Miscellaneous desk
< May 22	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 24 >

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.

May 23[edit]

why so many places are named Victoria[edit]

why so many places are named Victoria? please tell for me~~! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.232.72 (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all are named after Queen Victoria. It was boom time for the British Empire, and she was its titular head. Note that Queensland is also named after her (meaning that two of Australia's six states are named after her), and anything with the name Albert in it from that time has a fair chance of being named after her husband. Victoria reigned for the awfully long time of 63 years and 7 months, giving those doing the naming plenty of time to use her name. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And who could resist naming everything after such a hottie as Queen Victoria ? Heck, I have several fire plugs (fire hydrants) I'd like to name after her right now. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

She was kinda cute when she was young. And untold wealth can make anyone look more attractive. Albert obviously thought she was a hottie, as they managed to crank out 9 kids. She was 42 when he died (apparently from exhaustion), or they might have had at least an even dozen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you a citation for the Albert's death by exhaustion or is that your little joke? Albert died on 14 December 1861. The contemporary diagnosis was typhoid fever, but modern writers have pointed out that Albert was ill for at least two years before his death, which may indicate that a chronic disease, such as Crohn's disease, renal failure, or cancer, was the cause of death. DriveByWire (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no: after Beatrice was born she was told that another child would be fatal. She replied with the cry, "So we can have no more fun in bed any more?" The quite prim and proper physician was scandalized! --NellieBly (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same physician who tried to lecture her against painkillers on some Biblical grounds, to which she pointed out that one of them was the nation's monarch, and the doctor wasn't it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She even had a period of history named after her, something her closest rival in the British monarchical longevity stakes, Queen Elizabeth II hasn't had and won't have, because there's already an Elizabethan era, named after the first Queen Elizabeth, who died over 400 years ago. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From publications earlier in HM's reign, I recall that the term "New Elizabethan" enjoyed some vogue, but it seems to have passed from general usage. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, Arkansas is one of the few places not named for her. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but who is Robert E. Lee Wilson's sister named after? HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Probably the woman who's birthday we just celebrated. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who was named after her mother, whose name was Marie... - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who wasn't wildly popular if I recall, because she couldn't speak English. Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whose daughter's name was Alexandrina... -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a winning name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I suspect it was a good way to settle all disputes.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit unlikely that Robert E. Lee Wilson's sister was named after the queen of England (and of other places) since the British monarchy remained unpopular in the United States in the mid-19th century. Victoria has existed in the United States as a woman's name independent of its association with the British monarch. It is, after all, a Latin name meaning and personifying "victory". It was one of a number of Latinate names popular among 19th century Americans. Marco polo (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Wilson's brother was born in 1865. Is that still "mid"? —Tamfang (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria’s Complete Diaries Released Online Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, her birth date is significant. It is just possible that she was named Victoria at least partly out of Southern gratitude for Britain's unofficial support for the Confederacy. Marco polo (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of birthdays, it's Queen Victoria's today (which may have prompted the question to begin with). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ford ranger[edit]

hi i got a ford ranger 2.5l with a mazda engine but i'm changing the crankshaft senior but the sticker on the senior says it is a mitsubish part can you tell me why this is thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.125.16.11 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it was made by Mitsubishi. The Mitsubishi Group is a massive conglomerate that is involved in almost any industry you care to mention, from mining to food and drink, telecoms to real estate. It would not surprise me at all that if Mitsubishi's crankshaft sensor is better (or cheaper) than Mazda making their own that they would buy it 'off the shelf'. This sort of thing happens in all sorts of industries - just now there are stories about Sony supplying Apple with iPhone screens. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How did "sensor" get changed to "senior" twice in your post ? Is this an auto-correct error ? StuRat (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

local knowledge of Parsee Indian[edit]

I was born and lived in India and was told the Parsees were a superior high class caste, that their skin was paler than the more southern based Indian. Was this due to their less sun-exposure or their immigrant Persian ancestry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.214.108 (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skin_color#Genetics_of_skin_color_variation has some information you may find useful to answering your question as to the source of skin color variation in humans. Concepts like caste and race are socially created, and have no actual basis in biology. --Jayron32 21:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a gross generalisation to say race has "no actual basis in biology". Even though it is a socially created concept and at the margins there is no biological basis for allocating a specific person to one race or another, there is a distinct biological basis for saying one racial population is different to another one - are you going to tell me the only difference between a black African and a Mongoloid Japanese person is cultural? That if they switched their upbringings they would be biologically identical?

I am all for fighting against racism but sweeping generalisations like "race has no basis in biology" does not help, it just makes anti-racism look ridiculous. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, race has no basis in biology. What do you suppose the biological basis is for the prevailing American racial system, in which an African American with various American ancestors (usually a mix of 'Black' and 'White' ancestors) is considered a different race from a White American with various American ancestors (usually a mix of 'Black' and 'White' ancestors), but the same race as the Yoruba, who are considered the same race as the Zulu, who are considered the same race as Amhara? It is biologically nonsense. If you were going to divide up humans according to populations that were genetically distinct, you would have to divide up 'Black African' into many smaller groups before anyone with ancestors outside Africa got lumped into anything other than "not African", because the genetic diversity is so much greater in Africa than outside: non-Africans are very genetically homogenous. No, your average Ethiopian is genetically more similar to another average Ethiopian than to an average Han Chinese, but your average Han Chinese is closer genetically to your average Norwegian than an average Ethiopian is to an average Nigerian.

And yet, the nonsense racial system would suggest the opposite. Because it has no basis in biology. 109.155.32.126 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pale skin does not automatically make one a better person. In Australia it just makes it more likely that you will get skin cancer. (I have very pale skin.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's clear you're the best person here, and now we know why. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exposure to sunlight only accounts for a very small variation in skin tone. Genes play a much larger role. It is also true that many prominent Parsis, including many members of the Tata family, are of partial European ancestry. LANTZY ^TALK 03:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be pedantic it is exposure to sunlight and genetics, even people who would normally have quite dark skin have a light colour if they are not exposed to any UV. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To say race is nothing but a social phenomenon is, and please pardon my french, a load of bovine excrement. Denying racial differences may even put people in danger. Look for instance at responses to primaquine. Fine for most Caucasians and Asians, but severe risk of hemolysis in those of African and Mediterranean decent. I'm not usually one to for the "PC gone mad" crowd, but this case is really PC gone mad. Fgf10 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 is correct. The racial distinctions made by various cultures (and different cultures make different distinctions) are entirely cultural and have little or no basis in biology. This is true even though there are genetic differences among human groups. Those genetic differences, however, rarely coincide with the racial distinctions made by this or that culture. Fgf10 points out that members of different populations react differently to primaquine. (Though genetic variation among members of these populations mean that different individuals in the same population may not have the same reaction.) He says that primaquine is tolerated by Caucasians, a group based on a cultural definition. Then he correctly points out that many people of Mediterranean descent cannot tolerate primaquine. Well, according to North American cultural definitions of race, most of those people are considered Caucasians. So racial categories are not very useful for identifying genetic differences or any noncultural differences other than maybe skin color. Marco polo (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I was arguing was that there is such a thing as racial diversity. Does this always correlate with the current Western definitions for race? No, most of the time it doesn't. Still doesn't take away from the fact that populations from different origins, eg what would commonly be described as different races, have many biological differences. Just because the groupings we use in daily life are not representative for the diversity in a given parameter doesn't mean groupings based on descent are pointless. They just have to be judged on a genetic basis, rather than some old-fashioned notion like skin colour or eye shape. So Jayron32 is correct in the sense that the current racial groupings are largely social constructs, but he's wrong in the sense that there is an actual basis in biology for dividing any diverse population into subgroups (just not necessarily the ones we're used to). But this is now either a genetics question, for the science desk, or a question for the humanities desk on how society continues to ignore scientific evidence in favour of outdated social concepts. Fgf10 (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All racism or ethnocentrism or xenophobia comes down to the concept of "us and them". "Us" is whatever we are, and "them" is somebody or somebodies that are different from us in some observable way. Race is a function of biology, i.e. of genetics. How "us" and "them" react to race is a function of culture and upbringing - hence, enlightenment, or lack thereof. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

riding lawn mower - recharge battery?[edit]

Resolved

Does a riding lawn mower (garden tractor) powered by gasoline recharge the battery while it is running? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it has a battery and an electric starter which is powered by that battery, then it also has an alternator, so yes, it most likely does. A quick google search of "riding lawn mower alternator" turns up lots of information on them. Some models have a seperate alternator, and some have a single unit which has the starting motor and alternator together in one unit. --Jayron32 01:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to be pedantic, some types apparently have a generator rather than an alternator. But certainly they all have some way of recharging the battery. Looie496 (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yesterday ours would not start until I jumped off the battery. Later it went dead and would not start. I thought that either it doesn't recharge when it runs or the battery's life is over (which is several years old). I replaced the battery and it works, so the battery must have been at the end of its life. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility was that the alternator/generator went bad, but fortunately, that wasn't it. StuRat (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]