Miscellaneous desk
< August 15	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

August 16

Wikiscanner

to my calculations wikipideia is the best site in the world!!!!!!

Jaw traps

When were the first "jaw traps" (the kind used on bears and wolves) created? The Animal trapping article says the following ...

"In 1590, jaw traps started being used in England to catch poachers hunting on private land"

The quote doesn't mean that jaw traps were created in the late 16th century. Besides, the statement does not have a citation. I'm sure it was being used before this time. --Ghostexorcist 04:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone also put literal content from Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 under Animal trapping's reference section:

"While rude specimens are known to have existed in the middle ages, the steel-trap as used to-day dates from the middle of the 18th century, and reached perfection in the latter half of the 19th, the "Newhouse," named from the American inventor, having been the first trap of high grade."

---Sluzzelin talk 07:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking that up, but the middle ages article states the titular period was from the 5th to the 15th century. So the statement still doesn't tell me when exactly it was created (even its most crude forms). --Ghostexorcist 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Question

A follow-up question to the one above, the quote in the original question suggests that the traps were designed to be used on humans before they were used on animals. Is this true? Capuchin 09:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check Washing ?!

WHAT is this ? Just seen a ad on TV that a pen's special ink will STOP this. 65.173.104.223 07:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to read the article on check washing? I found it by putting "check washing" into the search box at the top-left of the page, then pressing "Go". I recommend you try this now.

They get a legitimate check from someone, maybe by interception, then they wash out the ink in the "amount" spot or the "payee" spot, and re-enter their own value or name. This way they get lots of money! This pen must use ink that's more resistant to washing techniques. Capuchin 08:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a large concern with any documents printed using a toner-based printer such as a laser printer. Because the fused toner simply sits on the surface, it's relatively easy to scrape off the toner and print something different. And one toner pretty much looks like the next so there's no telling them apart by a casual inspection. The current advice is to use an ink-based printer (such as an inkjet printer and a relatively water-proof ink.

Atlant 12:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one such pen.
Mrdeath5493 02:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KFC Chicken - or not chicken?

A Californian friend sent me an e-mail yesterday telling me that Kentucky Fried Chicken have been made by USA authorities to remove all references in their promotional and advertising literature that makes any reference to chicken, including changing the company name to simply KFC because, it seems, they use an "artificial" meat substitute that derives from a living organism, but which has no beak, feet, feathers etc., and is fed by tubes. I checked on KFC (Uk) where I live and found no such information, but instead, plenty of info. about real chicken meat, including the rearing conditions of chickens by KFC. Who is telling the truth?

You believe that they breed living, breathing bags of chicken meat? That doesn't seem slightly far-fetched to you? The beginning of the KFC article covers the name change. The article doesnt mention anything about no feet-beaks-feathers. I'm pretty certain they use normal chickens, though they're likely to not have the best living conditions. Like most of these chain e-mails, there isnt much truth to it. Capuchin 09:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading on - it's not far from the truth - the chickens only get to keep the bits that help them put on lots of lovely chicken flesh - eg guts.87.102.66.173 11:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are chickens, and that isn't necessarily a good thing. It all depends on who you trust more, a random person forwarding an email, a bunch of people that hate a company, or the company themselves. Nobody is really unbiased or fact checked here. --Lu c id 10:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than likely that they don't have beaks. Most chickens raised in factory farms are debeaked to 'reduce excessive feather pecking and cannibalism in a stressed bird population.' The rest is probably garbage though. 24.250.32.81 10:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read more about this here. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<3 snopes. Anyway, it's kind of a half truth- A lot of times their wings or legs are broken, and I've heard some of these places debeak (I don't think KFC does), the meat is somewhat artificial in the fact that it's stuffed full of drugs and food additives, but the whole idea of it being a bag of flesh that can't feel or anything is sadly not true. They are born chickens, but whether they die chickens is somewhat of an opinion --Lu c id 10:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>.> Snopes isn't really run by a bunch of chain emailers that perpetrate the rumors that they then disprove. They disproved that theory on snopes. --⁪froth^t 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sundar - that's what I like about Wiki - I can always find at least one INFORMED response that is checkable and credible. By the way, I have just forwarded your response and the Snopes article to my Californian friend. Hope he sends it all the way back up the chain. Cheers.

Truly artificial meat is coming though, and it won't be long. It will pose an interesting questions to vegetarians, of course. If there's no possibility of consciousness there , are there any ethical qualms about eating it? (Health concerns remain, of course.) Will it be here sooner than Soylent Green? Well, that's another question, of course.

Atlant 12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the conditions that these unfortunate animals are raised in - they are clearly still chickens - a simple DNA check would verify that. But even if it were true that KFC meals no longer contained any chicken - why would the US government force a company to change their name? You can find any number of companies whose name no longer reflects what they do. This is a typical urban legend email. SteveBaker 13:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was fortunate enough to have some Kentucky Fried Chicken when there were only a couple of restaurants and Colonel Sanders was directly in charge. It was excellent. I have never had better fried chicken before or since. The product today does not have either the texture or the flavor of version 1.0. There is certainly still chicken in there, but the coating seems more greasy and rubbery than was the case decades ago. Edison 16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? From the article, it sounds like this must have happened in the 50's if there were only a few restaurants. Friday (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Colonel Sanders himself was in the news a while back, when he was still alive I guess, grousing about how the corporation had screwed up his chicken since he'd sold it to them. Gzuckier 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it like this...One of the biggest fast food chains in the western world is forced to change its name due to its products no longer containing chicken...How likely is that NOT to have been a gigantic newstory the world over? The question of how chickens are raised is an interesting one - do we force the marketplace to rear chickens more humanely or do we let the marketplace decide (through purchases) what it considers acceptable. Seemingly those who prefer free-range have that option, whereas those who do not mind have the option too. Of course this is ignoring the ethics/morals of differing rearing methodology. ny156uk 23:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember of course that while free range stuff by nature is always likely to be more expensive then factory farmed, quantity does come into play here. As long as free range remains so much more expensive then factory farmed, it's much more likely people are not going to choose it. But as long as free range remains a niche option then it's going to remain much more expensive. A fairly typical chicken and egg problem :-P Nil Einne 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we're thoroughly debeaked this particular legend, can I point anyone who still cares to Margaret Atwood's near-future dystopian novel Oryx and Crake, which features just this creature, a GM all breast and no bones post-chicken-organism which just sits there eating garbage and making white meat - it's marketed as a "Chickie-Nobs™ Bucket o' Nubbins®". It's only got the most elementary of brainstem, so you can't really have a "the poor thing is suffering" moral argument against it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

teaching chemistry

Notes on literature review for teaching equations in Chemistry undergraduate course.

Did you have a question? Capuchin 10:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes could you rephrase that - do you want a list of methods of teaching chemical equations or something else?87.102.66.173 11:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writer stats.

How much, on average, do (fiction novel, mainly) writers make yearly, on book sales alone? On average (including everyone above vanity publishers up to JKR), what's normal, the more famous ones, etc. I've looked around, but I haven't seen any money on how much authors make, or even their worth (which seems odd, as sports, movies, all other entertainment seems easy to find salaries for). I'm thinking that full time fiction novel writers probably average very low income, but then I of course don't know --Lu c id 10:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on your definitions. If average means "mode", the answer is probably zero. Unless you define "writers" as being ones who actually make it into print. I doubt anyway that there are any meaningful statistics, because being a writer isn't like a "normal" salaried job - successful writers' incomes have peaks due to advances and launches of new books and troughs when they benefit from royalties from previously published works. As many writers don't publish very regularly (not everyone is Barbara Cartland) there isn't even an "average" year for authors on an individual basis, let alone mass. --Dweller 15:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a meaningful answer could be gotten by sticking to published authors other than vanity. The questioner mentioned "full time fiction novel writers." There are at least many thousand of such writers who get paid for their work. What kind of contract. Dick Francis has written dozens of successful books over many decades published by G.P. Putnam's Sons. Janet Evanovich has written many best sellers published by St. Martin's Press. J.A. Jance has written best sellers published by Avon Books. So what kid of contract do mainstream publishers of fiction sign? Is there an advance plus some payment per copy? I knew a lady who wrote a dozen Harlequin Romances, and I am sure she got paid fairly well, or she wouldn't have bothered to keep writing them.At the other end of the spectrum, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling has a U.S. cover price of $34.99 (commonly discounted). How much does Rowling get for the many millions of copies sold? Even if authors and publishers might wish to be reticent there is bound to be some leakage of information. Edison 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not all publishers pay by number of books sold - I once wrote a few chapters of a collaborative non-fiction book (about Linux games programming) - the payment was all up-front and in no way depended on the number sold. (Which is just as well because some of the other authors in the collaboration wrote crap and the book didn't sell many copies). In other cases, where the payment is by royalty on each copy, the 'advance' payment has to be repaid to the publisher from royalty revenue - before you get to keep a penny of it - and very often it may take years (if ever) before that happens. Getting even an average (mean) number is going to be tough - and it's not even a particularly useful number. When you factor in the billion dollars that J.K Rowling made from the Harry Potter series - that one author alone will seriously skew the numbers for a million authors who didn't ever see a penny. A more useful measure would be "What is the probability (P) of earning $X per year as an author" - plotted as a graph of P against X. SteveBaker 17:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, the advance doesn't have to be re-paid on book contracts. Book publishers haven't reached the same levels of exploitation that the music industry has. This is one reason that many authors are leary of multiple book deals: The advance counts against royalties on all books and if one or more books fails to earn out the advance, they will come out behind where they would have been with single-book contracts. A typical advance for a first-time novelist will usually be in the neighborhood of US$10,000, but may be higher or lower depending on a variety of factors including market analysis, the publisher and how good of a negotiator the author's agent is. There's at least one best-selling author who takes no advance at all, just the straight royalties on his sales. I would also point out that "full-time novelist" is a rather small set of people. Are you excluding those who also teach ([Joyce Carol Oates] teaches at Princeton), or perhaps have a second part-time job or are partially supported by their spouse's earnings. The list of people who make a living only writing novels is much smaller than you think it is. And the bulk of writers, the so-called midlist probably manage to make less than $20,000 per book including royalties after the book earns out (if it earns out) and paperback rights. Donald Hosek 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(http://saskjobfutures.ca/profiles/profile.cfm?site=graphic&noc=5121&lang=en) and (http://www.andreasemple.com/sarahr.htm) but nothing official that I can find from a quick search. I would expect the average salary is quite modest. Journalism which I would consider different to novelists will have more stats available i assume. The crowd-pulling writers for the top uk newspapers can earn very good money (Boris Johnson who is an MP so has his interests publically known gets £245-250k a year for his Telegraph columns - here http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/boris_johnson/henley#register is a register of his interests - lots of books/writing stuff. ny156uk 22:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pompeii's emblem

Hello, I was wondering if you could send me a piture of pompeii's emblem. If u cann't find their emblem a coat of arms or a shield of pompeii will do.

Hello, our article on Pompei has an image of the municipality's coat of arms (top of the box on the right), you can click it to see a slightly higher resolution. This Italian heraldic site has a better image. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if you mean the ancient ruins of Pompeii, they wouldn't have had anything like that. Adam Bishop 15:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The Romans certainly had city emblems - note that [1] says that Augsburg's city logo dates back to Roman times - so that city certainly had an emblem - why wouldn't Pompeii have had one? SteveBaker 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, they wouldn't have had a heraldric coat of arms, anyway. Adam Bishop 03:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase Origin(s): "Flood [them] with paperwork"

Any detail that can be provided on the origin of the phrases, "Flood them with paperwork" is appreciated. Zeke1480 12:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)zeke1480[reply]

Scientology would be a good place to look for this. If they didn't invent it, they almost certainly have articles about them to help trace it back further. --Lu c id 12:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brunettes and Blondes

My daughter had asked us a question regarding how many people in the world have brown hair and how many have blonde hair. Can you help with this question? Sylvia R.

The article on Human hair color should be a good starting point. - Eron ^Talk 15:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More people have black hair, than blonds and brunettes put together (considering huge proportions of the population of Africa, Asia and South America have very dark hair, and a fair proportion of the other continents also). Without defining exactly what is blond and what is brunette: the general trend would be (from most to least) black > brown > blonde > red. This can be explained by the genetics of hair colour, specifically by the molecular switching from eumelanin (on) to phaeomelanin (off). The switch is under evolutionary pressure to stay on in the tropics and subtropics (where early humans evolved), and was only permitted to switch off when humans reached the northern lattitudes. This combined with the fact the "on switch" tends to be genetically dominant to the off switch and the low birth rates in northern latitudes, and the increase in incontinental travel, means lighter hair colours are relatively rare and getting rarer. Indeed, some have predicted blondes (and, by the same rationale, red heads) could "die out" [2], though this is highly unlikely to occur, since the genes will likely always float about in the gene pool in a recessive manner and pop up again. Rockpocket 19:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True - but the OP wants to know how many there are of each - not which there is the most of. SteveBaker 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but that information is most certainly not available. Estimates suggest that around 2% of the worlds population is blond, perhaps as little as .1 to .5% have red hair. Brown hair, I don't think there is accurate numbers for, at an educated guess, I'd say perhaps 20%. But of course, it all depends on how you define the colours. Rockpocket 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conundrum

two people are guarding two doors, one door the gate to heaven, the other to hell, but one person lies and the other tells the truth. I have one question , but what is the question that has to be asked to get the door to heaven? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.245 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ask one of them "If I asked the other guard which door was the door to heaven, what would his answer be?" Then you pick the other door.- Eron ^Talk 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is question 4 at Knights and Knaves, if you want more of this kind of thing. Algebraist 17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always worry that the liar would just make a compound response like "Oh, he always lies so he'd say X". By this mechanism the liar could tell the truth about the door. 69.95.50.15 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most forms of the puzzle avoid that by asking a Yes/No type of question such as: "If I asked that fellow over there whether this door lead to heaven, would he say 'Yes'?" ...of course this assumes that the guy who always tells the truth knows that the other guy always lies - and also that both of them know which door is which. SteveBaker 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course there's this variation. Donald Hosek 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a rather popular trope in webcomics, to tell the truth. :P GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be outdone in geek-ness, it also features in the Doctor Who book, The Ultimate Treasure if I remember right. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an exhaustive and entertaining study of this problem in one of Martin Gardner's books on Mathematical puzzles and diversions from Scientific American. I can't gve a precise reference as one of my sons seems to have purloined it.SaundersW 08:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What single question can you ask of any of your sons to determine which one stole it? --Tagishsimon (talk)

This question appeared in the Doctor Who serial The Pyramids of Mars, if i recall correctly::::::::::

british sterling

what year did british sterling first come to the usa for sale

Do you mean the British unit of currency (the 'pound sterling') or sterling silver? Either way, I'm pretty sure it would have been around in North America long before there actually was a 'USA'. Sterling silver was first made in the 13th century, and the pound sterling dated back to the 12th century - both would have been in common use hundreds of years before Columbus (1492) and long before the arrival of the Mayflower in 1620. SteveBaker 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the pound sterling, the former colonial currency, remained in circulation in the United States until around 1820 (alongside the dollar)! Marco polo 20:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling (car), 1987. -Arch dude 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Well, it would have been a LOT easier if our questioner had been just a teensiest bit more forthcoming! SteveBaker 03:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owls

What is the most common owl in Ireland? - Pheonix 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find the answer on Wikipedia, but it is possible Birdwatch Ireland [3] may be able to help you. DuncanHill 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be the barn owl, [4] but they have dramatically dropped in numbers recently. So the Long-eared owl is now most common. [5] (Oddly enough, the tawny owl is the most common in Britain, but is almost completely absent from Ireland). Rockpocket 18:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Height and Weight in the NFL

Who is the tallest player currently in the NFL (along with height), and who is the heaviest (with weight)? Also, historically, who were the tallest and heaviest? Thank you. 71.172.69.32 19:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See William Perry (football player) for one of the top contenders on weight, if not the champ. Dismas|^(talk) 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest is Jonathan Ogden, I believe, who is 6'9". It's weird, someone a few months ago asked for the tallest and lightest NFL players. I don't know who is heaviest but if you are bored you can look through all of the depth charts on NFL.com for it. Recury 17:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaviest currently is Ted Washington of the Cleveland Browns, listed at 375 pounds / 175 kg on this year's roster. By the way, lightest is Martín Gramática, kicker for the Dallas Cowboys at 170 pounds / 77 kg. Shortest are Cory Ross and Darren Sproles, running backs for the Baltimore Ravens and San Diego Chargers, respectively, at 5'6" / 1.67 m. — Michael J 21:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I answered the lightest question before, I found Roscoe Parrish, who was listed on NFL.com as 168 pounds but is listed at 171 in our article. And he actually gets tackled! Recury 22:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasta sauces before tomato

What did Italian people use for pasta sauces before tomatoes were introduced? DuncanHill 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well their are a lot of non-tomato sauces still in use: olive oil, butter and cream-based sauces being the most common. Donald Hosek 20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmm...pesto. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olive oil, butter and cream sounds like a good beginning to any sauce. DuncanHill 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add flour (and an italian cheese of your choice) to make a white sauce.. eg http://www.bawarchi.com/cookbook/italian3.html or many other recipes.87.102.74.134 20:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clams, walnuts seem to be common native additives according to the internet.87.102.74.134 21:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are some recipes at wikibooks::Category:Pasta sauces - some don't use tomatoes. Jon513 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is making me hungry. Italy is near the sea, so seafood sauces would be easy to make. --S.dedalus 22:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons I had for asking is that while in Italy it is very easy to get delicious food (including pasta and pizza) without tomatoes in, Italian restaurants outside of Italy seem to insist on putting the poisonous little buggers into everything. DuncanHill 22:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with that sentiment. :-) --S.dedalus 00:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomatoes (the fruit) are not poisonous - only the leaves and stems of the whole plant are laced with Glycoalkaloids. SteveBaker 03:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why do the fruits make me vomit? DuncanHill 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be an allergy. It's more likely than you think! Plasticup ^T/C 14:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. The best Italian I've had was at a restaurant that cooked the pasta with olive oil and spices. And even then, it was over $15 USD per plate. Absolutely nothing else in the dish. I've never had tomato-less pizza though, and since tomatoes are so good for the prostate.... --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. Tomatoes are fat-free, cholesterol-free, low in calories, high in vitamins, contain lycopene, are fairly inexpensive (under US$1 a pound where I am), and taste good to boot. That's quite a winning combo, if you ask me. StuRat 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza without tomato sauce is called pizza bianca. It is generally topped with mozarella cheese and artichokes or similar. SaundersW 08:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to see our article about Roux.

Atlant 12:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a pizza in Pizz Hut that had barbeque sauce underneath the cheese instead of tomato. It was delicious. Lanfear's Bane

Yes, but most barbeque sauce is still tomato-based. StuRat 07:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would wager a fair sum that that particular recipe is 100% American. Plasticup ^T/C 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See your local Chinese restaurant for some examples. Gzuckier 15:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~loli haet pizza! Lanfear's Bane~~

Um is it really impossible to get at least some sort of macaroni and cheese or similar without tomato in the US? Yes this is a fairly simply thing and I don't know if it's really Italian but it seems to me at least one obvious example of a pasta sauce without tomato. Nil Einne 21:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monkey birth

what do monkeys do with the umbilical cord when giving birth in the wild?

Dunno about monkeys - but in many mammals, the mother eats the entire after-birth because it's packed with nutrients. SteveBaker 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is monkey placenta eaten by people anywhere?

I don't know - but people-placenta is certainly eaten by people! Many hospitals offer new mothers the opportunity to make a placental omelette (see Placentophagy) - some even recommend it because it is believed by some to help to relieve postpartum depression. [6] recommends eating it with butter and garlic - claiming it tastes like veal. SteveBaker 03:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Many hospitals offer new mothers the opportunity to make a placental omelette" - Whoa. A placental omelette. That is seriously disturbing. I am never going to be able to eat eggs again. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you find it seriously disturbing? Are you twelve? Placentophagy is not as rare as you might think, and there's certainly nothing wrong with it, except perhaps for the risk of spreading pathogens if you were to eat a placenta that didn't come from you or someone you were already intimate with. 10:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That is also in the article Placenta#Non-humans. --Jon513 22:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what happens to the part that is still attached to the monkey infant?

I would assume it's the same as on a dog or kitten. It shrivels up and falls off. Dismas|^(talk) 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What type of source is the Associated Press?

What type of sources is the Associated Press (AP)? Daily periodical? Daily newspaper? I need to know which type of MLA format to use when using AP articles as a source. thanks. 65.96.4.202 23:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Associated Press is a News agency. I have no idea how that would afffect MLA format. DuncanHill 23:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably just cite it like a newspaper. - Eron ^Talk 23:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't double-post your questions (you also posted this one to the Humanities Desk). Since AP is a wire service for their member organizations (newspapers, radio, and TV), the place where the story appeared will make it relevant how you cite it. For example, if it's from a print edition of a newspaper, you'd cite it as a newspaper article. If it's in an electronic article database, you'd cite it like you'd cite any other article from that database. Since I get the feeling that you found the article on a website, I'd cite it as a webpage would be cited, although I don't have my MLA reference with me. –Pakman044 02:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]