Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 June 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Humanities desk
< June 8 << May | June | Jul >> June 10 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 9[edit]

Dutch French German Catholic Protestants Belgium Switzerland Luxembourg[edit]

Denominations in Europe --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In Belgium, which ethnic group is Roman Catholic and which ethnic group is Protestants or all three groups are Roman Catholics? In Switzerland, which ethnic group is Roman Catholic and which ethnic group is Protestant or all three are Roman Catholics? In Luxembourg, which ethnic group is Roman Catholic and which ethnic group is Protestant or all two are Roman Catholics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a map in most of those articles which show the distribution of the predominant religions, and in articles like Demographics of Switzerland there are maps of the major linguistic/ethnic groups. You can cross-reference the maps to get a general sense of which ethnicities tend to predominate in which religions. In some countries, there may not be a good match. For just one example, I can tell by looking at the maps in the Demographics of Switzerland article that there is little correlation between one's ethnic background and one's religion; the French, German, and Romanche speaking areas of Switzerland seem evenly divided between Catholics and Protestants, while the Italian speaking area seems to be mostly Catholic. Just remember that there isn't always a strict connection between ethnicity and religion, or between geography and religion. People do change faiths from what their parents practice, and people do move around a bit, so you get a lot of mixing of faiths in terms of geography and ethnicity. For just one example, I was raised in a Catholic family, but currently am a member of a Baptist congregation. You can find more information for yourself in the "Demographics of..." articles for the other countries. --Jayron32 16:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
In Belgium and in Luxembourg the traditional denomination was Roman-Catholic, see Religion in Belgium and Religion in Luxembourg. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Jayron is correct. In today's world it is overly simplistic to equate cultural/linguistic "ethnicity" with religious faith/denomination. That said, has anyone done a study on the number of converts (ie people who self-identify as belonging to a faith/denomination/religious outlook other than that practiced by their parents/grandparents) and whether such conversions are more common in some countries than in others. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Usually the Landeskirchen prepare such statistics for Germany. You may find a Statistic 1991-2009 by the EKD on the eleventh page here (Text in German) and one by the DBK (Conference of German Bisops) on the fourteenth page here (Text in English). Admittedly the latter one does not list actual conversions but only Baptisms in general. I shall see whether I can find a more adequate one. Conversion is thought to be a rather rare thing in religious studies and statistics continue to support that line of thinking. (Contrary to Theories of Post-Modernity that suggest a rise of religious Eclecticism like the Ansatz of "Bastelreligion" or Patchwork-Religion.)
I would have liked to provide specific references to authors, but alas my head seems to be empty of such things tonight --Abracus (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Mongolian Buddhism in the West[edit]

The early khans of the Mongol Empire in the west were Buddhist along with some of their Mongol subjects that moved along with them to these terrtories. Were there any Buddhist influence in the reigions held by the Chagatai Khanate, Ilkhanate and Golden Horde until their rulers converted to Islam and did it survive pass that? PS: Not referring to Buddhism in Kalmykia.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the map in the Q right above this one, Tibetan Buddhism exists in a tiny piece of southern Russia. I'd have to think that this is a result of the Mongol Empire conquering that region. StuRat (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
That's Kalmykia, which Kavebear mentioned. The Mongols weren't necessarily Buddhist though...some were, some were animists, some were Christians, and some Muslim. We even have a Religion in the Mongol Empire article. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The main Buddhist influence on Christianity was Barlaam and Josaphat, but it appears to be pre-Mongol. Buddhism in current-day Mongolia and neighboring areas owes as much to 16th-century Tibetan influences as to survivals from the 13th-century... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


does make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it makes perfect sense. It's the same as if three people are in debt to each other, in circular fashion, because they each lost a bet of $100 with one of the others, and won a bet with the other. So A owes B, B owes C, and C owes A. They have a cash flow problem, nothing more. If they get together and realise the situation, they can cancel the debt, but if not, each one will wait for his debtor to pay him, so he can pay his creditor. In reality, it rarely happens that it goes in a neat circle. Money has to come from somewhere, so everyone will be in debt to the landowner, who owns the farm that produces the food, or the land on which the hotel is situated. Then they will all pay taxes (although in this case it's cash, so maybe they won't). The money will also be devalued by inflation, and so on. Check out Tanstaafl. IBE (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
You have to consider someone's whole balance sheet - their liabilities and their assets. Owing someone money is a liability, but being owed money by someone else is an asset. That means all these people have both a €100 liability and a €100 asset, so their net worth (ignoring all other assets and liabilities) was zero. As long as you have enough assets to cover your debts then, as IBE says, you just have a cashflow problem and not a debt problem. In reality, a lot of Greeks (and especially the Greek government) do have a debt problem - they have more debt than their assets. Greece's problem isn't a shortage of cash, it's an genuine shortage of money. --Tango (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yi and Li[edit]

Has any Korean kings of the Joseon Dynasty from the House of Yi claim descent/relation to the Li Clan (same character) of the Chinese Tang Dynasty?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Clips And Clipboards[edit]


How do I remove the clip from a clipboard? What are the steps? Where can I find a clipboard without a clip?Curb Chain (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Clipboards are not generally made with the intention that the clip be removable, so there is no standard way of removing the clip. In many cases you would destroy the clipboard by taking it apart. And a clipboard without a clip is a piece of hardboard, wood, or plastic. --ColinFine (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Anywhere I can get a piece of hardboard, wood, or plastic at the dimensions of a clipboard minus the clip?Curb Chain (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Some of the smaller cutting boards are about that width and height, although the wooden ones tend to be a bit thicker. Check out the cooking supplies in your local stores, to see if any will serve your purpose. (If you tell us what this purpose is, we might be able to make better suggestions.) StuRat (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's some I found online which might serve your needs: [2], [3], [4], [5]. StuRat (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I only want the hard writing surface of a clipboard, but the clip gets in the way. That was why I was looking for the clipboard without the clip.Curb Chain (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
If they're selling the Breadless Sandwich and even the Foodless Sandwich, I'm sure someone somewhere would sell you a Clipless Clipboard. You just haven't looked hard enough. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 03:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
So I plead for your help!Curb Chain (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, any decent hardware store should be able to help you quickly, or give you some further ideas. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 06:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Just ask for a piece of smooth masonite or stiff plastic sheeting in whatever size you want. If they don't have it, they'll probably know who would. A picture framing store is a possibility too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The suggestions of going to a hardware store and describing what you want are great. They should have Masonite/hardboard for a wooden style one, but probably in largish sheets that they may or may not cut for you. Clear acrylic sheets are generally available in many smaller sizes. If you already have a clipboard and want to remove the clip, you can probably just drill out the rivets connecting it. Be careful as you're doing it, because there is a compressed spring that is going to try to pull everything apart once the connection is weakened. You may be able to work the spring out first. (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Who do many Islamic countries seem to have poor regard for human rights?[edit]

I've noticed that in some countries where Islam is either the majority religion or the official religion, there seems to be little regard for human rights. For example, people can be arrested or even executed because they want to convert to another religion, even if it is Judaism or Christianity, the "People of the Book" that the Quran says should be respected. In those same countries, there is little freedom of speech or press, and people can go to jail for criticizing the government and its policies. The internet is also frequently censored, even in countries where some freedom of religion is allowed (like Malaysia). And let's not even get started on women's and LGBT rights. I'm not saying that it is limited to Islam – historically Judaism and Christianity were just as conservative and, in the case of the latter, execution for heresy was common. Nowadays, both religions seem to have relaxed their policies, and freely allow their members to change their religion. I know it is because of Sharia law, but why hasn't Sharia adapted to modern society and at least uphold basic human rights? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Many of the countries you speak of are autocracies of one form or another. The more autocratic a country, the worse its human rights records, generally speaking. It really does not matter what the state religion is or the religion of the rulers. I think though that you are falling victim of a bit of cherry picking — there are even democratic, Western countries that have considered censoring the Internet, there are plenty of non-religious autocracies which have been just as bad if not worse with regards to human rights, and there are all sorts of more subtle ways that even mostly secular democratic governments have systematically abused human rights in both the recent past and the even in the present. Many of the world's "Islamic countries," if we want to use that term, are resource cursed, which strikes me — when one is talking about very broad generalizations — as the more salient factor in the way they are run. Practically all religions give you good excuses for doing unpleasant things to other people; what's different is how closely the religion is affiliated with the ruling of the country, and how extreme it's allowed to be. This is less a factor of the religion itself than the conditions under which the country finds itself. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
{ec} I think freedom of press is more strongly correlated with being slightly north of the equator than a state's religion. [6]. There are many nations where people go to jail for criticizing the government or royalty that are not muslim nations such as Thailand or parts of Africa. For internet censorship, only 6 of 12 nations classified as "enemies of the internet by RSF are muslim states. Women's and LGBT rights are low across much of the world still, far from localized to muslim nations. So your premises are weak...but I like how you stated "seem" in the titular question. So, it may seem that way because of media bias. The media will often incorrectly associate/blame issues, and readers too will be bias in how they take in the information. I mean, the media will blame a famine on communism, but not capitalism, or an "evil" leader or a "terrorist" may have their religions or ideologies linked to them, but only if those ideologies/beliefs are not capitalist/christian. Perhaps you could try looking to other factors than religion upon the development of human rights such as education attainment and economic prosperity, and even time since those two factors were improved so that culture may change too. (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"why hasn't Sharia adapted to modern society" How could it? If Sharia is divinely instituted legal system (and this is the muslim point of view) then no man has any right to change it. If you believe in divine revelation, isn't it foolish to think that we know better than God? - Lindert (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe Islam, like most religions, isn't so much written in stone as loosely interpreted by the current leaders to fit their own world-view. Considering just clothing, for example, the root commandment from Allah seems to be that "both men and women should dress modestly". However, some, like the Taliban, then deliberately (mis)interpret that to mean that women must be completely covered except their eyes, and men must wear beards, when neither Allah nor Mohammed ever said any such thing. StuRat (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Islamic law is not written or codified by 'leaders' or politicians, but by Islamic scholars. In Sunni Islam (the majority), there exists no hierarchy, so there are no formal leaders. There is a big difference between Sharia (Islamic law) and national law in predominantly Islamic countries. See e.g. the book Sharia and National Law in Muslim Countries, which discusses the relation between the two. National law in Muslim countries is usually a mixture between Sharia and secular laws. For example, in Sharia there is no prohibition against slavery, yet Islamic countries do criminalize slavery. With the exception of Iran, no Muslim majority country is ruled by religious leaders. Fatwas, which are judicial rulings based on Sharia, are not issued by the government, but by imams, sheiks, grand muftis, etc. These carry no legal force, but are considered by many individual Muslims as authoritative. - Lindert (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"Leaders" includes religious leaders. And Sharia law takes precedence over national laws in many regions, like the Taliban controlled tribal regions of western Pakistan and Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula controlled regions of Yemen, and many rural areas throughout the Muslim world. StuRat (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Sharia simply means Islamic law. Different Muslims have very different views on how their religion requires them to behave, to what extent this should be enforced by governments, and whether this should be imposed on non-Muslims, and these views have of course varied widely throughout history and from one culture to another. I don't see what 'knowing better than God' has to do with anything - if a god exists, it doesn't seem to be very interested in pronouncing judgment on individual human disputes, so the decisions have to be made by humans, who are free to come to their own conclusions about what religious texts say their god(s) would want. (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The main principle in Sharia is that, if there is no explicit Quranic command, the example of Muhammad and his companions must always be followed (because the Quran calls him an 'excellent example for all Muslims'). So in the case of human disputes. instead of everyone giving his own interpretation of the Quran, Islamic scholars search for parallel cases in history to see how Muhammad and his companions decided. This then becomes binding on all Muslims. And contrary to what you suggest, Sharia is quite stable. A translation of the classical 14th century Sharia manual Reliance of the Traveler was certified in 1991 by Al-Ahzar University as "conforming to the faith and practice of the orthodox Sunni community". It seems in over six centuries, Sharia has not 'varied' so 'widely' after all. - Lindert (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that there are some Muslim countries that have good human rights for the most part like Indonesia and Turkey, and non-Islamic countries or even atheist countries which have poor human rights records like North Korea and Cuba. What I meant is, why does it seem that Muslim countries seem to tend to have poor human rights records compared to countries where other religions are dominant? I actually find it ironic that the Arab countries tend to have poor human rights considering the fact that Islam is a religion that promotes peace and that the root of the word Islam is Salam which means peace. And besides, is converting to another religion a capital offense in any non-Muslim country? If I recall, even the Quran allowed conversion from Islam, it only condems apostasy. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

How is conversion from Islam different from apostasy (from Islam)? The Quran does condemn turning away from Islam, but arguably does not prescribe an earthly punishment for this. The clear commands to kill apostates come from the ahadith. The meaning of the root 'salam' is really irrelevant. Islam means submission (i.e. submission to the will of God). - Lindert (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the problem is the way you have worded this: why does it seem that way? Well, why does it seem that way to you? Maybe you are already predisposed to think that Islamic countries don't care about human rights, so you just assume they don't. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood my objection. Let me put it this way: there are many variables for many countries. Their predominant religion, their resources, their immediate and long-term history, their interaction with colonial powers, their allies in the Cold War, their allies now, their current GDP, and so on and so on. The question is whether "Islam as the religion" is the variable that matters most. I suspect it does not, that the other variables all matter more in making sense of their particular stances on human rights, if you are generalizing for all of the countries. For individual countries, the role of religion may matter more, but even then it is worth interrogating the other variables. In Iran, for example, religion certainly matters quite a bit, as the place is ultimately run by mullahs. But the reason it is run by mullahs is not because of the religion itself; it's because of the specifics of the Iranian revolution, which themselves are rooted in other regional factors (including colonial/Cold War factors). So even then it's not clear if "religion" is ultimately the useful variable to focus on, much less the one that can be focused on to the exclusion of others. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that the root problem may have existed in those cultures, prior to the introduction of Islam. Arabic culture, for example, always was highly paternalistic, with women treated as second class citizens (if citizens at all). Now, whether Islam kept that from changing, or Arabic culture kept Islam from evolving to accept women's rights, as Christianity did, I can not say. StuRat (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we look for evidence regarding the premise, please ?[edit]

That is, the OP stated that Islamic nations appear to have worse human rights records than the world, in general. Just providing exceptions doesn't disprove this perception. Do we have any actual evidence, one way or the other ? StuRat (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this realistic? Respect for human rights isn't something that is easy to measure objectively. There have been attempts, like this one, which I suspect people here won't take very seriously (it places the US below Zimbabwe). I suppose the best-known example is Freedom in the world (published by an organisation largely funded by the US government, so probably a little biased). Its article notes that 'freedom' is highly correlated with being Christian (this is used to suggest that the index is biased in favour of Christian countries, not that Christian countries are more free). (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's a chart that might be of some use: [7]. Two of the worst human rights offenders listed (Sudan and Somalia), do seem to be largely Muslim nations, with Burma being largely Buddhist. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a sortable list here. I don't see any strong correlations between religion and human rights problems in this dataset. What I do see is a high correlation between instability and/or autocracy and human rights problems. (These may not be disconnected from religion of course.) --Mr.98 (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
One interesting observation from that map is that the most stable states seem to be far from the equator, and the least stable states right on it (with an exception for Oman). I believe violent crime also goes down in cold weather. Somehow hot whether seems to cause people to act violently. Perhaps we should create a nation in Antarctica, which would logically be the most stable nation the world has ever seen. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
But haven't you heard, Stu? The inhabitants of Antartica are so utterly "depraved" that a report on their activities was suppressed for a century and has only now been revealed to a shocked and disgusted public. With such a total lack of morality as that, I predict nothing good could come from an entire nation built in that Godforsaken place. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 22:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but sexual depravity seems to lead to social stability, as it did for bonobos. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
One of the more plausible theories of why relative geographical location seems to matter so much has to do with malaria prevalence (some discussion at Malaria#Society_and_culture), which has historically had vast impact on the kinds of economies and social arrangements of states. I'm more inclined to go with something like that than "hot weather makes people act violently," which, while perhaps true in small averages, doesn't really cut the mustard as far as historical explanation goes. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course, we have an article on the Failed States Index. I'm not really convinced by their methodology. Apparently they apply content analysis software to "millions of documents, including a variety of digitized news articles, essays, magazine pieces, speeches, and government and non-government reports", and combine this with "quantitative data from reputable institutions, such as the UNHCR, WHO, UNDP, Transparency International, World Factbook, Freedom House, World Bank, and other reliable sources". So media perceptions must play a big role, and I wonder how, if at all, they weight the sources to prevent countries with government-controlled media from having an advantage, or to make sure that foreign perceptions of countries don't vastly outweigh local views. Also, using data from the CIA World Factbook and the US government-funded Freedom House does suggest a possibility of pro-US bias. (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

See [8] for a world map of 2011 Freedom House ratings, and [9] for a world map of religion.
The correlation between Islam and poor human rights quite evident. -- (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You can't demonstrate that simply by glancing at two maps (there are plenty of counterexamples like Mali and Cuba; you haven't accounted for other differences like wealth and climate; and Buddhist and 'Chinese' countries also do very poorly, but for some reason you didn't feel the need to point that out). The first map displays whether a particular US-aligned organisation considers countries to be 'free', 'partly free', or 'not free'. Whether that corresponds with anybody's notion of human rights is debatable. The second map is also wildly inaccurate - I notice that Bosnia and Croatia (and maybe some other countries - it's hard to say) have been merged together and are described as Islamic. In fact, both countries have a Christian majority. Benin, Mozambique, Uganda, Armenia and even Taiwan are also wrongly identified as predominantly Islamic nations. I just noticed that Jordan is labelled as Jewish, and Japan as Christian... seriously, who put this map together? (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Four Symbols[edit]

Which of them are male and which are female? -- (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Four Symbols (Chinese constellation) ? StuRat (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes. From their elements, I'd guess that the dragon and bird (representing yang elements) were male and the tiger and tortoise (representing yin elements) were female, but from what animals they are, I'd guess that all but the bird were male. So clearly there's something else going on here. -- (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Average article size[edit]

Out of curious, what is average article size represents? in this link. Thanks!Yeucongbang (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any "average article size" in your link. The closest to that is "Article size over time" which is a chart that just shows how the article has grown. Bielle (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC) RudolphRed found it. Bielle (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Rightmost column of the bottom table is "Average article size", but I'm not sure what it means. RudolfRed (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought it meant the average size of the article when a given editor made each of their edits. Check it out by looking at the size of the article for one of the bottom three editors and see if it works out. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I doubt it is what you said! First of all, it would be meaningless if it is so. Who cares about "the average size of the article when a given editor made each of their edits"? What is that information even tells us? Nothing! I would guess at first is that is "an average size of each edit of that editor" like how much that editor edit on average but when I checked several articles using that tool, the numbers don't match and they seem to be very random to me! Yeucongbang (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No, I think CBW is right. It's useful because the size of an article tends to be increase over time, which means the average size of the article when the edits were made gives you an idea of when in the history of the article they were editing (and may be more useful than a simple average date, since articles aren't written at a constant rate and the level of development of the article is often more interesting than its chronological age). The numbers are too large to be the average amount added in edits - a lot of edits don't add anything, or even make the article shorter, so you would have a lot of people with very low numbers, which you don't. --Tango (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that I'm slow headed on this issue here. So how is that numbers give us an idea of how much someone has contributed to the article? Like in some of the articles I have observed. There is a person who most wrote that article but that person has the same "average article size" as someone else who barely added anything into the article. I don't get this at all! When someone has a big number of "average article size", what is that mean? When someone has a small number of "average article size", what is that mean? Yeucongbang (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say "how much", I said "when". --Tango (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I tried it out using the Tawkerbot2 edits as they were made in a short period of time. I got 44,582, 43,508, 43,401, 43,396, 41,502, 41,365, 41,194, 41,301 and 41,326 for an average of 42,397 bytes. That is different to the 41.40 KB reported in the link but that may have to do with there being different way of measuring sizes on computers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I seriously don't see any useful info if it answers the question "when". Ok thanks for all the answers!Yeucongbang (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Fwiw, I agree with Cambridge and Tango on this. I can't see that the metric has much if any value to anyone (probably something from the brain of a nerd on steroids), but that mere lack of apparent point doesn't mean the answer has to lie somewhere else. I sympathise with your need to find meaning in everything you see, but sometimes information we're given is as valueless as the precise length of the president's shoelaces on the day he was inaugurated. The only time editors are mentioned in that whole report is in relation to their contributions to the article in question, viz. Nero. Their other wiki-history has nothing to do with the report and there's no reason for it to be there. In fact, it might even be a breach of their privacy. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 20:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! When I first read this I suspected that it must be the the average size of wikimarkup content that a particular user has contributed to the particular page. That is the amount of content divided by no. of edits. But this is just a speculation. I need to very it. So I took an article to which little no. of editors has contributed to. Here. The experiment goes this way.

User:Cnilep: Amount contibuted = 265 + --265 = 0 bytes. Hence the average must be zero. That implies this speculation I made is not valid. So let us take change in amount contributed. It is 265 + |-265| = 265+265. Hence average (Cnilep has two edits) is 265 bytes, much less that 1 KB (The article says 22.60 KB). Hence that too is wrong.

Now another approach: It is the average size of article when one has made an edit. So I took the sum of contributions to find article size when a user with only 1 edit has made.To make calculations simpler I took the article User talk:Vanischenu. Took History page of Wpedia and that of toolserver. Let us take an example of edit by user Danger.Danger put +1,274 bytes and 1 edit. Average article size is 1.24 KB. And relation between bytes and KB (kilobytes) is 1024 bytes = 1 KB.

So divide +1,274 bytes by 1024. It is ....... 1.244140625. Yeah! We have got it. It is the average size of article when one has completed his contribution to the article. To verify this we can take the contributor with 2 edits. Take contribution by Cnelp:
Article size when 1st edit was completed = 1,274 + +1,493 = 2,767.
Article size when 2nd edit was completed = 1,274 + +1,493 + +15 = 2,782.
Average article size when all of the edits (i.e., 2 edits) are completed = (2,767 + 2,782)/2 = 2,774.5 B. Converting it into KB gives 2.70947265625 KB. The stuff given in toolserver is 2.71 KB. Yes that's it! You may verify this on other pages. Thank You. The way I wrote can be confusing, so someone can elucidate this. Simply it means the average size the article acquired when the editor had completed each of his edit.Vanischenu mTalk 20:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You should at the same time realize and appreciate that CBW & Tango had answered correctly. Me too did not understand the answer before I started to find out. But when I reached the conclusion, I learnt that they were correct and particularly I understood the meaning. Note: I first saw this question at HD. If it was not there, I could not have see this. Now there is another question left unsolved: What is its significance?. I am also thanking you for showing me the tool for the first timeVanischenu mTalk 21:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How to teach the unteachable?[edit]

This may not be an appropriate place to ask this question, but I have asked questions before on Wikipedia and the quality of the answers are outstanding compared to other sources. My uncle just recently got in a divorce and has had much anxiety over it. He has few friends and works multiple jobs to support himself. His ex wife is very verbally abusive to him, his two kids and the rest of my family. His brain works like a little kids. He is not mentally handicapped but by only just.. The problem is: He lives on his own now (our family not having the time to take him into one of our homes and essentially adopt another kid as we are struggling ourselves), and he is having lots and lots of problems. He calls my mom over twenty times a day and each of his other three brothers and sister the same. He can drive so I think he can be taught. But he doesn't understand how to count money, distances, amounts of these things, how to react to situations, and he cannot be taught verbally. I am not sure if he can be taught through hands on scenarios either. There is some speculation that his is not always truthful and that he purposefully creates problems for attention. What I want to know is how I can teach him without him forgetting in a day how to do things to live. Anything will help. Thank you for your time Porcelaintears17 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am more than a little confused. Your uncle can do his own personal care and obviously can read (or he would not have received a driver's licence in any jurisdiction I know). So, he can learn and can be taught. I don't know where you are located in the world, but the U.S. the U.K. and Canada for sure all have social services for adults with learning disabilities and are set up to deal with all "life skills". I'd check with them for professional help. Bielle (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
If he's able to hold down multiple jobs, then he doesn't sound like he has anything more than mild learning difficulties. If his learning difficulties are severe enough that he isn't really able to live alone, then he may be able to get a carer to come round every day or two to help out, or he could move to some kind of assisted living place. If you think he may be attention-seeking, then you should seek professional psychiatric help for him. --Tango (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Your uncle has just gone through a traumatic experience, which would knock the confidence of any "normal" person for a while. He is grieving for the end of a relationship, and maybe the loss of his two children (if his ex has kept custody of them). No wonder he is needy: he needs company as much as he needs to work things out for himself. Just plain living can be a struggle for "normal" people, let alone someone with pre-existing conditions under those circumstances. If he can read, write instructions for him and put them on sticky notes where they're needed. Make contact with social services where you live and see if he can get any help, or maybe through a charity that helps people to live in the community. And cut him some slack. Mind you, there will be a time when he will just have to cope on his own, and maybe he will learn better through doing that. Talk to the others in the family who are supporting him and perhaps you can all come up with a workable solution. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Water Consumption[edit]

How many ounces of water should one consume daily to be healthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porcelaintears17 (talkcontribs) 22:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Fluid balance, it depends:
The amount of water varies with the individual, as it depends on the condition of the subject, the amount of physical exercise, and on the environmental temperature and humidity.
Bielle (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
It also depends on whether the water content of milk, coffee, tea, beer, fruit, fruit juice etc is counted, or whether we're talking about discrete water. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 00:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
What about beer? HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I know a good optician. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 00:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there something to the fact that two resident Australians went to "beer" as their first free-associative thought when someone mentioned water? --Jayron32 01:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but your Edit summary is inaccurate. As its article states, Fosters Lager is not a major product inside Australia these days. It's what we sell to foreigners. We keep the good stuff for ourselves. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there something to the fact that a resident American can't count? I mentioned beer as the 4th of 6 items. HiLo didn't even see it there initially. Between blind Aussies and innumerate Yanks, the world is obviously in good hands. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 03:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
There may also be benefits to consuming water beyond that needed to prevent dehydration. For one thing, if you keep the stomach full of water, this may lessen hunger and keep your weight down. Another benefit is more dilute urine, which is less likely to form kidney stones. Drinks can also be useful for thermal control, by drinking hot liquids when cold and cold liquids when hot. (Of course, any drink would have this affect, but if your drinks are full of sugar/carbs, you may also gain weight.) An alternative to water is unsweetened herbal tea. StuRat (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

approximately the same amount as one expels. (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That would only work if (a) one was properly hydrated to start and (b) if the water lost in all methods of excretion (breathing, sweating, weeping, urinating, defecating et. al.) could be accurately (and conveniently) measured. Bielle (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

mostly true except that it wouldn't be neccessary to measure all the various avenues of water excretion. Only the human hydration measurement need be established to calculate the approximately correct amount. (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

So the amount you need to drink is the amount required to be correctly hydrated! Who would have thought? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
No, that's the bare minimum. See my comments above. StuRat (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)