Miscellaneous desk
< February 24	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 26 >

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.

February 25

How common are fruit haters?

I'm shocked by the vehement responces about eating fruit above. Just how common is it for people to be opposed to eating fruit? I've never come across this in Europe, but are things different in North America? I once saw Bart Simpson refusing to eat fruit in the Simpsons cartoon, was this not actually comic hyperbole but something that reflects common attitudes? Thanks. 92.29.115.47 (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is tangential to your question, but I don't see opposition to fruit in the thread above (the one titled "vitamins"). What I see is opposition to unspecific, unreferenced claims about the healthiness of fruit. It's also inadvisable to attempt to predict the future, as in your claims about fruit and veg containing a great many nutrients "including those as yet undiscovered" and that "It would be crazy to claim that fruit only consists of known vitmains and little else". It's not possible to predict future knowledge; future knowledge is by definition knowledge we don't have yet; if we knew today what future knowledge will be, we would already have it. Now that I've said that three times in different ways, I'll cite the preface to The Poverty of Historicism (1976), where the same thing is said in some other way (I forget the actual quote). Granted, the subject here is nutrition rather than Marxism, but the same principle applies. Personally I am currently binging on fruit, but I find it unsatisfying, and am only doing this because it cures the horrible constipation caused by my previous phase of binging on toasted cheese. Toasted cheese made me feel much more full and satisfied, although "clogged" would perhaps be a more accurate description. This may be TMI. 81.131.42.235 (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I think all you can get for an answer is WP:OR. When comparing groups this large, generalities are hard to come by, and won't mean much anyway. As a North American, I see plenty of fruits at the market and plenty of people buying them. Children in all cultures can be finicky eaters, though I'd say it's more common to be opposed to eating vegetables. For instance Brussels_sprouts are often cited as unpalatable. The Simpsons bit is surely playing off a hyperbolic stereotype, which in turn probably has a grain of truth to it. I'm sure nobody in Europe subsists on fried meat and cheese. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I will just note that Brussels sprouts are, as far as vegetables go, amongst the most unpalatable. They are distinctly bitter, even when cooked. If you're going to hate a vegetable, you're probably going to hate them. I like vegetables, but I hate Brussels sprouts. Even when smothered in bacon and sour cream, their essential bitterness comes through in a way I can't stand. Lima beans are a close second for me in terms of things that are not pleasing, even if you're not opposed to vegetables in principle! --Mr.98 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I heard an explanation that some people tasted the specific bitter compound in sprouts (and broccoli), whereas others didn't really, to explain why some people like them and others hate them. But in my family, we appear to both be able to taste it and enjoy it so clearly we're weird. I assume we would quickly die in a situation where we had to avoid poison... 86.166.42.200 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange — I'm generally not a fan of the cabbage family, but I actually like Brussels sprouts, cooked. I guess I like cooked cabbage OK too, so it's not as strange as it could be. But it seems that the chemicals that explain why some people don't like cooked Brussels sprouts must be different from the ones that explain why I don't like raw cabbage. --Trovatore (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like pretty much all cabbage-like things, but Brussels Sprouts are utterly vile. Not as horrible as tomatoes (fresh toms make me vomit, cooked ones give me hives and the runs), but vile nonetheless. DuncanHill (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More for me. In exchange you can have my raw cabbage and cole slaw. --Trovatore (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Non-OR, PubMed seems to have lots of papers on fruit consumption in adults and children and on attitudes to fruit. Not all are relevant, obviously, but this and this and this might be of interest. (Also, the prevalence of vitamin taking in Canadians). Unfortunately, I don't have journal access to delve further. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the responses to [1] above as "anti-fruit", but rather "anti-(pro-fruit propaganda)". There are a number of naturopathic/pseudoscience/woo books, websites and proponents who claim that "all of what ails you" can be cured by "phytochemicals" or that modern diseases can all be traced to a lack of "active enzymes" in cooked foods, and all will be healed if you only eat raw foods (like fruit) instead. There is little to no scientific or reliable medical evidence that this is the case - the people pushing such notions are in all likelihood either self-deluded or charlatans, exploiting the gullibility of the public to make money. The responses were likely made after interpreting the preceding comments as coming from such a woo-peddler or one of their dupes. I seriously doubt that the commenter was against fruit (most accredited health authorities, including the FDA, recognize that fruit is a part of a well-balanced diet), but was instead vehemently reacting to the (perceived) suggestion that fruit has some sort of trans-scientific mystical/magical nutritive/healing power. -- 174.24.222.166 (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should respond as I might be seen as part of the irrational fruit haters association having posted above. I love fruit and fresh vegetables, and I never take any vitamin supplements. But the idea that fruit is always ideal food is almost as bad as thinking junk food tastes nice so it must be good for you. Modern farming methods, consumer's desire for almost perfect looking fruit, people wanting fruit out of season and many other factors can mean the fruit you buy is far from nutritious and may be full of chemicals. meltBanana 04:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes, our food maybe be full of chemicals! Keep those damn saccharides away from me! 86.166.42.200 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)_[reply]

Not to mention the high levels of dihydrogen monoxide in fruit! DuncanHill (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The apparant fruit-haters appear to be people who are trying to cover-up the fact that junk-food is bad for you. Perhaps they like deluding themselves, or perhaps they think that if the bad news is censored then the facts will magically change, or perhaps they make money out of it. While ideally it would be nice if every reply on the reference desk was fully cited and referenced, that hardly ever happens, as it usually requires too much time and labour to do and the sources for the information may have been forgotten. It would be wrong to remove unseful information just because it was uncited. Demanding citations and references - on some ocassions only - is just an attempt to gag or discredit repliers who say things that some people do not want to hear. It was rare for anyone to require citations (particularly for common knowledge) before, but clearly the fruit/junk-food thing has touched a nerve and some people have suddenly started asking for citations in an attempt to edit the truth. If I had said something like "McDonalds produces good wholesome nutritious food" then I doubt I would have been required to provide citations. While it is accepted in Europe that junk-food is bad for you, what we are seeing here is some North Americans fighting a rearguard action to defend the healthiness of junk food. 92.28.245.149 (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This raises some interesting aspects of Wikipedia philosophy.* You might be interested in WP:Fringe theories, particularly the line "exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources", and on the other hand, WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. The definitions of "exceptional claim", "obvious", and "common sense" are tricky, but it's necessary to have these ideas in some form, or Wikipedia couldn't function.

*And epistemology in general. 213.122.25.248 (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite wrong, if you had said "McDonalds produces good wholesome nutritious food" you very likely would have been challenged. And I do challenge unreferenced statements I find highly questionable as do others, one of the reasons why it's not so common is because a lot of people don't posted unreferenced statements people here find questionable. Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the American government thinks fruit and veg are good for you: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/chapter5.htm Unless of course, its a conspiracy. So does the British http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/5aday/pages/5adayhome.aspx/ 92.24.186.89 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great but um who here has ever said they believe fruit and veges are never good for you? What people have said is that although fruit and veges are good for you, they aren't some sort of wonder food that are always and for ever more good for you involving any type and in any quantity and to the exclusion if all other food. The very refs you cite make it clear you should consume fruit and veges as part of a balanced diet and in no way do they suggest eating fruit and veges to the exclusion of all else is good for you as I guess you are suggesting (well if you aren't I'm not really sure what you're suggesting since as I've said no one has suggested that fruit and veges aren't good for you so I can only presume you are challenging those who have said it is inaccurate to suggest fruit and veges are good for you in all circumstances and when eaten to the exclusion of all else). Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Blah blah blah...and in no way do they suggest eating fruit and veges to the exclusion of all else is good for you as I guess you are suggesting...blah blah blah". I've never suggested that. Yet another example of putting their imagined words into my mouth. I am not an idiot. 92.24.179.104 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I've said, it's not clear what you're talking about, since you keep harping on about anti fruit and vege people on the RD despite the fact NO ONE has said they think fruit and veges are never good. You also talk about how health authorities say fruit and veges are an important part of a balanced diet despite the fact NO ONE has questioned this. So the only possible assumption I could make if I WP:AGF that you are not a troll and you are capable of understanding what people are saying is you believe these things although I made it clear I wasn't sure. If that is not the case, while I don't think anyone here has ever suggested you are an idiot (troll perhaps), it is apparent you are either ignoring what people are saying or incapable of understanding what people are saying since despite the fact multiple people have explained to you what was being said above and despite the fact it wasn't even that confusing anyway, you continue to make inaccurate claims about what people have said and make irrelevant points which no one ever questioned. And you do seem to have a history of this on the RD in multiple areas. P.S. Note that my above 2 posts are the first contribution of mine to either discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot we simply agree that fruit and vegetables are a healthy part of a balanced diet, that most people (at least in the West) do not eat enough of them, and that nobody is suggesting that they be eaten to the exclusion of everything else? 92.24.191.30 (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Tower of Pisa

Can a thing similar to the Mitsubishi logo be found on the Leaning Tower of Pisa? --84.61.155.241 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure speculation, but anchor plates might be that shape, and a structure that's slowly falling over might need them. 81.131.42.235 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose in some pictures the layout of sets of three windows (in a kind of triangular shape) at the top of the tower has a tiny resemblance to the logo. It's a stretch though. --Frumpo (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Escaping path dependence

This (path dependence) is the phenomenon whereby popular, established standards survive while apparently superior but unpopular ones fail. It's said to have happened with the demise of broad gauge, and betamax, and the failure of the dvorak keyboard to gain widespread use, and the persistence of cryptic three-letter 1970s directory names in linux systems. It may also explain the failure of democracy to take a hold in some countries, and it may sometimes be deliberately prolonged, as seen in bureaucratic resistance to new technologies like electric lighting and the motor car encouraged by those making money from old technologies like horses and gas, or even deliberately created, as with software lock-in.

Sometimes people suggest the phenomenon doesn't exist, and that QWERTY is as good a system as any other, and Windows is popular because it's superior, and so on. While that might in some cases be true, I don't completely believe it. So what I want to know is: has anybody written in a general way about the means of escape? Such an escape requires effort, I think, and (potentially foolish) risk, and something of a leap: is there a term for making that kind of leap? 81.131.42.235 (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When a potential change comes up, the typical citizen is liable to ask himself, "What's in it for me?" The term "early adaptor" is used for those folks who are "change junkies", as opposed to the rest of us. I'm sure there have been many, many books written by folks who thought "outside the box" and became wealthy. Of course they might leave out a few details. As Dogbert said, "Beware the advice of successful people... they do not seek company." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you meant "early adopter", there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In accounting, this would be zero-base budgeting where you work out what is needed rather than just repeating or adjusting the budgets from last year. Another example is Morphological analysis (problem-solving) (not a very good article, the links are much better), where you consider all possibilities to achieve some goal. Escaping path depenence could be considered as part of the design process - there are probably a few design books that list the techniques you could use to design or innovate things from fundamentals rather than just modifying the existing. eg. brainstorming, but I think there are many other techniques also. These design methods could be applied to abstract as well as concrete goals. See also innovation. 92.15.29.32 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground Traffic Data?

Is there anywhere available data on how many passengers uses the tube at what hours of the day? --CGPGrey (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Transport have figures from 2003-2009 on how many people enter/exit a particular station divided into various time periods here. Nanonic (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do in Gothenburg?

I've decided to visit Gothenburg instead of Oslo this summer, because Gothenburg is closer to Stockholm, so it will fit better in my schedule. Gothenburg is Sweden's second biggest city, but I have never visited it, even though I've visited Stockholm probably over twenty times now. I have already booked a hotel room in Gothenburg, right next to the railway station. I shall be spending a bit over two days there. So what is there to do and see in Gothenburg? I'm already planning to see the historical buildings, the harbour area, and the fish market, but is there anything else worth special interest? JIP | Talk 19:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitravel is a useful resource for this kind of question.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to your user page you speak Swedish at an advanced level. The readers of Swedish Reference Desk probably know more about Gothenburg than most of us do. --Antiquary (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish people may speak Swedish, but they may not necessarily want to do so. If you spent half of your life in the permafrosty nights close to the polar circle and had Swedes (and Russians) run your country for 800 years you may become a bit peculiar and paranoid, too:) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this off-topic generalisation. It applies to most Finns, I think, but not to me. I take enough pride in my above-average Swedish skills to try to talk with Swedes in their native language. Now Russian though, I only understand a few basic words of the language, and wouldn't dream of being able to converse with a native speaker. JIP | Talk 23:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else told JIP this at the Swedish RD, but I'll post it here for any Wikipedian who's planning to visit Gothenburgh: There's usually a wikimeet in Gothenburgh on the first Monday of the month. Sjö (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it seems to happen that the Gothenburg wikimeet is held one day too early. I'll still be leaving Austria at the time when it's held. JIP | Talk 16:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that I would presume most Finnish people who speak Swedish even if they don't like to wouldn't mind speaking it to ask other Swedish speaking people living in Sweden for info on visiting Sweden. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]