Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 April 21

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.

April 21

Dragon Blood Tree

Hello, can anyone tell me if the picture to the right is a Dracaena cinnabari? The picture is from the Socotra page, and if it is the same tree I'll put it in the Dracaena cinnabari article. A search on google brings up various pictures, some of which look like the same tree and some that don't, and I'm no botanist. TastyCakes (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a Dragon's Blood tree (cf this example from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh website [1], and it doesn't particularly look like any of the other Dracaena I've seen, so probably - but I am not a botanist! DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that does look just like this one... Is it just me or does this picture on commons (which claims to be of Dracaena cinnabari) look like a different tree? Maybe they just look different because they're further away? TastyCakes (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well spotted - the leaves look different to me (more leafy, less daggery) in the commons pic. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your article on Steinbach Department Stores

Information in the article on Steinbach Department stores is incorrect. Your article states that in 1978, The Asbury Park Store was the only Steinbach Department to have a restaurant. This is wrong. I have tried to correct this information 3 times, but it has been deleted. I left a message on the talk page. The bottomline, in 1980, I was the General Manager with Marriott, that managed 3 Steinbach Department store restaurants, Seaview Square, Shore Mall, and Manalapan Mall, and I referenced it as such. How much more verification is needed? Asbury Park store was already closed in 1980 and yet I managed 3 other store restaurants. Marriott was contracted to manage their in-store restaurants in 1977. I also managed the Manalapan Store restaurant from April 1978 unitl April, 1979. Obviously, the article that references the "fact" that the Asbury Park store was the only store with a restaurant in 1978, is not accurate. If you can't add that there were other stores with restaurants, then this other quotation should be removed. How much more accuracy can you get then from the person that managed the restaurants?

Mark A. Rusin Cary, NC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncfoodman (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you haven't really referenced your additions to the article. The references need to come from a neutral, independent, reliable and verifiable source such as a newspaper or an official publication. Without some kind of independent corroboration such as this, I am afraid that your edits will continue to be reverted. And you haven't left a note on the article's talk page, by the way. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is incorrect information there that isn't verified similarly, however, you can probably safely delete it by the same criteria that's being used to delete your additions. TastyCakes (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mark, this might seem counter-intuitive at first but no person is considered considered a reliable source. Only published works are considered reliable sources. If you can find a newspaper article (which are usually considered reliable sources) that says this, then you can add it to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, that's correct. Wikipedia can't take the word of any one person because (aside from anything else) we have no clue whether you are who you claim to be. That is called Original Research and it's not allowed. In this case of an article like this - which is hardly of earth-shattering importance, that would seem to hardly matter - but we have rules - and in the case of highly contentious articles, it's very likely that some idiot will claim to have personal knowledge just to get their personal opinion into the article. Hence we rely on references - outside sources that everyone can go and look at (at least in principle) to verify the truth of each fact. Now - on the other hand - if the information that's in the article right now is incorrect AND if it doesn't have solid references - then you should feel free to delete it. That way neither the truth (according to you) or the falsehood are in the article. However, if the information that's in the article already IS backed up by solid references - then you're going to have to either convincingly explain why those references are in fact incorrect - or suck it up and admit that perhaps your memory is faulty. Either way - this is a matter that should be discussed on the discussion page of the article itself - and not here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hitler, Einstein and The Fonze

What do Adolph Hitler, Albert Einstein, The Fonze from "Happy Days", Leon Trotsky, Mark Twain, James Watt, Benito Mussilini, Paul McCartney, Evita Peron, Claude Monet, Thomas Edison, Charles Darwin, Bill Gates, Issac Newton, and Robin Williams have in common?

Their pictures are all on my history teacher's wall and he says it's because they all have something in common, but he won't tell us what. This isn't for any sort of credit, just curiosity. I think it might be the most influential people, or they achieved their dreams or something like that, but he says they are up there to remind him of something everyday, and that is what they have in common. This is absolutely the most frustrating question I have encountered in his class, please help.

Mmm were they all on covers of Time magazine or something? TastyCakes (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, the older names have never been on there I'm pretty sure. Are you sure it's not something fluffy and deeply unsatisfying like "they all changed the world"? TastyCakes (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I reckon he's lying. Teachers always have some bullshit story they won't tell you, to try to "make you think" and figure it out yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would guess something fluffy and unsatisfying. Although the Fonze seems like an odd candidate for "They all changed the world/achieved their dreams/became the best at what they do/etc."Popcorn II (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's probably fluffy and unsatisfying and impossible to work out except by dumb luck. Without some kind of context there are just too many things they all have in common (they are all human, for example, also, more notably, they are all European (or of European descent) as far as I can see). --Tango (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

All of their Wikipedia articles have a neutrality disputed tag on them? Just kidding. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

They all wore socks. Except Einstein. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean Claude Monet? Or Charles Trenet, perhaps? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

They were all interviewed by Larry King. Actually, the Time guess is probably a good one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Isaac Newton? --Anonymous, 23:51 UTC, April 21, 2009.

If someone has a lot of time and patience, all the time magazine covers are here. I only got to about 1929, although Trotsky was on two covers by then :O TastyCakes (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if Newton, Watt, Monet and Darwin had lived in recent times, I somehow doubt that the Time magazine connection has anything to do with it. That would hardly seem to be something that a history teacher would want to be reminded of every day, and have pictures on his walls about. And even if it were, why not all the thousands of other people who were on the front cover of Time? Why just this group of people? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You know, there is this thing called a "search function"... makes it a lot easier than wading through all of them ;-) I don't think Newton or the Fonze were ever on the covers of Time, in any case. Darwin has one tiny cameo in 1981. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

They're actually all left-handed, IIRC (like me!). Steewi (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So, ironically, Hitler was a lefty? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why would Hitler being left handed be ironic? Dismas|^(talk) 01:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a pun on the first and thirteenth meanings listed at lefty. Algebraist 01:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe they all dropped out of school at some point. BTW, that's Claude Monet, not Charles. —D. Monack ^talk 01:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested above. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going with left-handed too (Steewi beat me to it!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of those people do not appear on popular lists of left handed celebrities. I can't vouch for the accuracy of such lists, but I'm not sure that a history teacher would have anything better.

Almost half of them (Hitler, Einstein, Twain, McCartney, Darwin, Newton ) appear on the List of vegetarians, which is much higher than you would expect from a random sampling. APL (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is someone a "vegetarian" on such a list if they were ever a vegetarian, or if they were always a vegetarian? The accuracy of classifying people by habits, rather than physical or inborn traits, is suspect. --Scray (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hitler a vegetarian? That's probably the most extreme case of irony I've ever heard of. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it ironic because Hitler was openly a cannibal? Livewireo (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not really that ironic if you know much about Hitler. His philosophy was much concerned with bodily health, and he considered not eating meat to be part of that. He also cared much more for animals than humans (he rated dogs and wolves much higher than Jews), but that doesn't actually put him at odds with a number of ethicists (humans have free will, can make decisions for themselves; dogs and wolves cannot, must be cared for, etc.). This does not in any way imply that vegetarians and dog-lovers are "like Hitler" in anything but a superficial way (that is, those things do not in any way necessarily intersect with being genocidal, warlike). --140.247.252.236 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they're all left-handed vegetarians. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say if Hitler was a vegetarian, it all depends on who you believe and what you define vegetarian as. Most sources agree (and no, I'm not going to reference them, suffice to say I've read books on the period and researched the topic personally) that he ate foods with meat elements in such as some stock or animal suet for example. His personal chef stated after the war that Hitler's favourite dish was pidgeon, but many other observers state he used to enjoy tormenting meat-eating guests with rants about how animals were slaughtered in great detail and then calling them hypocrits if they stopped eating. So did he eat meat, and if so how much? 217.206.155.146 (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE ... see Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism ---Sluzzelin talk 11:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your teacher is a history teacher. One definition of the study of history is that it is the analysis of primary and secondary sources. The photos are one source, but ask him what other documents or secondary sources you can usefully look at, in order to work it out for yourself. --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

They all have Wikipedia articles? (Adolph Hitler, Albert Einstein, The Fonze from "Happy Days", Leon Trotsky, Mark Twain, James Watt, Benito Mussilini, Paul McCartney, Evita Peron, Claude Monet, Thomas Edison, Charles Darwin, Bill Gates, Issac Newton, and Robin Williams.)-Arch dude (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the left-handed theory is the right one. I think you should print out the picture of (say) Jimi Hendrix (who is famously left-handed - stick it up next to the other photos and see if your teacher takes it down again. Subtle - but effective. SteveBaker (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the OP's history teacher indeed picked these people from a list of left-handed celebrities, but that doesn't mean much. Pick a celebrity at random, chances are they're on one of those lists. Einstein wasn't left handed ([2] [3] [4] [5]), nor was Hitler ([6] [7] [8]), nor is Henry "Fonz" Winkler ([9]). I stopped checking at that point. I'm sure a few of them are left handed, probably around ten percent. -- BenRG (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There's doubts about Twain's Handedness too, [10]. Supposedly rumor's of Twain's left-handedness come from a flipped photo on the cover of one of his books.

Usually, though. People take the supposed characteristics of "lefties" (Creativeness, non-linear thinking, etc) and try to find famous people that fit the description. Once these people are added to lists of lefties, the stereotype is strengthened.

It's hard to find a brilliant person born more than 150 years ago who isn't claimed as a lefty.

If the teacher does intend this as a list of lefties, he's sadly mistaken. And besides, he's missed out Leonardo da Vinci who was famously left handed.

APL (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I spend a few moments thinking about it, simply writing righty isn't enough to disqualify you from being lefty. Until recently lefties were strongly encouraged as children to write righty and punished for writing lefty. But, I would still say that these people's leftyness is unverified at best. APL (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So far, the 5 I have checked have been born in an odd numbered year, though it gets a little sticky with Issac Newton, what with the calendar change. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My bet is that it's something limp like "They all worked hard and achieved success." Except for The Fonz (it's spelled "Fonz", by the way), for whom it was a requirement to succeed without working at it. Tempshill (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Working hard and achieving success is a good thing for any teacher to teach, but is not something that history teachers especially focus on, to this degree. But if he did want some shining examples of hard-working successful people, I somehow doubt he'd include Hitler, Mussolini or Trotsky, all of whom came to very grim and sticky ends and most of their "work" was undone (except for the millions of people who died needlessly as a result of their policies). Stalin is often mentioned alongside Hitler and Mussolini. What characteristic did they have that Stalin didn't? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

They all jumped the shark? Hitler when he invaded the Soviet Union, Einstein when he rejected quantum mechanics, McCartney when he made Give My Regards to Broadstreet, etc. I'm pretty sure you could probably come up with arguments for everyone if you tried hard enough. In all seriousness, if there is a real answer, you might want to focus on the Fonze. He's the only fictional character in that list so that might be a clue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And Monet was the only painter. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Except for Hitler. --Tango (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the Fonz, but Hitler, Newton, Gates and Darwin about all seem to have written a book. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As did Twain... a few, actually! ;) Well, I was going to say they all have the letter T in their name, but it breaks down when you get to Darwin (although his middle name, Robert, has one) and falls apart completely when you reach Robin Williams. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to get the feeling that this is a history teacher's version of a koan. Its real purpose is simply to inspire students to research these people's lives as a first step in the lifelong path of intellectual and academic enquiry. They may never find a common link, but they'll discover all sorts of interesting things about them along the way, and be inspired to become historians, or at least readers of things other than the sides of Coke cans. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Jack, and would like to add that I imagine the best final answer would be "all of them have their picture on your wall, sir/miss". 86.8.176.85 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your teacher has given you a clue - they are there to remind HIM of something, not to remind YOU of something (like the important of studying hard or something like that). Therefore, my guess is that all of these people had difficulty at some point in their schooling. That would remind him not to write off a student is not doing well according to the bureaucracy of the educational system. Often very bright students have a hard time focusing because they are not being challenged. Off the top of my head, I know this was the case with Einstein, Edison and Gates. http://www.kindofcurious.com/