Miscellaneous desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

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.

June 24

Excuse me for asking this, but can anyone recommend any mystery books with lgbt characters in it?

Can anyone please recommend mystery books with transgendered/lgbt characters that are not too wordy, boring, or sexuality explicit or long? Venustar84 (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend Simon Raven's novels - they incorporate mystery, occult, crime, politics and LGB (though nor so much T) characters. They are not overlong, they are by no means at all boring, and most explicitness is entirely in the reader's head. DuncanHill (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list from goodreads.com is called "best gay mystery" and has quite a few books. It's been many years since I read them, but I remember enjoying Jonathan Kellerman's books about Alex Delaware, which feature a prominent gay police detective. --Jayron 32 01:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Venustar84, check out Lists_of_LGBT_figures_in_fiction_and_myth, which I found at the great List of lists of lists. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting without fighting

Is there a form of fighting that to others doesn't look like anyone is fighting? Example, say some guy is an expert in it. He could beat up another guy and nobody would notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.70.50 (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and you can read all about it here. Unless you need more training, of course.

Seriously though, not really. Fighting with poison comes close, but many still get sloppy and spotted. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the expert who knocked out Georgi Markov with a Bulgarian umbrella, though. Still might be out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra- and infrasonic weapons also come close. Can't hit what you can't hear! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! My ex is a 4th Dan master of Silent_treatment. I never won once. 41.13.216.190 (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways of inflicting pain on someone without looking like you're hurting them, yes. Applying pressure to pressure points and joint manipulation are two that come to mind but what would be the point? As soon as your victim cries out or retalliates, the game's up. Bruce Lee used the term 'Fighting without fighting' in the film 'Enter the Dragon' where he tricks the antagonist into a boat then casts him adrift. He meant ways of avoiding the fight, which is something I suggest you practice. If you really want to beat someone up without anyone noticing, I suggest you wait until there are no witnesses.--Ykraps (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was said of Gordie Howe that he could throw an elbow without anyone (or at least the ref) noticing - except the victim, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tripping and slashing were two other great sneaky penalties, before instant replay came along. If your eyes are on the puck, it can look like clumsiness on his part, or stickhandling on yours. Tripping still works fine like that, off the ice, but holding a hockey stick makes you conspicuous in most places. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capoeira is sometimes said to have been developed in such a way that people practicing would look like they were dancing, not practicing a martial art. At a quick scan I don't see that mentioned in our article, so maybe that's an apocryphal claim. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodent friendliness

Do any pets that are generally like rodents (though not necessarily scientifically classified as a rodent), such as hamsters, guini pigs, hedgehogs, rats, mice, ferrets, gophers, etc... behave in a friendly way such as dogs and cats? I have a very small 8x6 room. I am allowed one small pet, such as a fish or mouse. My experience is that all small animals bite and try to run away. They never reach a stage that they are happy to see you and want to sit in your lap while you read a book. I assume it is because they are not very domesticated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.15.144.250 (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think many of them have the potential to act friendly, with some caveats:

1) They need to be raised with humans, maybe even a couple generations, so their parents don't pass their fear of humans on.

2) They are still wild animals, so I'd be very careful about now letting them near body parts you don't want bitten. A feature of wild animals is that they seem friendly then suddenly attack. The trigger could be all sorts of things, like you touching their food, hitting a sore spot while petting them, doing something they interpret as aggression, etc. Domesticated animals have had this instant aggression towards humans bred out of them, for the most part.

pet rat and pet mouse are domestic animals. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) I would avoid larger rodents, and the like, as they can bite off a nose, etc. Ferrets and animals in the weasel family seem particularly unwise as pets, since they are wild predators and large enough to do serious damage. (Cats and dogs are at least domesticated predators.)

Ferrets and other animals in the weasel family are not rodents. They are carnivores. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrets are by definition a domesticated, not wild, animal. They make splendid pets, but do need plenty of exercise. DuncanHill (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need more than a 0% domesticated or 100% domesticated scale then. I don't believe ferrets have been domesticated nearly as long as cats and dogs, so the wild traits are not bred out of them as thoroughly. StuRat (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't "Believe"? This is not the "say what it is you believe and don't believe" Desk. This is the reference desk. Ferret#History_of_domestication has information on the history of domestication of ferrets. This article discusses the domestication of ferrets. This page also does. Before you claim whether or not the links do or do not confirm your answer, understand, Stu, this criticism has nothing to do with that. You're supposed to provide people with references here. Even a blind dog hits the tree once in a while, it doesn't mean that your actions are correct here. We're not here to answer people's questions. Where here to give them references. Do that. --Jayron 32 02:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the dog, cat, and ferret articles. Each lists how long they have been domesticated. Cats and dogs have been domesticated far longer. StuRat (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what I just said (where a predator is a type of carnivore) ? StuRat (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinction between carnivore (eats meat) and Carnivora, the taxonomical order. Mustelids (weasel-like animals) are a family in order Carnivora, and not part of order Rodentia. Though most carnivores (members of Carnivora) are carnivores (meat eaters), they don't have to be - for example, see the Giant Panda. Likewise, rodents are not in the order Carnivora, though some are meat eaters. I'm guessing Robert McClenon intended to link Carnivora, rather than simply carnivore. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) Note that what we interpret as friendliness may just be keeping warm, looking for food, etc. If they think you have something they can use, they may sidle up to you.

5) Something else you need to know about rodents is they have no bowel or bladder control, they just pee and poo wherever they are at the time. So, not a good pet to let out of the cage if you want to keep your room clean.

That's not really true in general. Many rats essentially self-train themselves to only excrete in one portion of their cage [1] - it's partially instinctual. Here's a wikihow on the topic [2], here's another guide [3]. There are literally hundreds of people discussing how easy it is to litter train a rat - just search /rat litter train/ or /rat potty train/ to find many, many more sources. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I can't help but see Fry saying "The corner. Why didn't I think of that?" 199.15.144.250 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birds seem to form closer bonds with humans, but there the noise is an issue. There are mute swans, but they are too large and not completely mute. Finches and doves are typically less noisy. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm 8 by 6 is small? That's a pretty damn big room! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Oh hang on, you mean feet I guess? I wish people that use obsolete units would specify them! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Hey, maybe it was centimeters! That'd be pretty small. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a coincidence that 8x6 feet is the dimensions of a 2-person cell in many U.S. Federal prisons? 209.149.113.97 (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that some of those are essentially not domestic animals, and make poor pets if what you're looking for is companionship. But the pet rat surely is fully domesticated, and they are quite intelligent and endearing (to some). Rats can indeed be very friendly, I have known people that sit and watch TV/read a book with their rat on their shoulder or lap. Some people even carry them around town in a pocket or hood search google images for plenty of examples. Cute overload has rat features fairly often, showing many rats being cute and friendly, e.g. here [4]. You might also enjoy reading through some pet rat fora like these [5] [6] [7]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some videos of rats "bruxing" and "boggling" [8], which are behaviors generally interpreted to be sort of like a cat's purr - pet rats do it when they are feeling content/affectionate [9] [10]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't those people get rat pee and poo on them ? StuRat (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not necessarily. Have you ever interacted with a pet rat? I assumed you must know a lot about them since you typed up a few hundred words about rodents as pets (but you didn't include any references, and got many "facts" wrong, so...). See my links above. Generally rat prefer to (almost) always go in the same place, and generally that's a corner of their cage. And many people further litter train their rats for easier cleanup. Even if a rat does defecate on your lap now and then, it's not a big deal. It's small, hard pellet that doesn't really stick to anything or smell much [11]. A rat might not make a good pet for you but many many people think they're great. It's not like cat and dog owners never have to deal with an occasional accident either, but most people who actually want a pet don't mind that as a part of the cost of entry. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Many facts wrong" ? I don't see "many". I had previously specifically asked about rodents here, and I don't recall anyone saying any had the ability to hold it in. And your "sources" don't look like reliable sources to me, more like blogs. StuRat (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a document released and endorsed by legitimate veterinarian on how to litter-train rats. Here is another one. Here is a published book on the care of rats that describes how to litter train them. A pet rescue group which documents how to car for rats, including a section on litter training. Are you even trying to research your answers before you present them, StuRat, or do you just write whatever your notions are and claim their rightness solely on the fact that you feel it or think it? --Jayron 32 20:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read much that agrees that lab rats make good pets, although I have never had one. They are nowhere near as skittish as mice, which invariably defecate when you pick them up (even if handled regularly from a week's age) and which pee and shit with abandon. Having bred mice, I strongly advise against any use for them other than as snake food.

(Small constrictors are not "affectionate" but they do "cuddle up" to get your body warmth, and their muscles feel nice as they crawl on you. But you have to avoid feeding them too much and have them grow to an unmanageable size.)

Guinea pigs raised by hand from birth are better than mice, and very fun when little. They don't evacuate nearly so much--you can have them on your bed for an hour and they might pass one fairly dry turd. But their pee is very odorous, and they are active at night and can make too much noise if you have to sleep in the same room and are not used to it. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

How long is it before global warming results in the navigability of the Northeast Passage? 2.96.215.80 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on many factors:

1) They might be able to occasionally send a ship that way now, at certain times of year, if the weather and wind direction is right. However, it's hard to run a shipping company based on such uncertainties. Getting your cargo stuck in the ice until next year would be very bad for business, and even worse if the ship sinks.

2) Soon there may be a shipping season when it's safe to send ships that way.

3) It would be a very long time before the passage would be clear year round, if it ever happens.

Also note that ships would require some infrastructure, like ports where they can put in for fuel, repairs, supplies, etc. and emergency rescue ships and helicopters. There's a chicken and egg problem here that nobody wants to risk starting a shipping route without those things, and nobody wants to pay for that infrastructure before there is a demonstrated demand for them.

Then there's the political considerations that it may not be wise to send ships so close to Russia, given it's current aggression. They might decide to seize some ships as a bargaining chip in negotiations for Ukraine, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get all that information from, StuRat? I'm assuming that none of it is just your own personal opinion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if StuRat is going to present complex answers to complex questions, he should at least present a link to something where we can check the validity of an answer. An unreferenced answer is less useful than no answer at all, as we have no way to verify it. --Jayron 32 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much of that info is in the article the OP already linked to. I didn't see any point in repeating the link. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you have at least said that up front, knowing that the desk has little tolerance for what looks like unreferenced opinion, and that you have been called on this very issue many times? Also, if "much" of the info is from that article, that still leaves the rest unaccounted for. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The northern route was used when the USSR kept it mostly clear. There is no technical reason it couldn't be clear now since it has far less ice than it used to have. Most ports along it are abandoned, so the only immediate interest would be to get cheap Chinese goods to Europe a couple days faster than taking the current route. The current route also hits expanding suppliers of cheap goods. If Africa were to stabilize, the southern route would be even more worthwhile. Ships would pick up goods every day from China to Europe. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This rather comprehensive article indicates that the route is already essentially open, for one staying close to the Arctic shore of Russia, at least the map seems to indicate that. It also notes that, while forcasting is difficult, trends seem to indicate an "ice free Arctic" is possible "in 20-30 years", as the current trends in minimum Arctic sea ice actual are decreasing faster than the last major comprehensive predictive study was done in 2007. --Jayron 32 20:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP could you be more specific? Ships navigate through the Northeast Passage now (and historically), according to our article. Do you mean year-round? Easily navigable? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I mean year-round. 2.96.215.80 (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to predict future climates with any certainty. There are too many variables, not least economic or cultural changes that would affect human activity and the rate of change in greenhouse gas concentrations. The further into the future a climate model is run, even under set scenarios for, say, human activity, the more uncertainty there is in the model's predictions, just because no model can incorporate all of the variables that affect climate. (See butterfly effect.) That said, existing climate models do not predict an ice-free Arctic in the winter at any point during this century. An ice-free Arctic in the winter would imply a climate shift of such magnitude that it would be catastrophic—so catastrophic that civilization and even perhaps the survival of humanity would be at risk. An ice-free Arctic winter would imply the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet and probably at least of the West Antarctic ice sheet, if not all ice in Antarctica. That, in turn, would imply a sea-level rise that would inundate all land lower than 68 meters above present sea level. [12] That would include most of the world's largest cities. There is some concern that that degree of warming could set off a clathrate gun, which in turn could cause an extinction event similar to the Permian-Triassic extinction event. [13] In this case, the possibility of shipping through the Arctic year round would be outweighed by the fact that there would be nobody to send or receive the shipment. Marco polo (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(@Marco polo: Thanks for a great summary!)

It's worth adding that while only a few large cities would survive the inundation - if that were the only problem, then with foresight into the coming crisis and sufficient time, we could gradually rebuild them at sufficient altitude to avoid any further problems. But consider that every single present day ocean port would also be under over 200 feet of water! Even if you envisage rebuilding ports further "inland" to cater with the ocean level rise, that wouldn't be a one-time thing. There would have to be dozens of rounds of rebuilding of every single port and related road, rail and other infrastructure over the entire planet throughout the period when the ocean was rising. The cost of such repeated infrastructure rebuilding would be spectacular. The ability to take advantage of the soon-to-be-opened passage would be dwarfed by the reconstruction costs - and it's hard to imagine the continued existence of large-scale shipping businesses without an abundance of destinations to travel to.

Assuming that we'd finally start to take real action on fixing the CO2 problem, ships would likely have to stop using fossil fuels and we'd probably be back to a world of sailing ships...albeit gigantic, high-tech ones with computer controls out the wazoo.

Having things get that bad is pretty much unimaginable though - the extreme disruption in every aspect of our existence would likely make this a moot point. Fertile farmland usually lies around river deltas - and those are the first things to go as the oceans rise. The ability to feed all of humanity would become exponentially harder as the usable farmland vanished under the ocean and increasing ocean acidification (and increasing over-fishing) would reduce our ability to feed ourselves from the oceans. Civilised society would be hard-pressed to survive something like that...so I personally doubt there would be ships with a need to travel that route if it ever did get opened up year-round. SteveBaker (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete reference/citation.

I am doing legal research and need help verifying a quote.

In this article LGBT Pride March (New York City), there is this quote: "Reporting by The Village Voice was positive, describing 'the out-front resistance that grew out of the police raid on the Stonewall Inn one year ago'.[21]"

The reference for this quote is LaFrank pg.20. I cannot verify this quote, nor can I locate the original Village Voice article that supposedly contains it. Is there any way to track down whoever edited the quote into the page and ask them for their complete reference? ie. Article title, author etc.

Please let me know ASAP.

Thanks, Ella — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.24.210 (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for the quote brought me to this result on Google Books. Dismas|^(talk) 22:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw that too. However the "205" superscript does not refer to any part of their bibliography, and the book is also written by Wikipedians. The citation is still incredibly unclear, and I still did not find Village Voice named among the book's references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.24.210 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 June 2015‎

@Dismas: It is not surprising that a search for a quote used on Wikipedia returns a book comprising Wikipedia articles :P — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Yeah. Not one of my smarter moments. Dismas|^(talk) 02:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It looks like someone borrowed the ref from the Stonewall riots page, where there is a citation to LaFrank with a broken link. A search for that document turned up another pdf copy here. The Village Voice piece is references is '"A Week of Gay Pride," Village Voice June 25, 1970.' I went ahead and updated the URL on the Stonewall page and added it to the Pride March page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death row and serious illness

In the United States of America, what would happen if a prisoner due to be executed had a serious, terminal or life threatening condition. Would they just deny treatment and let them die because they are on death row anyway. Or would they give them the same level of medical care as a non prisoner might expect, in the hope of prolonging their life sufficiently so that their sentence can be carried out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.255.65.24 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would likely violate the Hippocratic Oath and other medical ethics in terms of inaction causing harm. Additionally in the US at least there must be an execution warrant that authorizes the execution and makes it legal. As such, simply knowingly letting the sick condemned die would likely be negligent manslaughter at least. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 23:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is always the possibility of a reprieve, so letting them die would be bad for that reason, along with all the others. StuRat (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they were allowed to die of the affliction, there would likely be some sort of legal case brought against the state for allowing the prisoner to suffer cruel and unusual punishment. Especially if they were in pain due to whatever illness it was. Dismas|^(talk) 02:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A natural death would be cruel and unusual punishment, but being murdered isn't? I never cease to be amazing by death penalty logic. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I never cease to be amazing". May I please borrow that? I have many uses for it. Seriously. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DFTBA. —Tamfang (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IWBA. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes even untreatable natural death is too cruel for people sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison. So the prison compassionately lets them out to die. When it doesn't happen soon enough, the compassion wears thin. That whole case is nuts. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Capital punishment in the United States, particularly the section Capital punishment in the United States#Legal process. By law, a sentence of death in the US triggers a series of automatic reviews and appeals during any of which the prisoner's sentence may be overturned or reduced (to e.g. life in prison). Even after all appeals are exhausted, there is still the possibility of a last minute granting of clemency or commutation of the death sentence. There is also the possibility of exoneration if a judge finds the prisoner was wrongly convicted. Allowing a prisoner to die by refusing to provide medical treatment would deprive him of his rights under the law. Also, the warden/corrections officers/etc. are just there to run the prison, not to decide who lives or dies by giving/withholding medical treatment and, as RegistryKey points out above, contributing to a prisoner's death before the execution warrant is issued would result in an extralegal death and most likely be a prosecute-able offense.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 08:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, prisons (should) take pains to prevent suicide and self-harm by prisoners, even those who on death row or serving life sentences. They don't always succeed. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is: he would be treated just like any other, normal (non-death row prisoner), up until the date of his execution, when he would be executed. So, let's say he got sick on January 1st and his execution date is set at October 1st. From January 1st to October 1st, he would receive medical treatment for his ailment. Then, on October 1st, he would be executed. Of course, there are many variables and legal complexities. But, that is the short answer. He is treated just like every other prisoner until it comes his time to be executed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death row inmate David Lee Herman received life-saving medical care the the day before his execution. He tried to commit suicide by slitting this wrists and throat, and required a whole bunch of stitches. [14]

ApLundell (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At face value, refusing to let someone kill himself just so you can do it tomorrow seems like a petty way to show who rules. It's that, too. But letting him die early would take food from the lethal injection drug dealer's table. In Herman's day, it was under a hundred bucks, while in post-sodium piothental Texas, it's over $1,200, but even a penny saved is a penny earned.

Those stitches aren't exactly free, either, and executions bring visitors, who pay gas money. Suicide is bad for the economy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]