to 0, i.e. JA=0. The solution to the differential equation is:
and if this is to make sense as a probability distribution all the entries of eAt must be between 0 and 1. If the process is to preserve the uniform distribution as required then in addition AJ=0. In this case eAt is a doubly stochastic matrix and by appealing to the discrete case the entropy is non-decreasing.
I think another generalization that might be looking into to drop the assumption that all states are equally probable a priori, maybe a variation on conditional entropy. If the process has a distribution which is the limit no matter the initial state, then perhaps this should taken into account in the definition of the entropy of the system. None of this seems to cover Brownian motion though, and you would think this would have increasing entropy by thermodynamics, not sure what this would mean formally though. Again, not really my area so hopefully this makes sense and sorry if I'm reinventing the wheel here. --RDBury (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I guess continuous time is easier than continuous state space because there are ways to define when is a real number. PeterPresent (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the next step should be discrete but infinite state space, as in a random walk. Seems like a lot of room for exploration here, but I have no idea if it's all been done, it's an area of current research, or it's wide open, or it could be I'm wrong and it's just a dead end. --RDBury (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Use of gauge functions in perturbation methods.[edit]

I am learning perturbation methods for solving nonlinear vibration problems. I am unable to understand the use of gauge functions properly. What does the term "is order of" or "O(big oh)" symbol actually mean. Is it same as the order of magnitude of a number. For example the book I am referring to says sin(∈) is order of ∈ as ∈ → 0. What does this actually mean? What is the difference between O(big oh) and o(small oh) symbol? Can anybody explain with a few examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anildubey.sbp (talkcontribs) 14:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

See here: Big O notation. 2A02:C7D:B3A8:B900:34F8:8E73:7194:15C (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

June 17[edit]

Convergence of Taylor expansion[edit]

I asked Wolfram Alpha to show me the Taylor expansion of x^.5 at 1 so I could check my math. But it included a region of convergence. Can someone tell me how to determine the region of convergence? RJFJR (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@RJFJR: For one-variable Taylor series, the Cauchy–Hadamard theorem provides a straightforward formulaic way to determine the radius of convergence. In this case, we have a Taylor series given by from which we clearly see that the limit superior of the nth root of the absolute value of the nth term is 1 as , yielding a radius of convergence of 1. This can perhaps more easily be demonstrated using the ratio test. Since we took the expansion about , the result follows.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

Difference between powers question.[edit]

2^3+1=3^2. Is there another pair of powers bigger than that that only differs by one? Or in other words, does there exist a,b,c & d s.t. a^b+1=c^d where a,c>0, b,d>1 and a^b > 8.Naraht (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No – see Catalan's conjecture, which is actually a theorem. Loraof (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Is entropy in the mind of the beholder?[edit]

的我国我 might be completely random for a westerner. I don't know to what degree the next character is unexpected, but a Chinese speaker might recognize some order here. And 0112358132134... might seem random to some, until you expand it to 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, ... and realize the rule behind it.

So, could reasonably argue that a string does not have a fixed unique entropy? Or at least that entropy is a range? --Doroletho (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link to Entropy (Information theory). Loraof (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
There's a lot that can be said about this, but the bottom line is that you are absolutely correct. There is very deep confusion in the industry about password strength (which I assume is what you mean by entropy), even among professionals.
The term "entropy" is misused; strings don't have entropy. Entropy is a property of distributions and random variables, and in particular, processes to generate strings. All those online calculators where you put in a string and they give you "its entropy", what they're really doing is trying to guess what the process that generated the string was, and tell you its entropy. This can lead to absurd results. For example, if you put in 0112358132134, they'll assume the process was "choose 13 random digits" and give high entropy, when in reality your process was "concatenate the first 10 terms of the Fibonacci sequence", which arguably has an entropy of 0 since no randomness was involved. Likewise, the displayed entropy will jump through the roof if you put ! in the end, since it will now assume that all characters where chosen randomly from an alphabet that includes special characters, where in fact all you did was add a character at the end.
Another issue is that, even when talking about the underlying process, "entropy" is just the wrong concept to use. There are processes with huge entropies that genereate very weak passwords. For example, suppose I choose passwords this way: I roll a die. If I get 1, I choose a password with 1000 random digits. If I get anything else, I choose the password "0". This has a whopping entropy of 384 bits. And yet, when I generate passwords this way, 83% of the time I will get a password that can be cracked with 1 attempt. Not very strong.
So, strings don't have entropy - what they do have is Kolmogorov complexity, which is the length of the shortest program that can generate them. But this depends on what programming language we are talking about. For long enough strings, it doesn't matter much, because the complexities relative to different languages only differ by a constant number of characters. But for shorter strings, there is more leeway. A string like 0112358132134 will have higher complexity in a language which has no addition operation. A string like 的我国我 will have lower complexity in a language that has a dictionary of Chinese words available.
That might be a problem for calculators, but it's not really a problem for the person choosing a password. He just needs to choose a process that generates a password uniformly randomly between a large number of options, and he gets a theoretical (in the good sense of the word) guarantee on the difficulty of cracking it. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
的我国我 (Chinese) = My country I (English). DroneB (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "[t]here are processes with huge entropies that genereate very weak passwords": that refers to the Shannon entropy. You instead want passwords with high min-entropy to deal with this problem, and you can choose your generation process accordingly. I see that the article about min-entropy is confusing but it's basically -log2(probability of the most likely element of the distribution). So that gives a suitably low entropy to a distribution that makes one possible password being much more likely than the rest. (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't familiar with that term. But it's a bit of a stretch as a defense for the way the term "entropy" is used for password strength, since unqualified "entropy" pretty much universally refers to Shannon entropy. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Carlo Rovelli agrees that entropy depends on the observer. In The Order of Time he says "The entropy of the world does not depend only on the configuration of the world; it also depends on the way in which we are blurring the world, and that depends on what the variables of the world are that we interact with". Gandalf61 (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Meni Rosenfeld, when one discusses this topic mathematically (say in the theory of randomness extractors), it is usual to use min-entropy as the entropy measure. Shannon entropy is more relevant to topics like thermodynamics or data compression. (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
This comment makes no sense to me. Both because it appears you somehow consider the topic of data compression and related issues in statistics & probability theory to be non-mathematical; and because, AFAICT, Shannon entropy is of great importance in randomness extraction, which you mentioned, as well. If you have a sequence of iid random variables , and you want to extract from it, say, a sequence of iid uniform bits, then I'm fairly sure the number you can asymptotically get per input variable is the Shannon entropy of the domain. Also, the Wikipedia article you linked specifically mentions "min-entropy", rather saying just "entropy" and assuming it will be understood as min-entropy. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't mean data compression is non-mathematical, but by "this topic" I specifically meant measuring the entropy of distributions of things like passwords or encryption keys (like in the context of cryptography or extractors). Shannon entropy is not too useful for that for the reason you've already described: a skewed enough distribution (low min-entropy) can still have high Shannon entropy. For an extractor it seems to me that the asymptotic case is not very interesting: you want to get good random output from a fixed amount of input, and if you have no better measure than the Shannon entropy of the input, you could need an awful lot.

E.g. if the sample space of your X_i's are 128-bit numbers and the probability distribution is all-zeros 99% of the time and uniform 1% of the time, the Shannon entropy is 1.36 bits per sample if I did that right. But if you input 94 samples expecting ~128 bits of input entropy, you have 39% chance of having put nothing but zeros into the extractor. (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

Bathroom tiling question...[edit]

From sitting on the john and studying the floor...

An 8x8 grid is to be tiled with 1x1, 1x2 and 2x2 squares. How many ways can

  • The grid be tiled with no restrictions
  • The grid be tiled with no line dividing line passing completely through the square (For each row n & n+1, there is a tile that is across both rows. Similarly for column n& n+1)
  • The grid be tiled so that no 2 2x2 squares share a side or halfside.
  • Both of the above two limitations...

Naraht (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Just considering the first problem, if it just pure 1x2 dominoes, that is called the dimer problem in physics or domino tiling in mathematics and is exactly solved, that is, there is an analytic formula. But as far as I know, the monomer-dimer problem, which includes 1x1 and 1x2 tiles, is unsolved analytically. To compute this for 8x8 and all three tile types, one would probably need to do some computer work. --Mark viking (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
AFAIK, the only non-trivial case where a general formula for tilings of an mxn rectangle is known is with dominoes only. (There is a formula for diamonds tiling hexagons though.) What generally happens is that you can find a formula for kxn rectangles for small fixed k, but the formula gets exponentially more complicated as k increases. There is quite a bit of literature on tiling with polyominoes, but I think it's mostly concerns whether tilings exist rather than actually counting them. --RDBury (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

June 24[edit]

Clifford algebra vs. geometric algebra[edit]

Judging from the articles, Clifford algebras and geometric algebras are defined almost exactly the same way, but then the articles don't seem very specific about the relationship between the two. Is one a variation/generalization of the other? --RDBury (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is a geometric algebra is a real Clifford algebra with a non-degenerate quadratic form. So Clifford algebras are a generalisation of geometric algebras. The name "geometric algebra" emphasises the geometric nature of these algebras, as most interesting applications of Clifford algebras arise from such geometric algebras.
I know though that this is not universal – my favourite reference on geometric algebra, Lounesto’s "Clifford Algebras and Spinors" call such algebras Clifford algebras. Other sources call them geometric algebras – Hestenes e.g..--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I gather it depends on context as well; the videos I'm watching on geometric algebra talk about blades and oriented areas but I don't think you'd see that much in a discussion of Clifford algebras even if the underlying structure is the same. Your answer clears things up a lot, but I was already a bit familiar with Clifford algebras in the context of representation theory, so perhaps 'interesting' is in the eye of the beholder. --RDBury (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Trouble understanding article on Multilateration[edit]

Question on Multilateration

I have asked this question before, but I got a totally confusing answer - it implied that the underlying maths of the provided solution were incorrect. I don't believe this likely. It is almost certainly my misunderstanding, so I'll ask again.

I have been having great difficultly implementing equation 7 in the article.

I have 3 receivers. I have modified equation 7 by simply removing the z terms (and Cm), as I can only do a 2D fix with 3 receivers. So I have receivers P0, P1 and P2, i.e. 0 <= m <= 2 as per Fig 2.

When you substitute the values into equation 7, I only have a single set of data m=2 to substitute. This gives me 1 equation with 2 unknowns (x,y). There will be an infinite number of solutions.

What am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhillman (talkcontribs) 14:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Mathematics/2017 November 8. Since I was the one who wrote the "confusing answer" before I'll refrain from further comment. --RDBury (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


June 15[edit]


Why didn't the Eurypontid king of Sparta fought alongside Leonidas at the Battle of Thermopylae? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You may be able to find out more at Battle of Thermopylae. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
See Spartan Constitution#Dual Kingship. By that time Sparta had passed a law requiring one king to always stay home. Basemetal 02:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Synthesis in articles[edit]

Take this content dispute to the article talk page - Arch dude 16:14, 18 June 2018.

(edit conflict)x2 Both the article and the talk page are protected.
Take this content dispute to the article's talk page
Link to latest discussion Special:Permalink/845717829#A problematic Rembrandt image

At Souliotes a claim that the Italian word Albanese means (among other things) "Albanian soldier" was removed as synthesis because it was sourced to a military, rather than a general dictionary. At Islamic calendar there is a far more blatant synthesis which has defied removal for nine years despite having no source whatsoever. Its basis is that a picture coincidentally appears at a point in Al-Biruni's text where he discusses Muhammad's prohibition of intercalation and must be, therefore, a picture of that event. When it is pointed out that Muhammad made the ruling while seated on a camel far from the nearest mosque the supporters of the description just roll their eyes and say nothing. I say "coincidentally" because the next picture, two folios along, is "Isaiah sees the Messiah accompanied by the prophet Muhammad", but Isaiah is not mentioned in the book. Can we get consensus to remove this description once and for all? (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

  • This is the Humanities reference desk. discussions of article content should go to the article's talk page, and if consensus cannot be achieved, shou8ld follow the dispute resolution procedures. See WP:DISPUTE. Note that "synthesis" is often brought into these discussions in various inappropriate ways, so you have my sympathy. See WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTSYNTH, and the many related essays. -Arch dude (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I support Arch dude's statement: what reference do you need? If you want to resolve a dispute, that is not going to be done at the reference desk. --Lgriot (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The article's talk page is not protected and has never been protected as far as I can tell from the logs. If I am wrong, please provide a link to the log. In any case the humanities reference desk is not the forum for any stage of the dispute resolution process, so even of you cannot edit the talk page, you still need to go elsewhere. See WP:DISPUTE. Further attempts to use this page inappropriately will cause someone, probably me, to recommend that you be blocked. This has nothing to do with the validity of your arguments: I have no opinion on the subject. If you want your arguments to be considered objectively, you must take them to the correct forum. -Arch dude (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The IPs in this thread were the usual User:Vote (X) for Change socks. Removed some of their stereotypical rants. Fut.Perf. 21:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Teaching history in young countries millenia from now[edit]

How would history teachers and professors, and textbooks in young countries like the United States teach a history school class or a college/university course without missing any details 1000 years from now or 5000 years from now? Let me use the U.S as an example because I grew up and live there. How will things like the Civil War, the Great Depression,m, 9/11, etc. be taught millennia from now? Will some details or events not be taught anymore to cram up everything in 1 textbook, class, or course due to time and number of events that have taken place? Can some light into this be shed in how American history was taught 100 years ago or is it still too early and few of years to tell?

On the same line, once a country gains independence, how many years does it usually for textbooks to be written and for school classes and college courses to be made about the full history of that country? Willminator (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

  • As it says at the top of the page, we don't predict or speculate here. In this case we would need to make predictions about the nature of civilization and humanity 1000 years hence. Your question assumes that civilization would teach history approximately as it does today (teachers, professors, textbooks...) which is extremely unlikely. See technological singularity as one of hundreds of alternatives. -Arch dude (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You necessarily have to "miss details" in order to cover 5,000 years worth of history. Consider World War II, where there's a ton of material. Even today, how would you cover every detail of the war in a conventional history class? The answer is that you wouldn't. You would have to summarize, and the more years that pass, the more you would have to summarize, to hold the class down to a couple of semesters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To address your last point, in the case of Lithuania which became independent from the USSR in 1990, the first history textbooks were produced within a very short time, as the pre-independence books were heavily dominated by Soviet ideology. Lithuanian historians attended various seminars and courses at Western European universities before writing the next generation of textbooks which conformed to modern educational theories and about 50 history textbooks have been produced in Lithuania since 1990. See Contemporary History Textbooks in Lithuania: The Case of Innovations (pdf download). Alansplodge (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
We are not supposed to make predictions here, but I very much doubt whether any American history will be taught at all in 5000 years (or any British or European history). Such organisations will probably be totally forgotten except possibly for specialist research. Dbfirs 19:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean, yeah, looking back 5000 years ago, famous cultures included the Egyptians, the Indus Valley Civilization, the Sumerians, the Minoans, the (Shang and Xia dynasties, and the beginnings of the Trojans. The Egyptians are mentioned in what is currently the most widespread religious text (and Egyptology was a huge craze during the Victorian era), while the Trojans are mentioned in a rather popular legend that gets the occasional movie or miniseries. If I met someone offline who had even heard of the others, I would not regard their knowledge of history as "average" by any means. Then there's the nationalist focus that most nations' high school history courses have, and the simplification of complex issues to make things more testable. During the late second millennium, a region called "Murica" occupied a middle strip of modern Norama on Sol IV (at that time Sol III). Murica discovered electric and nuclear power, developed space flight, and began a centuries-long but ultimately successful peasant rebellion in 1776. This rebellion resulted in the most popular model of government until humanity's extinction several centuries later -- anarcho-totalitarian communo-capitalism. Our current system of government was created in response to the flaws of anarcho-totalitarian communo-capitalism, which had not only caused humanity's extinction but had also denied political rights to dolphins. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
And the first major battle of that rebellion was 1775. Pfft, 8th millennium dolphin history.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Nah... all of knowledge of Earth’s history will be forgotten during the dark age that will sweep the solar system after fall of the Martian Empire. Blueboar (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The dark age may already be creeping up on us; " in six youngsters said they thought Auschwitz was a Second World War theme park". [35] Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Add to that, the number of Holocaust deniers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You're probably best off turning to science fiction for explorations of this topic, since any "non-fictional" predictive attempts will probably be as far off-base as Albert Speer's designs of buildings for ruin value turned out to be. Assuming the absence of catastrophic events like civilization collapse of human extinction though, and also the non-occurrence of a technological singularity, there will be a lot more recorded materials preserved than we in the present day have from the time of (say) the ancient Sumerians. So that can possibly give a different understanding. (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

TV Tropes has examples of this kind of thing in media. Future imperfect--Pacostein (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Five thousand years previously, 3000 BCE, we lack adequate texts to apply the techniques of the modern understanding of the written past (History / Historiography). Currently the scholarly discipline of "History" has a lock hold over adequate accounts of the "written past," (WP:HISTRS) which is how most people perceive "history," as opposed to other disciplines regarding the natural past or physical remains of cultural beings. As far as the dolphins go, Posadas was right, drop the bomb now. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Have you read The Histories by Heroditus? I guess not - I suppose that fate awaits our current histories. Perhaps they will even disappear like many of the histories which disappeared with the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Or perhaps they will just seem strange like the histories of China, much of which was also burnt. Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Regions - Is the U.S. Census Bureau's map definitive?[edit]

Hello, I have used the U.S. Census Bureau's map of the U.S. Regions [1] as a guideline in my work doing market research because it makes sense that their map would be the best one to use to find what the U.S. government considers to be the correct regional borders. However, while Washington DC is listed as part of the South-Atlantic region in the U.S. Census Bureau map, it is listed in the Wikipedia article on Washington DC as belonging to the Mid-Atlantic region. When I clicked on the "Mid-Atlantic" link, it took me to the page on regions, where there clearly is a lot of disagreement about regional borders. I can understand why/how there might be some disagreement at the U.S. Census Bureau about regions before they make their final decision and publish their map - but once it's decided and the map is published, aren't all arguments put to rest? Thanks SouthATXEditor (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no level of government between states and the federal government. The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to group states into regions in any mandatory way. Neither the federal or state governments can prevent individuals from speaking or writing about multi-state regions any way they want to. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
This might be the way it is in your country but that's not how it is in the US. Although different parts of the Census map have different levels of currency. i.e. New England is pretty much always the states northeast of New York if you're dividing by state but not even Midwesterners and Southerners agree exactly which states are those (besides their own state and usually the ones immediately adjacent) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that Southwest Connecticut could still be considered to be not New England. It was surely more New Englandy before commuting to New York became practical but it now has a lot of New Yorkers that moved there for whatever advantage Connecticut has (I'm not making fun, state sales/property/fuel/income taxes, school spending etc. vary between states and I barely know 1 New Jersey tax rate much less anything about the further Connecticut) or just that it had the house/suburb/whatever they wanted and they didn't move for the state. Most NFL and MLB fans there root against the New England Patriots and Boston Red Sox (basically the New England Red Sox) when they're playing their favorite team. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, but to me they emphasize the point that there needs to be a single point of reference that everyone agrees on. There's no dispute about state borders or time zones; you can refer to a U.S. map and know exactly where the boundaries are between states and where the various time zones are. The same should be true for regions. We should not be in a situation where a bunch of people with various views on whether Virginia is or is not a Southern state are having a battle on Wikipedia -- changing it back and forth from South Atlantic to Mid-Atlantic (or more broadly, from South to Northeast). I just did a little more research, and the General Services Administration (GSA) has different designations on their map of regional borders ([2]) than the Census Bureau. Why do two federally-funded agencies produce U.S. regions maps with conflicting data? Maddening. -- I suppose the answer to the question is that if you are using regional designations in your work, you need to pick whichever map makes sense to you and note that as your standard (similar to designating an editing style, like AP) so others referring to your research know which states you a referring to when you designate a region, such as "the South." - Cheers! SouthATXEditor (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't even bother with the GSA's regions, they're really, really bad. North Dakota doesn't even have Rocky Mountains and South Dakota is flat except for a small spot (Black Hills) in the southwest corner which is surrounded by vast plains. At least they got the Great Lakes and New England regions right. Their Heartland region's very, very Heartland (especially the non-Missourian ones) but some will say it's too small. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
We don't NEED Federally mandated regions. The entire concept is just a matter of convenience. For example, most people don't consider Florida to be part of "the South" because it doesn't fit their definition. It causes no harm. No taxes or laws are currently based on regions. So, if you want to make up your own region, it is a free country. 2600:1004:B126:1672:91F1:9E3F:F63A:4842 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Digression: Florida as a whole, particularly urban Southern Florida, is not usually considered part of the South, but it's my impression that the Florida Panhandle is, and some of the swampy inland parts further south might also be. --Trovatore (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


I'm afraid there is no such thing as definitive U.S. regions. The Census Bureau regions were made specifically for collecting and reporting out Census Bureau data, they may or may not be appropriate for other uses, but they certainly weren't intended as anything other than a way to organize the Census' own internal operations. If they're convenient for you go ahead and use them, but other people are certainly going to use other regions, depending on what their own needs are. Kmusser (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

June 16[edit]


Which religion did he come from before Islam religion was created? (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

By descent Muhammad belonged to the Quraysh from Mecca who were polytheists (kuffaar). Almost everyone in Mecca were polytheists, that is, there were no Jews in Mecca (contrary to, say, Yathrib). However I don't know (and don't recall reading anywhere, though I'm no expert) that Muhammad himself had ever practiced polytheism. Now what I've just stated is the historically informed Western view. But ideologically Islam propounds another view. According to Islam any human being is born a Muslim and stays that way unless the family or circumstances turn them into something else (in which case they may "return" to Islam if they choose by converting, or, as Muslims say, reverting, uttering the Shahada and so on). In the Muslim view Muhammad did not "invent" Islam and Islam was not created. It'd always been the original religion of humanity that Adam, Abraham, etc. belonged to. So it is possible that, if it can't be shown that Muhammad actually practiced the polytheism practiced by his family, according to Islam, as he was born a Muslim he never ceased to be one. Basemetal 19:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The article Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia may be of interest for the general background. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. In particular if the OP will search for "Muhammad" in the text of that article they'll get more interesting facts that will help them clarify the relationship of Muhammad and his relatives to the religions of pre-Islamic Arabia. Basemetal 12:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Basemetal, where is this statement that everyone who has ever lived is born a Muslim to be found? Is it in the Qu'ran, Hadith, or elsewhere? (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a Hadith found in Sahih Muslim (maybe elsewhere too; just Google "Every child born Muslim"). Basemetal 15:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Yet another piece of information that makes a mockery of the claims one often sees, including in Wikipedia, saying "There are X followers of religion Y in the world." HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48, a mockery often seen on Wikipedia is assigning religion to newborns, infants, toddlers, and children in infoboxes and categories. Then again, one could say that having articles about them is a mockery in itself. Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Religions deserve articles. They impact on a lot of people. But you're right, numbers of adherents should only include adults who have publicly stated they believe. No idea where would get such figures, but without them we should include no numbers at all. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
We should follow what reliable sources say. If they count children we count children no matter how silly it might seem. Wikipedia is not in the business of sticking in our own opinions or original research. Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree that we have to follow reliable sources... the question is often which reliable sources to follow? Scholarly sources are best. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
If a source includes children in the number of believers in a religion, it's not reliable. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Religion is a complex mix of beliefs, traditions, values, rituals, etc. Children can believe or partake in many of those. To exclude children out of hand strikes me as taking a very narrow view of what religion (or believing in/following a religion) means. Iapetus (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
To include them is simply dishonest. Remember that "children" includes newborns. And I quite deliberately used the word "believers". Newborns are atheists. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Rubbish. Newborns don't fit into any system of beliefs or non-beliefs. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
A reasonable view. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
In the sense that stones are atheist, maybe. Newborns seem to be preoccupied with other matters that denying the existence of the divine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

June 17[edit]


is Odin a celestial deity (uranian god)? if no, what type of god is he?-- (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Define "celestial deity". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know the exact definition.-- (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Where did you see the term? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
the english for divinità uranica (italian) -- (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
In English, Uranian does not mean what you think it does (clicking the link will prove educative). It can also refer specifically to the planet Uranus, but it can't be applied to celestial objects as a whole. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Our chthonic article suggests that the relevant dichotomy may be expressed in English as Olympian versus chthonic. It does seem a bit odd to describe Nordic gods as "Olympian", though, whereas Uranus was apparently the personification of the sky. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
To come to the OP's defence, the OED defines one of the meanings of Uranian as "Relating to or befitting heaven; celestial, heavenly". --Antiquary (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
After poking around a little bit in our articles, it strikes me that Odin may make occasional journeys into the underworld, but can hardly be described as an underworld god, nor does he seem much like a nature god. On the other hand our Odin article says In later folklore, Odin appears as a leader of the Wild Hunt, a ghostly procession of the dead through the winter sky.
So I guess I'd say he's more like a sky god than a chthonic god, if those are the only two categories available, but neither really seems to fit all that well. --Trovatore (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
If Odin didn't stick around in the underground, maybe it was because he couldn't pronounce 'chthonic'. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the "uranian" term used above, but if it's meant to refer to gods tied to death and the underworld, Odin likely qualifies: leader of the valkyries, he spent time dead, and our article does refer to him as a psychopomp (love that word). Matt Deres (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
No, I get the impression that the OP is using Uranian to refer to gods tied to the sky (Uranus being the personification of the sky). --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
In the sense that he is the Norse equivalent of Zeus, Jupiter, etc. (etymologically at least), Tyr is the Norse celestial deity. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
then what type of deity is odin if he is not celestial deity?-- (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There is some information in our article about it - no one is really quite sure, apparently. He doesn't really fit into any categories from other Indo-European religions, so he might just be a unique Norse invention. When Scandinavians and Romans encountered each other, Odin was equated with Mercury (hence Wednesday/mercredi/etc). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It can be tough pinning down what a fictional character really is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Rather than looking for 'deity types', I recommend hunting for associations. Although some simplistic introductory texts will lead one to believe otherwise, the reality is that deities, including those venerated among the Greeks and Romans, develop from (and produce) complex histories that the simple [DEITY] of [FUNCTION] construction does not adequately communicate. Some associations remain through time, but others may occur under, for example, complex circumstances or may be absorbed from other circles. The Odin deity complex makes for a fine example. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

What type of picture is this?[edit]

Godshill Church c1910 - Project Gutenberg eText 17296.jpg

The caption at All Saints' Church, Godshill says "Painting of Godshill Church, circa 1910", but it doesn't look like a painting to me. It looks more like a hand-tinted b&w photo, but I'm not sure. Anyone who knows technically what this is, please go ahead and change the caption. Thanks. Mypix (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons credits it to Pictures in Colour of the Isle of Wight by Jarrod and Sons, at Project Gutenberg. The second paragraph of the book's foreword describes its illustrations: "being reproductions from actual photographs they may be relied upon as being true to Nature". In other words, the image was not made by tinting the photo (which presumably was B&W), but by copying it (and therefore adding color). -- (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I read "reproductions from actual photographs" as meaning "reproductions of actual photographs" (possibly with some tinkering). I don't understand it as meaning that a painting was made from scratch by copying a photograph, if that's what you're suggesting. Mypix (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Mass-production of colorized photos, via a lithography process, was pretty common in that era. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
A lithographic reproduction from a photo is not a painting. Even a lithographic reproduction from a painting is not a painting. If the source calls them "pictures" we should call them "pictures" too, the arbitrary change to "painting" smells to me of misguided original research. (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
Precisely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
"Even a lithographic reproduction from a painting is not a painting." I feel that is getting into the Ceci n'est pas une pipe argument. (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we need a new caption: "Ceci n'est pas Godshill Church" (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
Maybe more to the point, this would seem to suggest nothing on wikipedia should be described as a painting. For example the image to the right is not a painting or an oil on canvas
this is not a painting nor is it an an oil on canvas
. It's a digital photograph of a painting/oil on canvas. Nil Einne (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it's a pixilated computer-screen image of an electronically transmitted digital file encoding a digital photograph of a painting/oil on canvas (or something like that). Scott Adams specifically and graphically (hah!) addressed this issue at length in his Understanding Comics. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is getting a bit academic: we do write captions knowing that the reader can follow one or two levels of metaphor, such that the caption to a photo of a dog can state "This is a dog", the picture of a painting can have "This is a painting" and the painting by Magritte "Painting representing a pipe". My remark was about whether the picture of a lithography reproducing a painting can be called a painting, and I mean: no, you can call it a lithogrphy, not a painting. (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

But if you acknowledge that a reproduction can represent the object, then you have to acknowledge that it's not so simple. Is a lithography reproduction of a photo (or painting) sufficiently accurate that it can be fairly considered the original item? I'm not saying it is, but you can't simply dismiss it as not being the case because it's a reproduction which is what your initial comment seem to do. If you do that, then you will also have to do the same for the digital photo of the painting.

(Note that this isn't a completely abstract point. Sometimes, the only copy we may have of a photo may be of a scan from some book or magazine or whatever. Now the photo in the book or magazine or whatever may not necessarily have been made via lithography, but the question remains, do we always have to go into detail in the simple caption in an article? I strongly suspect you'll find the answer is no. We often simply describe them as photos, especially if the quality is sufficiently high e.g. with descreening etc. The image details should of course generally provide all known info on how the file was produced. Again I'm not saying this necessarily applies to lithographic reproductions, simply that it's not as simple as your original comment suggested.)

As for 87's point, you could go to that level, but IMO that's excessively getting into semantics at a level which is confusing given this discussion. It's reasonable to say that the file is the digital photo since we have no clear definition of what a digital photo is. Notably, I can image situations where my might want to specify it's a digital photo of the painting, but I think it's very rare you're going to want to specify it's a file especially when simply viewing it on a page. The computer screen image thing is more reasonable, however the pixilated thing seems unnecessary. Most forms of digital photography uses pixels, it's extremely rare to have digital photography without pixels.

Maybe more to the point, I could print out this page. It will now be a printout of a digital photo. It will not be on a computer screen. I mean obviously some people could have viewed it on a computer screen but it's theoretically possible someone viewing it never saw it on a computer screen. In other words, there's no requirement that the digital photo is viewed on a computer screen even if we expand the term widely to include TVs, smart phones etc, we have no way to know for certain how it is viewed. (And what happens when the AIs take over?) By comparison, it IMO always seems fair to call it a digital photo. I would add that we can see here how the file gets very abstracted from what we are viewing.

(Likewise the transmission. Even more so if for example I downloaded this page to a USB disk, as while technically the USB disk is still a form of electronic transmission, and electronic transmission is also going on in the computer the USB disk is plugged in to even if it's in a room completely cut off from the outside world and electronic transmission also happens to the printer, I'm not sure whether this is what most people are going to think of when you refer to electronic transmission.)

Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW I chose that specific painting for personal reasons but I was also conscious at the time it did bring something else in to play. Vincent van Gogh was known for his use of Impasto. While I'm not totally sure how much this applies to that particular Starry Night painting, the surface textural element of such paintings is one thing that isn't that well captured in simple 2D photos. While it may not be a required element of a painting or an oil on canvas (although all are likely to have some level of surface texture), it is clearly a particular element of certain paintings. You could easily change the issue from 'painting' to a specific painting like Still Life: Vase with Pink Roses. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

All right, the caption has been changed. (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

We do write captions of pictures of unidentified Imams (probably Ali) preaching in mosques saying they are Muhammad prohibiting intercalation (see "Synthesis in articles" above) although he did that on Mount Ararat while seated on his camel. At that level of metaphor readers will think that the Farewell Pilgrimage was attended by five people gathered around the minbar. Would it be advisable to change the caption? (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a question about transgender people in Botswana[edit]

On wikipedia's LGBT rights in Botswana page it says transgender rights were legalized last year. I would like to know where people in Botswana can go to a gender clinic and get their surgery done? I'm just curious as a lgbt activist. Sphinxmystery (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

According to [36], gender re-assignment surgery is not available in Botswana. As I understand it, the courts have accepted that a person who has undergone gender re-assignment surgery can have their "official" gender changed. That doesn't automatically mean that such surgery is, in fact, available in Botswana itself. Eliyohub (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Gender reassignment surgery is however available in South Africa. (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

June 18[edit]


What was the first museum that used audioguide?--2001:B07:6463:31EE:18BE:29CB:CC58:33C7 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There's some information in audioguide. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Banana label[edit]

Could someone remind me what company labeled its bananas with stickers showing a woman with a flower in the head (possibly pinning the flower to the head)? Not Chiquita. Thanks. (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Pretty Liza Bananas Ecuador ? -- (e.g.}2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

How can one prove that one has consummated the marriage?[edit]

A marriage is consummated by sexual intercourse. Does one just have to say that relationship has been consummated or not, or is more proof required? Children are obviously proof that the relationship has been consummated, but then, it is also possible that the wife has been unfaithful, and the man is not the father of the child. Where do same-sex couples fit in? Where do infertile couples fit in? Also, if consummation completes the marriage, then does that mean the partners in the marriage are obligated to engage in intercourse? If the wife refuses to engage in intercourse, then the husband can file for an annulment? If money is involved in the marriage deal, then the husband may demand a return of the money? What happens if the husband refuses to engage in intercourse? Can the wife ask for an annulment and a return of the dowry? SSS (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You state "A marriage is consummated by sexual intercourse." as if it is a law. Where is it a law? If we knew the legal system you are referring to, we can help locate laws on the subject. (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
In most of the United States, "failure to consummate" is considered legitimate grounds for annulment based on either statutory or case law. I'm assuming SSS is American based on prior questions, but I could be wrong. As to part of the question, this does not mean that an unconsummated marriage is not "complete" - the rules are typically rather strict. In California, for instance, it is generally required that one partner be incapable and/or unwilling to consummate, that this incapacity was not known to the spouse prior to marriage, and that annulment be requested within the first year of marriage.[37] Someguy1221 (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Lack of sex is a reason to dissolve a marriage (see for example Effie Gray), but it isn't mandatory. A platonic marriage is perfectly acceptable, as is a marriage of convenience most of the time, so no proof is required. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
In some cultures, it was formerly traditional to pass a bloodstained sheet from the bedroom on the wedding night, this supposedly attesting to the bride's virginity and the groom's virility... However, in Western cultures, the legal tendency has been for the law not to take note of, or examine, what goes on intimately between a married couple, unless there's a dispute and one or both persons are complaining. AnonMoos (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
In some cultures, it was not understood that nearly half of all women do not bleed after the first act of vaginal intercourse.
That said, the Catholic Church’s stance has long been that a) a marriage is not perfected until it is consummated, *but* equally b) a marriage is assumed to be true unless one of the parties applies for annulment. Basically non-consummation can be used as a reason to request annulment, but the Church doesn’t stick its nose into random marriages; if the parties don’t mind, neither does the Church.
As for evidence...the Church will of course ask the parties to the marriage if they’ve had sex but other evidence can also be gathered as well - what the parties said to others after the wedding night, for instance, or whether the woman has become pregnant (but given how commonplace modern reproductive procedures such as sperm donation and IVF are, that’s not remotely slam-dunk proof). Given that about half of women don’t possess a large enough hymen to be visible and many others don’t completely lose the hymen until childbirth, a physical exam is useless as evidence, although that wasn’t always understood in the past; even thirty years ago P.D. James had medical examiners in her murder mysteries affirming that a victim was virga intacta as a shorthand for “she wasn’t raped”. In reality it isn’t that easy to tell. -- (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
"...the Catholic Church’s stance has long been that a) a marriage is not perfected until it is consummated". There are many examples of older, widowed people marrying. It would be my guess that some never engage in sex. Is that against Catholic church rules? HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Many older Catholic women go to the altar after having informed their partners the marriage will be sexless. P D James was born in Oxford, educated in Cambridge and moved back to Oxford later. I doubt that she would have mis-spelt a Latin phrase, as suggested by 24.76 above. (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
That supposedly dead language, Latin, is showing signs of life. Edward Stourton lamented in Saturday's Daily Telegraph:
After an afternoon of binge viewing, how dearly I wish I could return to that state of grace, of virgo completely intacto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Birth date of Bud Grace[edit]

How come the birth date of comics creator Bud Grace is not known? 2A00:801:291:96C8:803F:161B:9CDC:B6DC (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

By what rule would you expect it to be public knowledge? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
He is not born in some backwards country where childbirths are not recorded. -- 14:14, 19 June 2018 2a00:801:291:96c8:2946:d6a4:4b07:679e
Childbirths are recorded in America, but they're not necessarily the general public's business. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Some public figures just don't want their birth details becoming public knowledge, so they never reveal it (except on official forms, which are, or ought to be, protected by privacy laws). If you really need to know, it might be necessary to do a search for a birth certificate, assuming the relevant jurisdiction allows access. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
If there is no record of him being born, then how can you know his identity, his parents (legal guardians when he was a minor), his existence? -- 14:14, 19 June 2018 2a00:801:291:96c8:2946:d6a4:4b07:679e
Why do you personally need to know that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Who says there is no record of him being born? All we know is that the date of his birth is not public knowledge. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Your IP geolocates to Sweden where everyone's date of birth is a matter of public record available for a small fee, very much as it is in my own country, the United Kingdom. In the United States this seems not to be so, otherwise the kerfuffle over Barack Obama's birth certificate couldn't have lasted as long as it did. Oddly, we don't have an article on Civil registration in the United States that I can refer you to. --Antiquary (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It is very much not so in the US (or in Canada, for that matter). Birth certificates are not available to the general public. Most people have some kind of government ID - driver’s license, picture ID for non-drivers - but owning ID is not mandatory and birthdates are most absolutely NOT considered anyone else’s business. Not only can’t you look up any random person’s date of birth, trying to do so would make any sensible, reasonable person think you were an identity-thieving scammer. -- (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that Obama thing always puzzled me.-- 14:14, 19 June 2018 2a00:801:291:96c8:2946:d6a4:4b07:679e
Obama was under no legal obligation to reveal his birth certificate. He did it voluntarily, in a vain effort to shut up the "birther" hoaxsters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
See birther. And for that matter, natural-born-citizen clause. Incidentally, Obama was not the first president this sort of thing has happened to. See Chester Arthur#Birth and family (in particular, the last paragraph of the section). -- (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Antiquary -- the title "Civil registration in the United States" wouldn't make all that much sense. In England, the main documentation of births/baptisms, marriages, and deaths was in the local parish registers of the official Church of England, until one day in the 19th century when the government decided to set up a central non-ecclesiastical registry. Analogous events in the United States were much more varied from state to state, and didn't necessarily involve an abrupt ecclesiastical to civil change. AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The day was 1 July 1837 (prior to this, Quakers and Jews were able to keep their own registers, but everyone else had to go through their local CofE parish church). See Births and Deaths Registration Act 1836 and Parish Registers, Civil Registration and the Family Historian. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I wonder how closely related this was to the increasing influence of the Wesleyans and the Catholics; as you get more and more Nonconformists, having the Church run everything is less and less useful because it's comprising a smaller and smaller share of the population. Compare that to the USA, where as you note it didn't generally work this way; there's never been a federal establishment of religion, and the last state establishment ended almost 200 years ago, thus necessitating government action if there were to be any centralised register. Outside some (all?) of the original colonies and a few other locations (e.g. Mexican Texas), there was never an establishment of religion in the first place, so registrations presumably didn't exist until the state started them. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Many non-Anglicans just didn't bother; "...increasing concern that the poor registration of baptisms, marriages and burials undermined property rights, by making it difficult to establish lines of descent, coupled with the complaints of Nonconformists, led to the establishment in 1833 of a parliamentary Select Committee on Parochial Registration". See General Register Office for England and Wales#Establishment. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The American equivalent would be the County Courthouse, which is where these things are typically registered in America. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Or city hall or the state department of public health or the hall of records or something else. You could live your whole life in one city and have your birth, marriage, divorce and death each recorded by different agencies. Rmhermen (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe he was actually born in Kenya, and took a job away from a real true blue Murican cartoonist. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

United Methodist Church precursor[edit]

The United Methodist Church was formed by the merger of a big Methodist church with a smaller body, the Evangelical United Brethren Church. What was the name of the big church? I always thought it was "The Methodist Church", with an included "The" similar to The New York Times, and this is supported by the 1995 edition of Mead's Handbook of Denominations. However, our article is Methodist Church (USA), not The Methodist Church (USA), and in the body "The" is generally not capitalised. Mead's 2010 edition doesn't capitalise "The". Does "The" appear in other sources? Does anyone have access to official publications from this denomination that would have its full official name? Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In the denomenation’s own official publications before the merger with the EUB the name was consistently “The Methodist Church.” Perhaps this was to distinguish it from other “Methodist” denominations such as the Free Methodists, so they were not seen as “just another bunch of Methodists, loosely termed.” When the phrase is used in the article it would seem appropriate to capitalize “The.” But like the article Ohio State University, whose official name is “The Ohio State University,” it is not necessary to include “The” in the article title or in every mention. Manual of style experts can doubtless chime in with rules and precedents. But “The” was clearly part of the denomenation’s self-styled official name before the merger. Edison (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the check. How is this different from The Hershey Company (listed in WP:THE as a situation where "the" is appropriate) or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Nyttend (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
When I was working at the head office of a large company we mislaid the file of an important customer. We turned the place upside down looking for it. Eventually the manager found it - the filing clerk (copying from the customer's letterhead) had titled it "The S------ Youth Centre" and filed it under "The". (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I am forever adding DEFAULTSORTs to articles titled "The ..." so that they don't end up category sorting under T for The. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

Do media critics who use various theories of literary criticism in their review of a work generally judge the overall quality of the work based on its messages?[edit]

For example, if a work has a political message that opposes feminism, would critics who subscribe to feminist theory at least in the academia of the western world be more negative regarding its overall quality because of it even if other qualities such as plots and characterization are solid? Is there any sites or online publication I could go to learn more about how these matters are handled? (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"CEO behind the product"[edit]

Does the phrase "John Doe, X-Group's CEO behind the new product..." make sense when John Doe is not the CEO of X-Group, but the CEO of an unmentioned subsidiary company that issued "the new product"? --KnightMove (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to me. Sounds like marketing hype. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
This is from a marketing hype statement. However, also such statements can be self-consistent and say what they want... or not. So... thank you for confirming it's not. --KnightMove (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No; as stated (although ambiguous), John Doe is the implied CEO of X-Group. Perhaps: " X-Group CEO who is..." would imply that there are other CEOs in X-Group, but John Doe is the one behind the new product (" X-Group CEO behind..." would erroneously imply that more than one CEO is behind the new product). —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest something like: “John Doe, CEO of Ycorp (a subsidiary of X-Group)” I think that would make things clearer for the reader. Blueboar (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Poem about an old white horse, hussars, and the Sudan Campaign[edit]

In the preface to The Poems and Plays of John Masefield John Masefield mentions one of the first poems which moved him - "A poem about An Old White Horse, in some way connected with the 10th Hussars in the Soudan Campaign. This poem appeared in a daily paper, perhaps The Standard, perhaps The Daily Telegraph,during or just after, the Soudan Campaign." I would like to know what the poem was. DuncanHill (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that must be "A Tale of the Tenth Hussars" by Clement Scott. Though it first appeared in Punch it could doubtless have been reprinted in either of those papers. But I don't understand, where's the Lloyd George connection? --Antiquary (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Brilliant, that must be it, thank you. I'm sure I've read it before, many years ago. Armed with that information, I was able to find the 10th Royal Hussars Gazette of January 1910, which reproduces the poem with a little more information. The battle was the Battle of El Teb on the 29th of February 1884, Trooper Hayes was this gallant chap, and from this, the Man on the Old White Horse was Baker Pasha. Haven't found a Lloyd George connexion, but was looking for the Masefield poem quoted by Nevil Shute in No Highway. Didn't find the poem I was looking for, but did find this. DuncanHill (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

June 21[edit]

People who had one child of one gender and then 5+ children of the other gender in a row[edit]

This is a trivia question and thus I am unsure whether to put it in this section of the Reference Desk or in another section. Anyway, though, here goes:

What cases have there been of a person having one child of one gender and then 5+ children of the other gender in a row?

So far, I can think of:

Anyway, who else qualifies for this list? Futurist110 (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this statistically, of families consisting of six children there is one chance in 32 of this happening. (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Going the other way, a chap I know is the youngest of 13 children. He has 12 sisters. DuncanHill (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a typical reason for unusually large families. A woman I know had a series of sons, and didn't consider the family complete until she had had a daughter. (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
My mother was the youngest of 5 daughters. They kept trying for a boy, but it never happened. They were so sure the 4th child would be a boy, they even named "him" Colin in utero, so when she turned out to be a girl, they just amended her name to Coline. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
That would be true if the split was exactly 50:50, but it's more complicated than that, even ignoring complications of the binary assignment of sexes at birth. Matt Deres (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Futurist, You can find a *lot* by searching Wikipedia for strings such as "son and five daughters". It's a skewed sample though, because most non-royal biographies don't list a birth order for children. More examples for you: (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It was indeed a classic bind for gentry, nobility, and royalty in the days of male primogeniture. Couples who had girls were under great pressure to produce a son-and-heir. The five Mitford sisters eventually acquired a little brother; the (fictional) five Bennetts did not. Even Diana, Princess of Wales grew up in a family of this sort. British nobility still has titles which pass to the eldest son, circumventing daughters entirely. I'd love to see some statistical analysis of how this has played out over the last 200 years: how many titled and propertied families had lots of daughters, and finally one son, versus how many had lots of sons, and kept on trying for a daughter. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Apologies; I mis-remembered the Mitfords. There was Pamela, known as the quiet one, making six sisters, and Tom wasn't the last child. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Nobody of any notability in Wikipedia terms, but my great grandparents Thomas Magill, shipyard driller and Jane, née English, who married in Belfast in 1899, had a daughter, Agnes, born in 1900, followed by seven sons between 1901 and 1917. Only three of the eight, all boys, lived to adulthood. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

is the DR still in the IACHR?[edit]

This question is regarding this edit of mine.

We have an AP news story from the end of 2014 that the DR had withdrawn from the IACHR. However, the IACHR annual report of 2017 still lists the DR as a member, though they do mention the two previous countries to have withdrawn. As the later source, and given how often news stories get even the simplest things wrong, I'd think the IACHR report would take precedence as a RS. But, does anyone actually know? If the DR has truly withdrawn, I should change the map as well. — kwami (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Background: K. Quincy Parker (November 17, 2014). "DR withdraws from IACHR". The Nassau Guardian. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Both that article and the AP article mentioned by the original poster say that the Dominican Republic Constitutional Court "In a 59-page ruling... said the country had to withdraw from the human rights court because the senate never issued a resolution to ratify the February 1999 agreement with the rights court as required by the Dominican constitution." It seems to me that this means the Constitutional Court was really claiming that the DR never was legally a member of the IAHCR. In this report issued the following year by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (also abbreviated IAHCR, at least on the cover), paragraph 133 on page 70 says that according to the Commission, the Dominican court did not have the power to make that decision, and paragraph 134 says that the DR's president was supposed to be presented with options regarding its position with respect to the Inter-American System, but this had not yet happened.
So in short, whether this is really a valid withdrawal seems to be disputed. I note in passing that if ratification really was the issue, then it would seem to make sense for the Dominican court to be the venue to decide it. But it seems likely quite possible that that was just a justification of a political decision. -- (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
That's in line with what I've read. I've lost the source, but one claimed that the court was happy to make numerous rulings based on the ratification being valid, until the IACHR pissed off the DR govt -- only then was the validity of the ratification called into question. Thanks for the ref,, I'll add it to the article. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Daily Star (United Kingdom)[edit]

Is the Daily Star a bit like American supermarket tabloids, or is it a tabloid in the size-of-paper sense only and thus worthy of being considered similar to other newspapers: good at reporting what seems important at the time, but mostly worthless at providing a balanced view of events? Nyttend (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's "news" about "reality" tv stars, soap actors, fad diets, tits, and the like. It's the downmarket sister paper of the Daily Express, if you can imagine such a thing. Not to be confused with The Star, The Morning Star, or The Morning Star. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
What are "American supermarket tabloids" (I've not encountered the term before). Are they like the Daily Sport? (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Pretty much. Tabloid journalism#Supermarket tabloids, although probably with less porn. Rojomoke (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
See Weekly World News or National Enquirer for a couple of examples. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Bat Boy from Hell Helping the War On Terror, Hitler's Still Alive (in his 110s, yeah right), Little Girl Lives Without Head, Psychic: Castro Will Die In 1999, Saturn-Like Rings Forming Around Earth (Easily Visible Next Year), Hillary Clinton Had Sex With Space Aliens, Alien-Human Orgy on International Space Station, African Tribe Can Levitate, interview with 400 lbs prostitute that only charges a box of donuts, things like that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The other one is celebrity gossip like Starlets With Horrible Cellulite. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Our article already notes that the Daily Star rarely covers political news and has no known political affiliation. "Although some of its headlines and stories could be considered 'reactionary' and traditionalist, the Daily Star has few articles on politics, and has rarely shown clear support for any specific party or leader." As for British newspapers in general, there is a classic joke from Yes Minister on them and their audience: "Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is. ... Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big tits." Dimadick (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It's grounded in reality, not fantasy, but only in the most tenuous and trivial way: Beckhams, not Bigfoot. It's somewhere between The Sun and the unlamented Daily Sport - the Spurt was more like a US supermarket tabloid, but with bread-and-circuses nudity too. Not of the remotest use here, even for coverage of the Beckhams (we have the Daily Mail for that). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Although it does sometimes take a trip into the absurd, see With ongoing Ebola crisis and terror of ISIS, the Daily Star newspaper has covered a much more important story on its front page for three days this week. Alansplodge (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've often wondered why it is that marketers of products generally are legally constrained under pain of heavy penalties to ensure they do not mislead the market about the nature, origin, content etc etc of products, yet these supermarket tabloids can just make up the most appalling outright lies about living people and they seem to have carte blanche. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
My teacher said the case would be a slam dunk but the public image damage of stuff as far out as "[married major politician X]'s love affair with extraterrestrial" is less than the public image damage of actually responding to libel that implausible. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure, that stretches credibility too far. But often they make claims that could be plausible, but turn out to be just made up by the copywriters, possibly in a drug- or alcohol-induced haze:
  • "Kate having twins: Palace confirms!" - she never was, and the palace never confirmed anything of the kind
  • "Posh and Becks commence acrimonious divorce proceedings!" - they've never been happier
  • "Prince Frederik comes out as gay; Princess Mary devastated! - no such revelation is known to have actually been made
  • that sort of thing. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Has Sweden or Oslo been completely landlocked by ice before?[edit]

(within recorded history) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not all that uncommon for the Oslo Fjord to become frozen. I have found news reports from 2010 about it. Don’t know if the entire coast of Sweden has ever become ice bound, but (to speculate) it could well have occurred during the Little Ice Age. Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
If we're to speculate, I'd be very surprised if it hadn't happened much later than that, but I can't find any reliable ice maps that show it. 2003 would probably be the last potential ice-covered year and 1985–1987 probably the best candidates in the last decades. /Julle (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There's a map for Feb 13, 1940 here showing the Kattegut choked with ice and the Baltic cut off. (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
"It is known that since 1720, the Baltic Sea has frozen over entirely only 20 times. The most recent case was in early 1987, which was the most severe winter in Scandinavia since that date". [38] Alansplodge (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
My previous was in fact copied from our Baltic Sea article. Alansplodge (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Sweden?? You realize that Oslofjord, like Oslo itself, is in Norway, yes? You might find this link useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2018 (yes)
Yes, I know the coast stops being Sweden before reaching Oslo. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. The border runs to south of Sponvika. But obviously it's the same sea. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic, but March Across the Belts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

Does sexual consent apply to prostitutes?[edit]

I am talking about legal prostitution. Suppose a person enters a brothel in Nevada (because that's the only place where prostitution is legal) and probably asks for a sexual service with a prostitute. Does the person in charge of the brothel ask the prostitute to give sexual consent to have sex with the client? If the prostitute refuses to perform the sexual service, then does the prostitute still get paid? Or will the brothel just find another prostitute, another worker, who is willing to satisfy the client's needs? Can the client ask the brothel in advance what kind of services they offer, who is available, and what services that specific prostitute will do? Or are all prostitutes willing to perform ANY kind of sexual service upon request and payment? SSS (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The article on Prostitution may provide some insights. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a small correction. Nevada is NOT "the only place where prostitution is legal". It is legal in many other parts of the world, including where I live. (And where that is doesn't matter.) Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. Obviously different legislation applies in different places. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course consent applies to prostitutes. And of course all prostitutes won't do ANYTHING sexual. This sicko was so S&M he could only cum by humping disemboweled bellies, it'd be very hard to find even a suicidal human willing to die that way. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

In Victoria, Australia. If a prostitute does not give consent and you still have sex with her, then it is rape and you go straight to jail. And DO NOT expect the law to give you leniency because she is a prostitute.

Oh by the way, if the prostitute does not give consent then what occur between you and her is NOT prostitution, so whether the prostitute is working legally or illegally is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

And now the Victorian Sentencing Manual has finally been updated so reduced sentences can’t be given to offenders who assault sex workers.

The manual now states “that the mere fact a victim of a sexual offence was a sex worker will, of itself, have no effect on sentence. Rather, what is relevant are the consequences of the offence for a particular victim”.

If a prostitute does not give consent, then she has to refund your money in full. (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The IP is correct. If a prostitute refuses to serve a particular client after taking his money (realistically e.g. because whilst "inspecting" him "down below", she suspects he may have a sexually transmitted disease; or, in rare cases, simply because his "equipment" is too big), the client's entitlement by law is to a refund. By no means is he entitled to rape the prostitute. Forcibly taking his money back (if she refuses to return it) may be murkier. Seek legal advice. Note that here in Victoria, Australia, legal brothels and escorts are, oddly enough, regulated by the "Department of Consumer Affairs" (true story!), so the standard recourse to disputes over goods and services are available. EDIT: See here for the Consumer Affairs page re obtaining a sex worker's licence. The same website also addresses complaints about goods and services. Eliyohub (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Since this is dealing with legal prostitution, it's simple enough to ignore the actual word "prostitution" and think in terms of a general payment-for-service transaction. Doing so, these ideas that apply to a variety of jobs become pretty apparent:
  1. Being "on the job" doesn't excuse any kind of sexual assault and any employer or customer who argues otherwise should be responded to as though they made a threat of violence (because they did).
  2. No service = no payment, both ways.
  3. If one employee declines carrying out a particular service, another employee might carry it out. The employer may have a policy restricting certain services, though.
  4. Most employees in customer services would rather not deal with known difficult customers and will either try to pass them off on newer employees who don't know better or onto more experienced employees who know how to handle those specific customers. A few might volunteer to take the difficult customer in exchange for some sort of favor. Notoriously difficult customers may be asked to leave by management or even banned from future transactions.
  5. Working with customers' bodily substances (whatever they are and whatever the reason) is a health hazard. There are undoubtedly going to be government regulations that the employer should be aware of, and any employer worth working for will have additional policies (if only to reduce the chance of lawsuits). Employers who refuse to provide protective equipment and customers who expect employees to not take proper precautions can go to hell.
  6. Employees who aren't bothered by anything (as long as they're getting paid) are either unicorns or else trying to make the best out of a situation they're stuck in.
  7. Be nice to working folks, whatever their field. If tipping and/or gift-giving is a custom in that culture (and not prohibited by employer policy), do so for even adequate service.
Ian.thomson (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

Why didn't the US invade the soviet union in 1946?[edit]

WW2 started because germany invaded poland. After WW2 ended the soviets had invaded almost all of eastern europe, all of poland and half of germany and refused to give them back. Why didn't the US push the soviets back to their 1938 borders? The soviets did not develop the A-bomb until 1949 so the MAD principle did not develop yet.--User777123 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Because the public wouldn't have stood for it. The war was over, and everybody was celebrating. No politician is going to say there's a new one, and with our former ally. Also, the Soviets had one humongous land army, probably bigger than those of rest of the Allies put together(?). Finally, the timing would have been tricky even if war-lover Patton had somehow become president. The US was still fighting Japan when Germany surrendered. Who starts a second war before the first is completely finished? Some wacky corporal picked a second fight without ending the first, and look what happened to him. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
See: Operation Unthinkable (1945) & Operation Dropshot (1957) & Plan Totality (which was a disinformation ruse) —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why the soviets were allowed to get away with it. Was there much talk about this back in 1945 in the press? What was the point of US intervention in WW1 and WW2 if we just quietly let the soviets take over half of europe? --User777123 (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

They were an occupying force as a result of defeating the Nazis, just like we were (and still are). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The OP mentioned the 1938 borders. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany made the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 with a secret protocol to divide Eastern Europe between them. In accordance with this, the Soviet Union invaded six peaceful non-nazi countries Poland, Finland, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. All conquered territories (eastern parts of the first three and all of the latter three) were made part of the Soviet Union itself while the pact with Germany was still in effect. They were later conquered by Germany and reconquered by the Soviet Union who kept them after the war but not because they had been Nazi-controlled for a while. And you are generally only an occupying force if you control the politics and/or your presense is against the will of the locals. The US occupied part of Germany for a while but not elsewhere. Western Europe was democratic and wanted a US presense for protection against the Soviet Union. Eastern Europe didn't want the Soviet Union and the communist dictatorships they set up. Of course it was reversed according to nonsensical Soviet propaganda. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The Nazis invaded Poland and set up a number of their death camps there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the Nazis and the Soviet Union both invaded Poland in September 1939 and split it between them as agreed in their pact. The Soviet part of Poland was never returned and is part of the former Soviet republics to this day. See Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union. The Nazis were worse but the Soviet Union still murdered hundreds of thousands of Poles. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
As noted in German camps in occupied Poland during World War II, the Nazis attacked the Soviet army in eastern Poland, and the Soviet army eventually retook Poland and liberated the camps (or liberated them from the Nazis, anyway). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
De facto, the US was a "presence for protection" as PrimeHunter says. De jure, the US presence in always-friendly countries such as England was justified under the North Atlantic Treaty which set up NATO. But in Germany, as Bugs says, the US was indeed an occupying force—but only until 1990, when the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany changed its status. -- (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
(After an Edit conflict) There are many perspectives one can take on the situation. For decades after the end of WWII the USA maintained military bases in most of Europe where the USSR wasn't. Many are still there. Why was the USA allowed to get away with it? And I think you need to reflect on the comment by Clarityfiend above. It seems to describe the times pretty well to me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
"Allowed to get away with it?" Someone else might ask, how the US get suckered into it? It was a pretty sweet deal for Europe, which otherwise would have had to shoulder the burden on its own. I grant that the States didn't do it out of altruism and did get something out of it, I suppose mostly influence. But I don't think that influence was worth all those billions. Mainly it was to prevent a Soviet-dominated Europe, which would have been bad for us, but much worse for Europe. --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I was only playing with the words the OP had used. Sadly, this has turned into a "Gee those commies were awful" thread. That may well be true, but it isn't the topic here, and isn't going to serve any useful purpose. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
See also Yalta Conference where the plan for post-war Europe was agreed by the Allies. Alansplodge (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

US elites were disinterested. US policy makers and state apparatus were disinterested. New US allies had significant communist movements internally with significant legitimacy. Old US allies were opposed and suffering mutinies and revolutionary mutinies. The US military lacked the military capacity and was aware of this. The US was suffering proto-mutinies and mutinies over repatriation. US labour was engaged in a strike wave. The US as a political economic system controlled by a political elite with bourgeois acquiesce did not conceive of a desire, and lacked the capacity to do so. You may be interested in the percentages agreement Fifelfoo (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Peeve: It would be better to say they were uninterested. I'm aware the descriptivists will point out that people in fact do use "disinterested" in that way, but by doing so, you lose a useful distinction. Properly, disinterested means "free of bias because not personally affected by the outcome", which certainly does not apply to US elites or policy makers in that situation. --Trovatore (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Going by EO, neither one works.[39] "Not interested" would work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

See Swedish invasion of Russia (1708–1709), which “effectively ended with the Swedish defeat;” French invasion of Russia, which “led to great losses in men, and a general loss of discipline and cohesion in the army;” and Operation Barbarossa, “all of which eventually failed.” DOR (HK) (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The Moscow record low is -42.1°C, mercury thermometers freeze at -38.83 and Grozny (126m altitude, souther than Sochi) is -31.9. I now see why only the Finns had some winter success against Russia (not "lose 0 land" successful but of course, their population's much smaller than USSR). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, while this hypothetical war was raging, the US would have to rebuild Europe, a la Marshall Plan, and denazify western Germany. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Many articles have been linked. Western betrayal also comes to mind. I looked for opinion polls regarding communism and the Soviet Union from the perspective of the US public around the time of world war 2, but hard to find. Gallup might have them, but my library doesn't have access to their archives. I mean, we (being Americans) were all taught in school that "there was no more appetite for war". I note that the Truman Doctrine did not include attacking the Soviet Union, obviously. We can conclude from all of this that we were taught correctly, there was no sufficient support for the war. But I haven't found sources that actually discuss this directly. That mention say, internal US military or political discussions about the possibility, or public polling on whether voters would have supported such a war. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User777123 -- The United States did get Stalin to guarantee "free elections in Poland", but was not willing to go to war over the matter. General Patton seems to have gung ho for taking measures to restrain Soviet expansionism, but in 1946 Europe was drastically in need of time for recovery, so the United States would have had to act basically unilaterally, at a time when most people in the US wanted the boys to come home. And you have to remember that much of the U.S.-Soviet antagonism didn't really build up until 1948-1949, as a result of a series of events such as the Czech coup, the Berlin blockade, the Soviet A-bomb, the communists taking over mainland China etc. In short, for the U.S. to attack eastward in 1946, U.S. leadership and public opinion would have had to be a lot more cynical (i.e. willing to instantaneously switch alliances out of pure self-interest) and militaristic than they actually were... AnonMoos (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Nipple piercing in antiquity[edit]

Juvenal's Satire XI says in WS's translation that Messalina's nipples were 'bare and gilded,' which gave me hope that was a reference to nipple piercing in antiquity. I have no Latin, but the original

"tunc nuda papillis prostitit auratis titulum mentita Lyciscae ostenditque tuum, generose Britannice,"

...seems to say only that she had golden tits, and maybe is ascribing goldenness to the other stuff going on here. I don't know.

I mostly want to know if we have any knowledge of nipple piercing in antiquity, and whether it was gendered. Google gives a lot of references to soldiers supposedly doing this as a manly thing, which may have been based on one dude's interpretation of an old statue or two. Google also shows a lot of people saying that Gaius Julius had one nipple pierced, which sounds about as good as 'Hitler had one ball.'

WP's body piercing article says "Nipple piercing may have been a sign of masculinity for the soldiers of Rome," and the cite is something we can't read online. That's the closest I've gotten to actual scholarship on the topic.

Primary sources for related topics wouldn't be turned down either. Gratias Temerarius (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The usual meaning of "gilded" would be having a thin layer of gold leaf applied to it. For ancient Roman genital piercing, see Infibulation#Male... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
You may already be aware of this, but at one point, it was thought that Roman soldiers pinned their cloaks on by way of nipple piercing. This (non-RS) source claims that that was just the opinion of a single person, Richard Simonton. He was a rather tireless body-piercing promoter, so that portion of the story seems to ring true. If nothing else, be aware of the names "Richard Simonton" and "Doug Malloy" (his alias) when researching this topic. They crop up in a number of places (that last one is NSFW, but seems a reliable primary source). Matt Deres (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

US Supreme Court overturning its earlier decisions; effect on sales tax[edit]

I know that happens sometimes but I thought such cases were considered rare or even momentous. Was the recent decision about the internet sales tax an example? It seemed to reverse some earlier decisions but I can't tell from news reports whether it was a true overturn or merely some kind of refinement.

And does anyone know if untaxed internet sales exerted any pressure (i.e. as recognized by economists) on states to not increase their sales taxation rates (from the retail lobby facing out-of-state competition keeping the legislatures' impulses in check)? I don't buy that much stuff online, but when I heard of the decision my first thought was that local sales taxes would start going up. (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

June 24[edit]

Foreign relations of the Soviet Socialist Republics[edit]

Amendments to the Stalin Constitution granted each of the USSR's union republics the right to engage in foreign relations, and Moscow used this provision to get three votes (not one) in the UN: one each for the USSR, the Ukraine, and Byelorussia. Why did exactly two union republics become members? Was it believed that the rest of the world would reject an attempt to give membership to the other fourteen? Did higher-ups in Moscow have their own internal reasons for not requesting membership? Some other reason? Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it was a compromise between the Western bloc wanting 1 and the Eastern wanting all of them but I could be wrong. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Ukraine and Belorussia were well-populated republics extending over a significant area, and with almost entirely Slavic populations. The most significant aspect of their U.N. membership was ensuring that Russia would be recognized as the successor-state to the Soviet Union with respect to permanent Security Council membership and veto power (something that Stalin could not have foreseen). -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a source to cite, but I remember reading that Stalin claimed that if Canada and Australia qualified for admission, then the UK had three votes. (Not really true since the changes to Dominion status after World War I, of course. It would have been a stronger argument in relation to the League of Nations, especially when it was first formed.) If they had three, then he wanted three. Even if this is correct I don't remember if he cited any other countries as proxies for Britain. -- (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Amos Yoder's The Evolution of the United Nations System confirms that it was a matter of horsetrading. In return for making a concession in the matter of Security Council vetoes "the Soviets insisted on three votes in the General Assembly. Although it had first insisted on 15 votes, after hard bargaining, including a counterproposal by President Roosevelt for the United States to have a vote for each of the then 48 states, the Russians settled for three votes...The Soviet demand did not appear unreasonable to Churchill, who perceived England [sic] as getting a vote for each of its dominions." He also says Roosevelt refused an offer that the US get three votes as well. It would be interesting to know why. --Antiquary (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

conglomerates working together[edit]

Has AT&T, GE and Kodak worked together with one another in the past? (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Had my edit undone for no good reason[edit]


From time to time I enjoy being able to contribute to wikipedia. Recently, I have looked into a controversial area related to the Bible. I wanted to make a contribution under the wiki title "King James only movement". This is one of the first of what I hope to be many contributions. In this case I just wanted to add why the movement arose and believe what I have added can be supported. Today, I added a reference in support of adding what I have added. I just want to make a contribution. Please let me know how to better do so, if this is needed. Kind regards, Mike193.251.39.102 (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you're trying to push your personal theology in King James Only movement. You should be raising your questions at the article talk page and/or with the editors who reverted you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The edits you made to the article King James Only movement were reverted because they did not follow Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and verifiability. Statements like "Mrs. Riplinger's work is excellent," or describing a critic of the movement as a "Non Bible believer and Pro corrupted bible world view scholar falsely so called" are simply your personal opinions, which do not belong in an encyclopedia. You also removed sourced claims from the article without giving a reason, which is generally frowned upon. The website you added in your latest edit was removed because it is not a reliable source, according to Wikipedia's guidelines. If you disagree, the best place to discuss this is on the article's Talk page. - Lindert (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
(E/C) The place to discuss this is on the talk page of that article, here or on the talk pages of the folks you reverted you. Your initial edit inserted some very POV text, removed references, and had an unencyclopedic tone, so I can see why the other editors are treating your edits with a great deal of caution. Your most recent edit at least attempted to provide a reference to your claims, but it is malformed (what we call a "naked URL"). I do not know if [40] could be considered a reliable source or not, but assuming it is, the way to format references is discussed here (it is a little tricky, but there are short-cuts available). The essay at WP:But it's true! may also apply. Matt Deres (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
And if something is "true" then there should be no problem finding valid sources. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In general, I'm noticing a specific fundamentalist anti-Catholic POV from the IP, not only at the KJV Only article but even their insistence that the Cathars were really just good Baptists, and adding "let God sort them out" twice to the Arnaud Amalric article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


June 15[edit]

How many grammar rules are needed for speaking a language?[edit]

Every now and then I see lists of essential vocabulary for learners of (English as) a foreign language. They range from 1,000+ to 3,000 something. I wonder whether a list of essential grammar rules for nonnative learners would make sense too, and how long would this list be. It would for example include frequent structures like conditionals, relative clauses, but could exclude structures that can be circumvented like "He would have preferred to have been ..." or "Having been working for the government for a long time, my experience ..." --Hofhof (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Grammatical construction

It seems that you're asking about constructions, more than about "rules" in the ordinary sense. Our Grammatical construction article is unfortunately quite brief... AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
However, it links to Construction grammar, which has a lot more content. Loraof (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
These are quite good references. Are there works regarding concrete "inventory of constructions" (as they call them), that is, actual elements, not just describing the theoretical grammatical scaffold? --Hofhof (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
You could try looking at a descriptive grammar of English. Maybe you can even find one that numbers the constructions in English. Be aware, though, that authors may disagree on how many "rules" there are. Moreover, nesting and recursion can produce quite complex constructions. Linguists often study rules for constructing sentences, rather than specifying constructions. And, of course, speakers bend and break rules all the time. There is basically an unbounded realm of intelligible constructions. - Donald Albury 17:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Ain't it the truth! Bearing in mind that the most important rule is to be understood by your audience. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Tell that to James Joyce (the author of Finnegans Wake). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
In fact, his wife Nora Barnacle once asked him, "Why don't you write books people can read?". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Hofhof -- "Construction grammar" is one particular type of linguistic theory. If you want a summary of English constructions without a heavy dose of abstract theory, then you could look at A Communicative Grammar of English by Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik, or The Syntactic Phenomena of English by James D. McCawley. If you're not afraid to go to an older source, there's always Otto Jespersen's A Modern English Grammar (in seven volumes)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hofhof: It looks more and more like "rules" aren't that useful an approach to grammar. Machine translation is now done with deep neural nets suggesting that grammar is more a matter of correlation than "rules". This is an interesting popular-level article about Google Translate switching to a neural net approach. (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC) -- That's actually quite controversial. Neural networks are very good at scanning through vast quantities of text which is available in two languages, and discovering regularities and heuristics in how words and phrases are commonly translated between the two languages. Neural networks are very bad at understanding what they're "translating", and translators have known for a long time that a correct translation can't be guaranteed unless the translator understands the original text. AnonMoos (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Not about English but auxiliary languages such as Esperanto uses 16 rules (at least in theory), while Interlingua may use a little more, but likely less than 50 or 100.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

June 16[edit]

Pound sign as letter[edit]

The Chiricahua article contains the statement £igá' means "it is white". There's no mention of the currency symbol being used as a character in the £ article. Should it be the Ł L with stroke or L with middle tilde instead?

Our article Ł says “Ł or ł, described in English as L with stroke, is a letter of the West Slavic (Polish, Kashubian, and Sorbian), Łacinka (Latin Belarusian), Łatynka (Latin Ukrainian), Wymysorys, Navajo, Dene Suline, Inupiaq, Zuni, Hupa, and Dogrib alphabets”. Since this mentions several Indian languages, this is probably what was intended. Loraof (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to find a source, and [41] gives "it is white" as łì-gài. I'm now going to fix the article, adding this citation. -- (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It might be an old variant of Americanist phonetic notation, though I'm not familiar with it, and it's not listed in Pullum and Ladusaw's Phonetic Symbol Guide... AnonMoos (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Note the pound sign was used for (!) [ʒ] in the Turkmen Latin alphabet shortly during the early 1990s. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Chiricahua łigáí is cognate with Navajo łigai. —Stephen (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Name that rhetorical technique[edit]

Here's an easy one for ya. What do you call it when people talk like this?

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians)

Whether pagan or Christian, whether man or woman, whether boy or girl, whether slave or free whoever has stolen from me, Annianus [son of] Matutina (?), six silver coins from my purse, you, Lady Goddess, are to exact [them] from him. If through some deceit he has given me...and do not give thus to him but reckon as (?) the blood of him who has invoked his upon me. (Bath curse tablets) Temerarius (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Archaism? —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
"Archaism" is a literary style, not really a rhetorical strategy. Antithesis is much closer... AnonMoos (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Even so, it's an old-fashioned way of writing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
If you're referring to the pairing of contrasting terms, such as Jew/Gentile and slave/free, I think AnonMoos's suggestion of antithesis is correct. If you're referring to the parallelism of the neither ... neither ... nor and whether constructions, I think the term is isocolon, though our article isn't too clear. Deor (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Vocabulary word of the day: "isocolon" —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

June 17[edit]


I'm not sure what "twist" means in the following context: "Rappers have also emerged from Indonesia and Vietnam, not to mention Taiwan, which has been a focal point since MC HotDog’s streak of regional success throughout the 2000s. Whether or not the East Asian twist on hip-hop and R&B will turn into a global phenomenon remains to be seen. This week, music fans at SXSW can catch some of the artists trying to make it happen." Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"Variation" would be one synonym in this context. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
In my culture I think it would equate to "slant", i.e. "...the East Asian slant on hip-hop and R&B". HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
"East Asian slant..." seems a particularly insensitive usage of language by whatever culture. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. Take your PC male cow manure somewhere else. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
No, you're the one talking nonsense. What you derisively call PC is simply the polite avoidance of words that might give offence. If there are other, un-loaded words available that mean the same thing – in this case twist, take or whatever – there's really no excuse for picking the culturally problematic term. --Viennese Waltz 15:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems the matter isn't as crystal clear as Viennese Waltz seems to imply. There are perhaps two layers of uncertainty, the possibility that an apparently offensive term will cause offense to any given individual in the ostensibly affected group and the possibility that any given term will be perceived as falling within the sphere of offensiveness. While there's admittedly a strong argument that "slant" in the context above could be viewed as offensive, the mere suggestion or remote association of a particular term in a given context with some allegedly offensive usage will not automatically make the term or usage reprehensible. Perhaps more importantly, one might imagine that there is some degree of self-restraint or objectivity among any reasonable audience -- "fighting words" might justify a hair-trigger, knee-jerk reaction, but if there's a plausible argument that a term does mean what it seems to mean (i.e., variation), it can promote a slippery slope to thought police to instantly forbid all usage of the term. -- (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Does the editor complaining use "slant" to offend east Asians? I don't. I use it to refer to a twist on language. It's the word I use. There is absolutely no offence involved. When it comes to the word "Asian", I saw it come into the language to replace all the pejorative terms for people with "slanty eyes" after the Vietnam war. In fact, that's effectively what Asian means. Don't talk to me about ancestry. Almost nobody know the ancestry of people they describe as Asian. It's a sloppy replacement for an insult. I see it pretty much still as an insult. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The better term, as noted by 2.125, is "variation". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, "variation" or "version of". Akld guy (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Or, just "twist", which is widely understood by native speakers. In Wiktionary, it's the 19th sense, with a likely intentional nod to the 10th sense, given the musical subject matter. Matt Deres (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Widely understood? Not among the native speakers I know. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Being a native speaker of English is not a requirement for reading the English Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Says the person who argued for the exclusion of non-English language sources because it "restricts the checking that can be done". --Viennese Waltz 07:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Different debate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm even wondering if twist is a play on words involving the dance The Twist ? Because that was the first thing I thought.Hotclaws (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be a stretch. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
In music, it is very common to use the word "take" as in The Black Crowes take on Otis Redding's "Hard to Handle." That crosses the pond. I've seen plenty of "takes" on music in England as well as in America. (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
[42], [43] Bus stop (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Kun readings for Korean place names[edit]

In our article about Japanese exonyms, it says that Japanese can refer to Korean place names using kun readings of their hanja. I wasn't aware of such a thing as I've invariably encountered on readings only. Am I wrong? Can someone point to some examples (I wasn't able to find any real occurrence of Incheon - Nigawa, the example reported in the article)? Thanks! -- (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

"The first since..."[edit]

I started to feel that "the first since..." and "for the first time since" became sort of sensationalist buzzwords. Obviously if something is "the first since...", then it's actually second, not first, making such wordings potentially confusing, if not misleading. But can't see any previous discussion of it elsewhere in the internet. Brandmeistertalk 18:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It certainly gets a lot of use in the sports world, and any other endeavor that goes nuts over numbers. Passage of time is what it's about. Sometimes it's more significant than other times. In 2016, when the Cubs won the World Series, it was their first since 1908. That's significant. In 2018, they could have said the Warriors won their first NBA title since... well, 2017. I don't think anyone said that, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I rank that expression alongside "fastest growing". With a sample of one, an addition of one gives a growth rate of 100%, whereas if I start with a million, an increase of two gives a growth rate of 0.00000002%. Which one is fastest growing? Both expressions are overused, confusing, and fairly meaningless. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
All look like journalese, not sure how common it's in the everyday speech. Brandmeistertalk 21:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Folks, this is not supposed to be a forum for discussion of opinions. Can we end this topic now, please? -- (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • User:Brandmeister, your premise - Obviously if something is "the first since...", then it's actually second, not first ... - is incorrect. Say a certain volcano has erupted many times throughout history, but it hasn't done so for the past 235 years. If it happens again today, it would be "the first since 1783". It would not be its second occurrence. The use of the expression in a context like this is unremarkable. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • That's a clearly valid use, but I too often hear unthinking folk in the media (think commercial TV current affairs) misuse it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

June 19[edit]


I'm trying to understand the following German sentences:

   Jede Kündigung bedarf zu ihrer Wirksamkeit der Schriftform. Die elektronische Form ist ausgeschlossen.

Google Translate puts it as:

   Each termination requires the written form to be effective. The electronic form is excluded.

Which is kinda confusing to me. I'm not sure whether it means:

1. Each termination needs to be submitted in physical paper form to be valid. That means all electronics forms are excluded from being valid.

2. Each termination needs to be submitted in physical paper form to be valid. The exception to this is electronic forms, which are also considered valid. Mũeller (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The first is correct. What's meant is that you can't have a termination by e-mail. Fut.Perf. 12:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Is fax considered "Die elektronische Form" as well or not? Mũeller (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This might verge into the domain of "legal advice" rather than linguistic information, but according to some online refs [44] fax might be considered to fall under the "electronic" category here. But IANAL and this isn't really a matter of how to correctly read that sentence grammatically. Fut.Perf. 13:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Mũeller (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

Kyrgyz or Kirghiz ?[edit]

After a discussion at here and there, I am thinking to change the name of my file.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

In the Kyrgyz language: кыргыз (kırgız). I use Kyrgyz. —Stephen (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not strictly a language issue, but a nomenclature issue: Kirghiz SSR, while it existed, was primarily known as such in English, even though the spelling in Kyrgyz language was different. For another example, see how Kiev was primarily known as such in Soviet times, and as Kyiv thereafter. -- (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The predominant spelling in English is still "Kiev", and on English Wikipedia, "Kyiv" redirects to "Kiev"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
With no intent of bringing the decade-old debate to the RD, may I withdraw my previous example, and point instead that Kishinev currently redirects to Chișinău, with the change in English spelling matching the political changes. -- (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that the Kyrgyz orthography is not phonetic but phonemic and does not represent all the nuances of the pronunciation. While the form Kyrgyz may better represent the vowel [ɯ], it fails to properly represent the consonants. The actual pronunciation is IPA: [qɯrˈʁɯz], so the form Qyrghyz may better show how it is actually said. Other Romanizations, such as Turkish-influenced Qırğız if Anglicized would have rendered into Qirgiz, not very far from another form Kirgiz. If we try to preserve the quality of ğ by writing it gh, we may end up with Qirghiz which is exactly one letter different from Kirghiz. Also worth to note that other Central Asian nations, namely Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Tajiks, does not bothered very much with the fact that their names came into English through Russian. And, of course, Kyrgyz will definitely find no luck in persuading others to use only the spelling they like: Germans, French, Spaniards, Italians, etc. will continue to use their established forms (Kirgisisch, kirghize, kirguís, chirghisa, etc.) whatever the political circumstances.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"Feature" as a verb[edit]

Is the following grammatically correct? (or, should that be "Are the following grammatically correct?")

  • Each X features Y
  • Each of the Xs feature Y.
  • X and Y feature Z.
  • Every X features Y.

What is the rule of grammar that governs this? —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sentence 2 is considered incorrect by traditional normative grammar, since "each" is considered singular no matter what post-modifiers follow it. It seems to be quite common in practice though. You could call it a kind of "proximity concord", where agreement is not dictated by what is the syntactic head of the subject phrase, but by the plural noun ("Xs") that stands nearest to the verb. This blog post [45] seems to have some useful pointers. Fut.Perf. 06:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise -- the traditional terminology for proximity concord is "agreement by attraction" or (slightly more opaque) "agreement attraction". Wikipedia article is Attraction (grammar)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that link -- its new to me. (Same OP, new IP = (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC))

June 21[edit]

Etymology of the Persian word peri[edit]

Is the etymology of the Persian word peri (پری‎) known? Thanks. Basemetal 21:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Persian Wikipedia has an article on پری → ... (weird things happen when attempting to create a wikiink) -- no idea if this helps, however. — (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
No etymological information there, but thanks. They do give one bit of information the other WPs do not, namely that the word is already present in Avestan (the other WPs only go back to Ferdowsi's Shahnameh) but, unfortunately, without source or reference to any Avestan text using it. Basemetal 22:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Four etymologies given at wikt:پری‎. —Stephen (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the Avestan derivation, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary adds that it's cognate with Latin paelex, 'concubine'. Deor (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Moving past Iranian! Thanks Deor. Thanks to your paelex we get παλλακίς at Παλλάς, and ultimately PIE *parikeh₂ (“concubine, wanton woman”). Can that PIE form be right? (No source given). There should be no 'a' in PIE forms (unless as a combination of PIE *e and a laryngeal)? If it is correct, then it seems to be analyzable. Is there a PIE root *keh₂? Basemetal 10:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
To avoid weird effects when linking between languages, put an extra colon before the prefix: fa:پری. (It becomes invisible so look at the source.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Continuity between the speakers of PIE of the 5th-4th millenium BC and the Scythians of the 1st millenium BC?[edit]

According to the Kurgan hypothesis speakers of PIE originated in the "Kurgan" cultures of the 5th-4th millenium BC (such as the Yamnaya culture) in the region north of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea. In the 1st millenium BC one finds in the same region the people known as the Scythians, considered by most people to be speakers of an Iranian language, whose culture also included the practice of the Kurgan burial. Assuming of course the Kurgan hypothesis is valid, is there continuity between the speakers of PIE and the Scythians. In other words are the Scythians (resp. the Scythian language) the descendents in situ of the PIE speakers (resp. PIE), those IE speakers who never moved out of the PIE Urheimat? Basemetal 22:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Almost certainly not, as a linguistic community. The origin of the Indo-Iranian languages seems to go through or near Sintashta, the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex etc. Also, the Scyths in southern European Russia had close affinities to the Sakas in Central Asia, and to the Sarmatians between them.
Some have speculated that the most "stay-at-home" Indo-European branch was actually the Balts, although the non-coastal Balts were eventually overrun by Slavic speakers... AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Was it on linguistic grounds? Where did Proto-Balto-Slavic develop and how did it split into Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic? By Proto-Slavic speakers moving away? And then did Slavic speakers later come back and overrun the larger part of the Baltic area? Basemetal 10:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It's partly because unlike some other branches (such as Germanic and Indic), Baltic lacks the vocabulary churn which shows that there was intensive interaction with speakers of non-Indo-European languages. Many have remarked that 16th -century Lithuanian (the first Baltic language to be attested in detail) has more recognizable surviving early Indo-European features than the living languages in most other Indo-European branches in the 16th century (see Lithuanian language#History). According to some reconstructions, the early Balts moved north a few hundred miles from the "Pontic-Caspian steppe", and then basically remained in place for many centuries, until finally Slavic languages came to be established in that area (though the coastal Baltic languages obviously derive from groups that moved west after moving north...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I tend not to get too invested in speculation about homelands of proto-languages. I recall an item published in some linguistics newsletter (I seem to have discarded my copy) speculating that the Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian languages had a common origin, presumably in the fertile crescent. These are fun to read, but the further back you go, the harder it is to pin down the details. - Donald Albury 14:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Those three together sounds like Nostratic. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

June 23[edit]


"Potable" means "Good for drinking without fear of poisoning or disease". I know of no other meaning, and neither does Wiktionary.

In Lytton Strachey's Eminent Victorians in the section on Thomas Arnold I came across this:

  • To be rebuked, however mildly, by Dr Arnold was a Potable experience.

The P is capitalised in my edition (Readaclassic), but I have to say it looks like the whole text has been scanned from some older edition, as there are a few obvious glitches that Strachey would never have intended. So, assuming "Potable" is not such a glitch, what could Strachey have meant here? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop the presses. I've checked the text online here, and I see it was a typo for "notable". You may resume your appointed tasks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 13:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Or it was an experience that did not cause gastrointestinal distress. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
From my experience with Project Gutenberg, scanned text, particularly of older works, has glitches, and even two or three rounds of proofreading by different readers will not necessarily catch them all. - Donald Albury 13:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, "potable experience" sounded creatively okay to me, in the sense of "easy to swallow". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The OED has a few more meanings for "potable". As an adjective it may also mean "Related to drinking, intoxicated", and as a plural noun potables - "Drinkable substances; beverages; liquor". DuncanHill (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course there is also the other possibility that the water was really portable. Bus stop (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
"Potent potables" is a recurring category on Jeopardy! (as in alcoholic beverages) ... just found another WHAAOE link2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
"Potable" and "potion" are cognates.[46][47]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

What is this game called?[edit]

Someone offers a sentence with head-scratching anomaly, probably a typo or scan artifact. Others try to solve it. Some attempt to puzzle out or intuit for the original, with the benefit that it can be checked, eventually. Others reach for maximum creativity, and explain what the sentence could then possibly mean. What is this game called? I propose potable-notable. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

 :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
How about "Covfefe Carousel"? —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Related is Mumpsimus... AnonMoos (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Conjectural emendation. There's a discussion of it here. --Antiquary (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

June 24[edit]

Name of a language[edit]

Why is Dutch, as opposed to Netherlandic, the standard name of the language of the Netherlands?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"Dutch" is an anglization of "Deutsch" or something like that, i.e., German. Netherlandic is a Germanic language related to Plattdeutsch ("Low German") and, as I understand it, "Dutch" is based on what the residents of the Netherlands called their language, at least historically. Similarly, "Pennsylvania Dutch" is a dialect of German spoken by German immigrants to the US. - Donald Albury 16:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
(ec)Does Dutch language#Name not explain the history of the name sufficiently? Rojomoke (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I see I should have searched WP for longer. - Donald Albury 16:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


June 16[edit]

Tattoos on Chinese TV[edit]

After the recent Eurovision Song Contest, I now realize that tattoos have never been an issue during sports events like the FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. Even historical dramas sometimes have characters with some sort of body ink although this is debatable since it's fiction. Can anybody explain or cite the official regulations? Does it only apply to TV or to all sorts of media? Because Messi endorses the Chinese dairy company Mengniu and his right arm is not covered for the photo. --2001:16B8:2E4A:2C00:51F1:C5AC:72F4:A841 (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It's only been a thing since January,[48][49] with Chinese footballers having to cover up from March.[50] It appears to only apply to TV. Nanonic (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sequence Break[edit]

Music's that were used/played in the movie, names are sought please. (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

What movie? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a movie called "Sequence Break". Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the name of this song?[edit]

It goes something like this:"When I close my eyes and I see your face I know that I will be waiting for you. I will be waiting." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacewarper (talkcontribs) 19:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If you go to any of these search engines and search for "close my eyes" "see your face" "be waiting", you'll find a variety of possible results. Since you forgot to mention the genre, possible artist, or any other information that anyone besides you would need to narrow this down, we really can't say. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

June 17[edit]

How many World Cup teams reached the knockout stage after losing to the group leader of a [3|3|0|0] group?[edit]

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean when a 4-team group has points [3|3|0|0] at some time before completion where a team has already lost a match to the group leader at the time. Before people consider looking through old World Cups they may want to know whether you really want what you ask for. Tournament structures have changed and I suspect you actually want something else.
  1. Do you want all sports, or only football World Cups, or only football World Cups for seniors, or only the FIFA World Cup for seniors men?
  2. Do you also want [3|3|0|0] when World Cups gave two points for a win (possible after three total matches), or do you want [2|2|0|0] for that?
  3. Do you really want them to reach the knockout stage or do you allow if they advanced from the first group stage to a second group stage?
  4. Do you allow cases where they advanced as one of the 3rd placed teams in 4-team groups?
  5. Do you allow cases where they came second but only one team advanced from the group?
  6. Do you allow both teams with 0 points in a [3|3|0|0] group, or only the team which lost to the group leader based on goal score? If the latter then do you allow both teams if the goal score is the same?
PrimeHunter (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Only the FIFA® World Cup® for seniors men after they changed to 8 group cups of 4 teams each with the top half of the groups advancing and 3 points for a win. And actually perhaps it should be the 4th place team losing to the 2nd place team since that's probably a little harder of a comeback on average. Do the 40 groups with the current rules show 4th place teams of 3|3|0|0 groups having a better chance if the loss was to the leader? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The 4th placed team of a 3|3|0|0 group has the worst goal score so the team which beat it has the best goal score. This can only be the leader. We only have to examine five World Cups: 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014. Your scenario only has a chance in groups where an advancing team has a loss and it was in the first round. Turkey in 2002 and Ghana in 2006 advanced from 3|3|0|0 but they were 3rd and not 4th on goal score. Ukraine in 2006 overcame a 4th place after a 0-4 loss (with a 5-point gap in the end!) but it was a 3|1|1|0 group. Spain in 2010 was tied 3rd after two 1-0 matches in the group. Greece and Uruguay in 2014 satisfy all your conditions. No other teams do according to my check. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
After the points and the goal difference, the next tiebreaker is the number of goals scored. So if the opening two matches produce the same winning margin but different scorelines, it's now a [3|3|0|0] group where the 1st beat the 3rd and the 2nd beat the 4th, just like Group C right now. Moreover, fair play points or some other ranking systems are often used as even further tiebreakers. --Theurgist (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

the ice and the cartoon[edit]

Name the story, possibly by Asimov.

A band of humans trudges southward before an advancing wall of ice. They carry a few sacred relics, including a metal cylinder; legend says that opening the cylinder will bring disaster. A day comes when, on the southern horizon, they see another wall of ice.

Skip millennia. The sun's slight cooling allows a technological culture to arise on Venus. A ship from there lands on Earth and finds the cylinder. It contains – to cut to the chase – a Disney cartoon film. —Tamfang (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"History Lesson" by another of the big three. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. —Tamfang (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

hee haw[edit]

How come Buck Trent is not shown as a cast member on Hee Haw? He had a regular spot where he played the banjo and sang a little "poem". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B000:965F:5065:FFC6:EAA9:E171 (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that's true, what's stopping YOU from adding it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It says both on the Buck Trent page and the Hee Haw page that Bucket Trent was a cast member in Hee Haw. Is there another page where he's not shown as a cast member?--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Why was the Brazil 2014 World Cup high scoring?[edit]

2.7 goals per game. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is this question not in clear English? HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The infobox in 2014 FIFA World Cup says "Goals scored 171 (2.67 per match)". I guess the question is "Why is this number high?" 1998 FIFA World Cup also says 2.67, 1994 FIFA World Cup says 2.71, and 1982 FIFA World Cup says 2.81. 2.67 is higher than in 2002, 2006 and 2010, but that may just be a coincidence in a small sample of 64 matches. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
If we remove just one match from the 2014 tournament, the semifinal Germany-Brazil with its 8 goals, the average is already reduced to 2.59 (163 goals in 63 matches). The 1982 world cup had Hungary - El Salvador, 10:1. Removing that reduces the tournament average from 2.81 to 2.65. That shows that individual high-scoring matches can indeed have a strong influence on the average. To look for more subtle effects, like trends and fashions in game tactics, one would have to look at more robust statistics, like the median number of goals per match. --Wrongfilter (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
In fairness, the 2010 World Cup did have many fewer goals than 2014 (2.27 per game). Also, the later stages of the 2014 tournament generally had fewer goals than the group stages and round of 16, with the exception of that 7–1 semifinal. There were five 0–0 or 1–0 scorelines in the last eight matches, which helped drag down the overall average (offsetting Germany–Brazil). This Washington Post article from the early part of the 2014 World Cup attributes the increase in goals from 2010 in part to more aggressive play in the early stages, which this New Republic article claims was an extension of larger trends in the sport that favor goal-scoring. So far, however, there haven't been as many goals this year. As I type this, the average in 2018 is 2.41 goals per match, and that's after a seven-goal match today. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Marionettes controlled with ten strings attached to the ten fingers[edit]

I saw years ago (before YouTube even existed) some videos of a style of marionettes (string puppets) controlled with ten strings from the ten fingers of the puppeteer's hands as here or here (in these two pictures you've only got one hand but in the videos I saw the puppeteer was using both hands for one marionette). That puppeteer was very skilled and the realism was impressive. But I can't find anything about this style of marionette either in WP or on the Web. Any sources you can think of? Any other query and search ideas? How would I specify this particular style of marionette to make the search more efficient? Thanks. Basemetal 23:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ten-string marionette? I don't see why it should be called anything else.--Shantavira|feed me 07:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not. In theory, you're right. In practice, Google and see what you get. Actually, in this case, there might even be a theoretical reason why: ten strings does not necessarily mean ten strings attached to the fingers. Traditional styles of string puppets can also use ten strings. Basemetal 11:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

June 21[edit]

Comic question[edit]

Is this comic flipped as part of its gag or is that just some sort of error? Duomillia (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello D. Yes it is part of the gag. The title "Doppelgänger" is part of the giveaway (and another part of the joke) for this. MarnetteD|Talk 00:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
And it's also fitting that "abstruce" is similar to "incomprehensible". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
You see? 'Abstruce' is another AmE spelling we right-pondians mostly don't know about! {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Funny. No, I just mis-typed it.[51]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Anthems and keys[edit]

  • In what key is this anthem was played, based on this? I want to make the sheet music, but I can't find a good key.
  • According to this article, the song was played in two versions : ...the complete version of Kaba Ma Kyei includes both the anthem in traditional Burmese style and Western-style. Can someone find the music sheet including the traditional Burmese style?--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't find an answer in the usual places, but it might be worth mentioning that the "Burmese style" likely uses Lanna 5-note scale. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

script film structure editing acting other elements[edit]

Is there a website or aren't there any websites that shows the script, the film structure (meaning camera angles, camera position, camera lens, camera movement,), production designs (such as costumes, sets, matte paintings, miniatures, film stock,), acting (typage), editing, sound design, visual effects, modes of screen reality, and narrative for the following films:

  • The man with movie camera (russian film, 1929)
  • The night of the hunter (1955)
  • Dr. Strangelove (1964)
  • Persona (1966 Swedish film by Ingmar Bergsman)
  • The Conversation (1974)
  • Death becomes her (1992)
  • The cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920 German film)
  • Night and Fog (1932 documentary French)
  • Casablanca (1942)


  • Magnolia (1999)

Please and thank you. Donmust90 (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely, I'd say. —Tamfang (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean by "modes of screen reality"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Name that video game[edit]

I'm trying to find a mid/late 1990s (early 2000s?) PC game where the premise is a semi-autonomous anti-virus computer program (represented by stick-figures in a digital landscape) where you can insert algorithms/modules -- eventually "they" find a way to "escape" the computer via the Internet. Ring any bells? —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Darwinia (video game), or the sequel Multiwinia. Staecker (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- thanks! —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Charlotte Crosby[edit]

I, among several other editors, find the need to revert fairly frequent vandalism at Charlotte Crosby. It's from many (usually) IP editors. It's not hugely problematic, usually just silly stuff, but I'm curious. I am an innocent Australian who knows nothing about this lady apart from what is in her article. She is described as an "English reality television personality". But what else is there about her that encourages the silly vandalism? Is she a major subject of tabloid gossip? Does Australia's greatest export, Rupert Murdoch, give her undue attention in his esteemed media outlets? What is it? HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a look through the first couple of pages of history and it seems to be about the standard level of vandalism for a TV personality. The ones without vandalizations and reversions in their history are the ones that have been protected after recurring vandalizing. Sad but true: a significant minority of people have lives so pointless that calling someone a names on Wikipedia ranks as a major accomplishment. Matt Deres (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Some of their celebrity targets lead lives that are, if anything, even more pointless ... -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia's notability rules don't exclude "pointless". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

June 24[edit]


June 13[edit]

Robot or not?[edit]

Hello, are you a real person or are you a robot? It's a question we all ask, right. Like when you get a phone call, there is either a recorded voice or a real person. Sometimes the person sounds like they are real when they really aren't. Just don't trust anyone unless you know them. Am I the only person who asks this question? I don't know, but I need answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You're not the only person who wonders that. Broadly speaking, lack of faith in the truth of existence has popped up many times in philosophy; see, for example, simulation hypothesis and Solipsism. Or, if you prefer the more concrete, there's brain in a vat. There's some neat stuff here. If you prefer the psychological to the philosophical, there's Solipsism syndrome and Derealization. We're not robots here on the RefDesk, though we may or may not be dogs. Matt Deres (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It's actually not that hard to tell a real person from a recording. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The Turing test is not specifically to determine whether a computer is able to fool an interrogator into believing that it is a human, but rather whether a computer could imitate a human. CAPTCHA is a type of challenge-response test to determine whether or not a respondent is human. DroneB (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
CAPTCHA typically seems to be a test to determine whether I visualize things or interpret images (or questions) the same way as whoever designed the CAPTCHA. Iapetus (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. It seems to use particularly low quality images, leaving an awful lot open to personal interpretation. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Which is of course the whole point of it. (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
What? To annoythe crap out of me becasue I can't figure it out, and head off to some other website? HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
On Wikipedia the CAPTCHA consists of two words. The letters are often so deformed that the CAPTCHA can only be solved by having regard to the meaning of the words - the right interpretation is the only one which makes sense. 2A00:23C0:8601:4501:980A:A922:1FFF:F590 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
If only the English language was so logical..... HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a technique used in crosswords. The Daily Telegraph Quick Crossword had a link between the answers to the first two clues, e.g. Across: 1 Good, 2 Morning, etc. I checked this morning to see if they still do this, and they now often link the third answer as well (the change happened around end 2016). Picking up Tuesday's paper I saw Across:7 Watt, 8 Sup, 9 Dock, (What's up, Doc?). I can only recall seeing this phrase as an appendage to Baseball Bugs' signature. Does it have history (like "Play it [again], Sam", for example)? (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
"'What's up Doc?' is a very simple thing. It's only funny because it's in a situation. It was an all Bugs Bunny line. It wasn't funny. If you put it in human terms; you come home late one night from work, you walk up to the gate in the yard, you walk through the gate and up into the front room, the door is partly open and there's some guy shooting under your living room. So what do you do? You run if you have any sense, the least you can do is call the cops. But what if you come up and tap him on the shoulder and look over and say 'What's up Doc?' You're interested in what he's doing. That's ridiculous. That's not what you say at a time like that. So that's why it's funny, I think. In other words it's asking a perfectly legitimate question in a perfectly illogical situation." source: Chuck Jones on Bugs Bunny's catchphrase "What's up Doc?"[1] DroneB (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Sito, Tom (17 June 1998). "'Chuck Jones Interview'". Archive of American Television. Retrieved 4 October 2013. 

June 14[edit]

Duration of a FOIA request[edit]

Almost a year ago, I submitted three I guess rather simple FOIARs to the CIA. Up no know I did not get any reply besides an early confirmation. Is that the normal case? The requests are rather uncontroversial "archival" ones, the papers were written between 1951 and 1978, so I do not believe that it was refused. Or could it be a problem that I am foreign (german) national? Has anyone experience with that?--Antemister (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You might need to consult your lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Details: "Time Periods under FOIA". Digital Media Law Project. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
That supports what I expected. And this from the National Security Archive at GWU but general also suggests a similar thing [52]. Namely if your requested is denied, or there is some other problem, they should tell you. Also the second source also suggests being a foreign national does not stop you making a legitimate request. Both sources also suggest somethin again to be expected. If you want to know what's going on, your best bet is probably to ask. Remember to include the tracking number or whatever you received with your initial confirmation. There's a reasonable chance it's just stuck in a backlog. Or maybe it somehow got waylayed. Nil Einne (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Bear in mind that answering questions from random members of the public is not part of their primary mission, but rather something they're reluctantly forced to do by legal requirements. They probably don't approach it with any urgency, or devote many resources to it, as this would detract from their efforts elsewhere. Quite possibly they might want to investigate the questioner before actually addressing the question, to make sure the questioner doesn't have an ulterior motive in establishing contact with them. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
[citation needed] on the notion that people making FOI requests are investigated prior to their requests being processed. Matt Deres (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes it sounded very weird to me too. I guess if there are major triggers with the request, or with the request combined with whatever the CIA already know about the person it may cause further investigation but otherwise it seems unlikely. If you think the CIA is annoyed at having to spend time on FOI requests, imagine how annoyed they must be at having to spent time investigating everyone who sends a FOI request. Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

June 15[edit]

Is this on some MoS?[edit]

I don't know if to refer to a "WikiProject" or here? So, yeah?

When a show is airing in US, like Disney XD with Pokémon and a tv network in a different country was showing it. As the show in the US is behind some episodes, when the one in Japan isn't. So if a show's air date was added in, where the next 2 or 3 weeks were filled in, is that WP:CRYSTALBALL? As I did on this edit from a different show. (the air dates are for the US and most of the time a web-site to a tv network, only shown a t.v. show a week ahead.) Would it be ok to just wait until it airs on tv? and add it by then. But not like add the next 3 dates. As from my edit message from there. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The edit sounds like original research, to predict it will be on. But really it is not that serious a violation. You could say WP:CRYSTALBALL is relevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I can see a couple of options. The simplest is to not include the air date at all until it actually occurs. Another is to list the date, but to mark it as "expected" or "proposed" or something to indicate it's a future event. That option would require a reference to prevent falling afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL because you'd be reporting on the expectation. Like the user above, I also don't see simply listing the dates as a crime of the century, though it is technically improper. Matt Deres (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I recommend consulting with Drmargi (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@ above. From most tv channel web-sites only shows what's on at least in a week. (I was using the sandbox to write the example. The first episode and second.) from the show's info.
{{Japanese episode list
 |EpisodeNumber   = 1
 |EnglishTitle    = Asta and Yuno
 |KanjiTitle      = アスタとユノ
 |RomajiTitle     = Asuta to Yuno 
 |OriginalAirDate = October 3, 2017
 |FirstEngAirDate = December 2, 2017<ref></ref>
 |ShortSummary    = 


{{Japanese episode list
 |EpisodeNumber   = 1
 |EnglishTitle    = Asta and Yuno
 |KanjiTitle      = アスタとユノ
 |RomajiTitle     = Asuta to Yuno 
 |OriginalAirDate = October 3, 2017
 |FirstEngAirDate = December 2, 2017
 |ShortSummary    = 
{{Japanese episode list
 |EpisodeNumber   = 2
 |EnglishTitle    = A Young Man's Vow" / "The Boys' Promise
 |KanjiTitle      = 少年の誓い
 |RomajiTitle     = Shōnen no Chikai 
 |OriginalAirDate = October 10, 2017
 |FirstEngAirDate = December 9, 2017<ref></ref>
 |ShortSummary    = 

I've only seen this on a few different shows that uses similar refs/ sources that are used on the wiki. While a few others doesn't. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

June 16[edit]

Is the reality show Born This Way available on dvd?[edit]

I know season 1 is but what about the other 2 seasons? Sphinxmystery (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been unable to find the answer (hopefully another editor might succeed), but I notice in passing that the Official website link in the External links section of our article on the series goes to the A+E Networks (UK) website which appears not to have any mention whatever of this show. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

June 17[edit]

Why are there so many Mongolian tourists to China?[edit]

According to Tourism in China the number of visitors from Mongolia to China is equal to about half of the population of Mongolia. Even assuming several visits in a year by the same visitor is counted as multiple visitors, this seems absurd. I've actually crossed from Mongolia to China through a land cross before. The Mongolians had visas issued to them beforehand, which makes these figures seem particularly absurd. Muzzleflash (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There must be other reasons but if you're a Mongolian wanting a short international trip where else are you going to go? There's only like 2, maybe 3 choices and the PRC has a lot more tourist attractions than Siberia (mainly the natural beauty of Lake Baikal and pine trees, they're probably too similar to Mongolian climate to get "cold tourism"). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Without knowing how the numbers were put together, my guess would be that most of those trips are for business, not pleasure. Economy of Mongolia confirms that China gets a whopping 84% of Mongolia's exports. Matt Deres (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
And without seeing comparative figures for other neighboring nations, it's risky to draw conclusions. For example, how many Canadians visit America every year? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
"Canadian residents took almost 20.0 million overnight trips to the United States in 2010",[53] equal to well over half the population. And that doesn't even include one-day trips. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
... "28 million same-day car trips Canadians made to the U.S. in 2011" for cross-border shopping.[54] Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
You will sell us the rope with which we will hang you. Also milk and gas. Mwahahahaha. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I have to wonder how much Inner Mongolia and the fact that 30% of Mongolians are still nomadic may be affecting things. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

Name of woman who demonstrated male body language[edit]

Google seems to be useless here. I saw a documentary about a woman who gave lectures on male body language and gathered up a dozen German women to participate in a social experiment, where they were made up as men for a week or so. There is even a Wikipedia article about her, but I cannot find it, because searching the internet with phrases like the header I wrote just lead nowhere. The Wikipedia categories are even worse when it comes to finding a specific person. Who was she? She might have been an artist, American, living in Europe, died a few years ago. (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Marianne Wex fits in with some of your description. Could it be her? (And, yes, our categories are only useful for people who like to organise categories.) Thincat (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not her. Searching has become an absolute nightmare. All I get from Google are stereotypical cross-dressers, drag queens, "how to read male body language and tell whether he is interested" and all that bollocks. I saw a documentary about her on TV and read an Wikipedia article about her, but as I cannot remember a single letter from her name, she cannot be found anywhere. -- (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Have you tried looking through lists such as Category:American_feminists and Category:American_women_artists?--Shantavira|feed me 08:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
She might not even be a feminist nor an artist as such. Doing kind of "stand-up" on stage in men's clothing but definitely not a comedian, rather making a serious demonstration. The audience is laughing nonetheless. I vaguely remember that she had moved to Europe, probably lived on the Island of Great Britain, maybe Scotland, and if she had become an UK citizen, she might not even be American any longer. She spoke a little German but mainly American English on the documentary. So I'm basically looking for a dead woman who appeared on a television documentary that I saw either on TV or on YouTube 6–18 months ago. Hopeless. -- (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you might want to tone down the anger a little bit? If Google and Wikipedia aren't making it easy for you to find her, that's not necessarily a criticism of Google and Wikipedia, in both of which millions of people find exactly what they're looking for every day. It's not clear to me what kind of search engine you have in mind that would make it easier for you to find her than it currently is. --Viennese Waltz 09:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
No thanks. I might very well not tone down the anger. Some people are telling us that you could replace general knowledge with search engines and that one might benefit from outsourcing one's knowledge to projects like Google or Wikipedia. I already am full aware of the fact that search results are somewhat biased and that the algorithms give us cat videos and guides to better sex, but if you are searching for something obscure, it stays obscure. I am not writing here to critizise the search engines, I'm looking for a fellow human being who knows exactly the woman I am talking about and helps me by telling her name. I am not interested in those "millions of people" who can find exactly what they are looking for on the Internet. I'm one of them. -- (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I found a TED talk by Amy Cuddy which if it is not it ,at least gives you somewhere else to look,Hotclaws (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotclaws (talkcontribs)

June 20[edit]


I require an app that is capable of reminding me, the event times, just like the way it does in "TimeTune", e.g., alarming with an extra message during the selected start time as well as during the selected end time — you'll get the understanding when you use the app.

A synchronisation facility with the built-in google calendar is also important.

Can someone help me please? This is quit important. I have done endless searching and been unsuccessful. (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If you add an event that you are interested in to Google Calendar, you can set a reminder there. Each Calendar event has only one reminder, but there's nothing to stop you creating separate events for start and finish times. (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

June 24[edit]

I have a question regarding lgbt people in the Anglican Church of Southern Africa[edit]

Are lgbt people only welcome in the church in South Africa and not the other countries the church serves such as Mozambique, and one each in Angola, Lesotho, Namibia, Swaziland and Saint Helena? Sphinxmystery (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)