Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the miscellaneous reference desk.
Select a section:
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
  • Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
  • Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.



How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:

August 6[edit]

Karelian Principality[edit]

Hello. Are there any sources on the existence of a local principality (or state) in ancient Karelia before the Swedish and Novgorod invasions? Thank you in advance. Наталья гончарова (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if this answers your question exactly, but see The Inhabitation of Karelia in the First Millennium AD. Alansplodge (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Limit intake of juices and milk[edit]

i was looking at this recommendation and wasnt sure whether whoever wrote it meant to say limit all juices and milk or only some like for instance 100 per cent fruit and low fat milk?

Avoid sugary drinks, and limit intake of juices and milk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_diet#Harvard_School_of_Public_Health 220.245.56.123 (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That content is not a good representation of what the original Harvard source says. But for an institution with the standing of Harvard, those recommendations are written in a disappointingly tabloid style even in their own article. I would look elsewhere for good nutrition advice. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything should be consumed in moderation – too much of a good thing is also not good. Some choices are less healthy than others, especially if consumed in excess, but there are no commercially available foods or drinks that must be avoided completely (unless you have an allergy for a specific ingredient). All these recommendations, from whatever source, should be interpreted as hints, not as prescriptions. Next to moderation, for a balanced diet it is important to not eat always the same things (however healthy by themselves) but to vary.  --Lambiam 10:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there are no commercially available foods or drinks that must be avoided completely (unless you have an allergy for a specific ingredient)
I am taking this quote on and addressing it directly. I define for this purpose 'food' as anything you can buy at a general food store that can be consumed, for whatever reason. And I believe that there are food products that must be avoided completely - for instance, high-alcohol drinks like liquor, things called soft drinks (usually containing way too much sugar and artificial additives), candy bars as well as practically anything you can get at a certain cheap bar or the like. I also noted recently that the more colourful the packaging, usually - the content will be of far lower nutritional value. I will not go into detail as to how or why but there are some things that you just don't need, especially if you want to have a healthy approach to food. --Ouro (blah blah) 04:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a world of difference between "just don't need" and "must be avoided completely". DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Reference 24 in the article links to their rationale for limiting even 100% fruit juice and low fat milk.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The short version on fruit juice is "too much sugar". People feel more virtuous getting their fructose from squeezed fruit than from HFCS, but it's not clear how your body would tell the difference.
On a similar note, it seems there's a habit of tracking "added" sugar in foods. Manufacturers are happy to play along when they can advertise their product as containing "no added sugar". But non-"added" sugar is still sugar. --Trovatore (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The full story of dietary sugar (or fats or anything in depth) and risk of obesity, diabetes, and mortality is largely unknown. To get a glimpse of how complicated these interactions can be, if it's tldr you can just look at the graphs of the reviews by Stanhope 2015 and Malik & Hu 2022 (the articles are good too) (and a different flow chart for beverages from Bray & Popkin 2014). To illustrate just how weird sugar can be, that it's far from as simple as HFCS, artificial, or whatever, I'll cite the non-review (but frequently cited in reviews including one I can't find but which reproduces the key graph) Mozaffarian et. al. 2011. As far as I can tell there isn't much attempt at reproduction of the table "ranking" the sugar sources (so don't take the table as established truth), but plenty of reviews (1000+ citations) go into specific food categories in depth. One unresolved paradox among many is why 100% fruit juice increases mortality while whole fruit reduces it (even if 100% the same fruit, as in an orange). Why would yogurt have better outcomes than cheese and milk and butter? Why in the world are potatoes seemingly about the worst way to ingest sugar? You'll find reviews probing these questions, but few giving definite answers. The evidence for the isolated claim that excess sugars in themselves lead to negative outcomes is mixed-to-moderate (I already closed that tab, sorry). It seems (from my lay reading of the literature) the only thing regarding obesity that is (relatively) certain is that if you burn more calories than you consume, you won't gain weight. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The notion that if you burn more calories than you consume, you won't gain weight. is true, but fantastically facile answer. The real rub is how does one do that in a way that is healthy and provides things like all of the necessary nutrients. Dietary recommendations go beyond mere calorie counts. Diet is about behavior, and helping people choose diets so they are less likely to crave more food, for example, is a big deal. If person A eats 2000 calories of food that leaves them satiated vs. person B that eats 2000 calories of a different food that leaves them ravenously hungry, person B is more likely to eat even more calories. Furthermore, food has more than energy. There are tons of micronutrients, (vitamins and minerals) that a person absolutely needs to get, and foods that are nutrient dense on a per-calorie basis are more likely to be recommend than those that are nutrient poor. When groups recommend certain diets, these are all considerations, and it's not just about "eat your minimum number of calories and then just stop putting things in your body that day". That sounds easy when you just say it. Most people cannot live like that, and need additional guidance as to how to achieve that goal in a way that doesn't also make them miserable. --Jayron32 18:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fruit has lots and lots of dietary fiber, which makes you full, slows down nutrient absorption, and has various other good effects. You just aren't going to consume 100 grams of sugar by eating fruit, while you can easily do that from sugary drinks, which have negligible fiber. Milk products like yogurt and cheese have by themselves little sugar, as the process of making them involves having microbes eat the lactose in the milk. Commercial yogurt frequently has sugar added to it, however. I wonder if studies looking at yogurt make any attempt to control for the fat content, as lots of yogurt is low- or non-fat, while cheese usually contains plenty of fat, and butter is basically all fat. Being an animal product, this is mostly saturated fat, and saturated fat intake has a mountain of evidence for adverse health effects due to its effect on lipid profile. ——47.147.118.55 (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well these all have different answers for different reasons now that I look it up: butter is made from the cream skim that is naturally low in lactose, cheese makers separate it from the whey which contains almost all the lactose, but yogurt actually contains almost as much sugars (3.3-3.6 g/100g) as milk (5g/100g), so the yogurt is still paradoxical. The "mountain of evidence" on saturated fats is like most things on diet a bit more up or down or up in the air. Of course what I said about the cheesemakers isn't meant to be taken literally, it refers to any sort of manufacturer of dairy product. And @Jayron, I don't know how you managed to get that interpretation of that quote in the context of my answer. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re 47.147.118.55: The question wasn't about fruit, but about fruit juice. An 8 oz glass of orange juice has (per Google) 18 grams of sugar, or almost two thirds of the sugar in the same amount of Coca Cola. It may have a tiny bit of fiber, if you go for the pulpy sort, but not what I'd call "lots and lots" (actually Google says 0 grams; I'm sure it's not really zero, but in any case not a whole lot). --Trovatore (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was responding to One unresolved paradox among many is why 100% fruit juice increases mortality while whole fruit reduces it (even if 100% the same fruit, as in an orange). --47.147.118.55 (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. Fair enough. Of course I doubt causality is established in the first place. --Trovatore (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biden's wooden box[edit]

President Biden meets his national security team regarding Ayman al-Zawahiri.jpg

What does this kinky wooden box in front of Biden contain and what's it's purpose? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the news they said it contained a model of the house that al-Qaeda guy (Ayman al-Zawahiri) was living in, before that drone strike evicted him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
President Biden meets with his national security team on July 1 to discuss the drone strike that killed al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri on July 31. The wooden box in front of the president contains a replica of the house where al-Zawahiri was living in Kabul, Afghanistan (White House caption to the same photograph}. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 7[edit]

Climate change temperatures - 2022[edit]

Are the temperatures in Ireland, the UK and the USA (or other countries) rising due to climate change? 86.140.120.168 (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A more accurate way to look at it is that temperatures are rising due to the human generated increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These temperature rises are causing climate change. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Climate is the weather averaged over 30 years, so if temperatures are rising, climate must get hotter and if the climate gets hotter, it's likely that high temperatures get more commen. The correlation works both ways, although the definition goes from weather to climate. And yes, these heat waves that are getting common now and were pretty much unheard of just 25 years ago have everything to do with human greenhouse gas emissions. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article from the UK Met Office, A milestone in UK climate history, has this quote from Professor Stephen Belcher, the Met Office Chief Scientist:
"In a climate unaffected by human influence, climate modelling shows that it is virtually impossible for temperatures in the UK to reach 40°C. Under a very high emissions scenario we could see temperatures exceeding 40 degrees as frequently as every three years by the end of the century in the UK. Reducing carbon emissions will help to reduce the frequency, but we will still continue to see some occurrences of temperatures exceeding 40°C and the UK will need to adapt to these extreme events".
Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this happening in the whole of Ireland (including the north), Britain and the United States? 86.140.120.168 (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. This is a "concurrent heat wave" which, as with heat waves in general, have also increased dramatically in frequency in recent decades. W. E. Forum has a decent writeup on all this. The EPA also has nice charts (of U.S. data at least). In terms of the relation of climate change to the rise in heat waves, here's one MIT blog piece.
The takeaway is this: human activity from the 19th century to today has caused significant climate change which has resulted in global average temperatures increasing over the past half century. This does not mean that the high heat you are feeling today is directly caused by CO2 emissions from a given time, or from any human activity in general. Rather, human activity has increased, and continues to increase, the likelihood and intensity of high heat events occurring in general (among other weather events). SamuelRiv (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The global map shows sea temperature rises of 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius; land temperature rises of 1 to 2 degree Celsius; and Arctic temperature rises of up to 4 degrees Celsius.
Average surface air temperatures from 2011 to 2021 compared to the 1956–1976 average
Yes. There are a few places where, thanks to changing wind patterns, the climate is getting colder, but in most of the world it's getting hotter and there's no doubt about the cause. As for any heatwave you may be experiencing right now, that's a random fluctuation of the weather. The distribution of those random fluctuations is changing rapidly; that distribution is what we call climate.
Today, it won't be exceptionally warm where I am (the southeast of the Netherlands); around 30°C. Around 25 years ago, I experienced temperatures at least that hot on average 7 days per year. My thermometer hasn't moved since and this side of the city hasn't really changed, but now I have such temperatures on about 22 days per year. There are about 7 days per year now that it gets to 35°C, which used to be one day per 3 years. Now we get 40°C once per 3 years. The average temperature increased with 1.2°C, but the extremes more. At the same time, winter got 25% wetter and summer 25% dryer and the number of days with frost dropped from 40 per year to 25. It's actually quite spectacular, but also worrying. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I think that's good news for me. Because I like it when the weather is warm (well, at least a little). 86.140.120.168 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most people don't think it's good news. You may get more than you bargained for. What about the tropical mosquitoes also liking the warmer weather, spreading nasty tropical diseases in the UK? Or the occasional flooding washing houses away, summer droughts turning your back garden into dust and the smoke from burning, desiccated peat? It appears to me that the only part of the world that actually benefits from this climate change is the Sahel, which is getting wetter. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 8[edit]

What is happening in Google maps near Macau?[edit]

According to Google maps, there are several streets with businesses on them extending into the waterways to the west of Macau. For example, see here, where there are also boats traveling through these ghost streets. They continue further south as well. I was wondering if anyone knows what's going on.2A02:8308:316:2C00:35:8F5D:6EF6:51EF (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears that part of the Google Maps data is offset about 500 meters or so to the southeast from the satellite image from that part of Macau. If you track the east-west freeway that is in the southern part of the map, you can confirm this is the case. --Jayron32 18:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Near Macau seems to be the key point. Stuff in Macau is probably fine. Stuff in the rest China (except Hong Kong) is not. See Restrictions on geographic data in China. Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot to both of you. The "GPS shift problem" section on the linked page covers precisely this issue.2A02:8308:316:2C00:35:8F5D:6EF6:51EF (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 10[edit]

Americans left behind in Afghanistan[edit]

I think I already asked this question once (as part of a 2-part question), but didn't get an answer: out of the estimated 9000 Americans left behind in Afghanistan 2 years ago, how many are still alive and how many have been murdered by the terrorists? 2601:646:8A81:6070:24B8:808D:CF39:8B32 (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Estimated by who? Source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per AndyTheGrump, can you show us where you got the information? It would help us find you answers to your question. --Jayron32 14:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was actually the answer given me the last time when I asked how many in all were left behind -- so, the source is right there in the archives. 2601:646:8A81:6070:998F:6FD5:D19:39F9 (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, found the 2022-03-11 thread which links a Khaama article (and Khaama isn't bad, but like most news agencies it says its info is from an official, open source, namely the Senate 2022-02-03 Left Behind report, but they don't link to it or give specific citation info, as if they think either the reader is too dumb to understand citations or are embarrassed by how much of their reporting is basically verbatim repetition of a report, or both).
I don't know if the August 17 F-77 report (ref 12) citing 10-15k citizens left in Afghanistan may have been including armed forces or just had unusually fuzzy numbers (for numbers that are by nature fuzzy), but it seems most likely from the reading of this report that the final number of Americans left in Afghanistan, by choice or accident, is on the order of hundreds, not thousands (while the number of those at risk who would otherwise qualify for visas in an orderly process could possibly still be in the thousands or more). I base that on their accounting of non-citizen groups left behind who would automatically qualify for visas that were well under 1000, so it just doesn't seem likely that they can account for those groups and their families while there's a cohort of thousands of citizens or their families in Kabul still unaccounted for. The report details a number of shortcomings and it's an interesting read, and I think this whole story is even more interesting in the context of our seeming overcompensation for the failure of prediction in Afghanistan that resulted in a failure to predict Ukraine, which had we (and by "we" I mean all NATO powers who were monitoring the situation) been more accurate we may have been able to improve outcomes all around. It seems that perhaps military analysts have faced a reckoning that either their accuracy or precision or both in estimating an army's morale has been completely wrongly assessed. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did find that as of January, 2022 there were 80 Americans who wished to leave Afghanistan, but had not yet been able to leave. That source says that there were an additional 150 that the State Department knew about that did not want to leave, however the U.S. does not keep tabs on every citizen and their locale, so the absolute number of American citizens who are in Afghanistan, but have no intention of leaving, appears to be an unknowable number, but is at least 150. --Jayron32 14:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I scanned the minority report from the Senate Foreign Relations committee, and I can only find two sorts of statements on American citizens left behind: 1) Quotes from executive branch officers that give fairly specific numbers, generally ranging from a few hundred (in August 2021) to a few dozen (early 2022). 2) Expressions of incredulity at the official state department numbers, and insistence that the numbers are actually much higher, with vague assertions of "thousands" appearing several times. At no time, however, does that report indicate either the report writers methodology at arriving at the higher numbers, nor anything more specific than "thousands", certainly no mention of the 9000 number the OP is asking about. I may have missed it, as I used a ctrl-F search for "Citizens" or "American" and the number "9000". --Jayron32 18:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[un-indent] OK, let's try it another way -- we know how many Americans are still alive and still inside Afghanistan as of January 11 of this year (based on the figures above), what about how many have got out between the fall of Kabul and January 11 of this year? 2601:646:8A81:6070:F54F:9561:564F:58D7 (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did a good-faith search when you initially asked the question, and the most recent hard numbers I could find were those I posted above, from January-February, where numbers on the order of magnitude of the high double-digits to low single-digits. Beyond that, I couldn't find anything. Unless someone else can find it, there may not be publicly available numbers more recent than that. --Jayron32 11:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 11[edit]

COVID response in Ontario for restaurants[edit]

I'm looking for information - in as easy to understand format as possible - on the timeline for the various restaurant restrictions Ontario has enacted to blunt the transmission of COVID. Searching has returned a deluge of information, but I'm having trouble seeing the forest for the trees. What I'd like to get is something like this: "On January 23, 2022, Ontario lifted the 50% capacity restriction. On February 19, 2022, it reinstated the 50% capacity limit. On March 30, 2022, it lifted the 50% capacity restriction again. On April 15, 2022, it lifted the masking requirement for restaurant patrons." (Those are completely fictitious for illustration, BTW). I need it for basically the last 12 months, or at least going back to last November. There are a zillion results when I try Googling, but many of the results specifically remove old data so that casual readers don't get confused about old restrictions being current. The best I've found so far is this, which probably has what I want, but the format makes it a bit of a hassle to parse. Can anyone find something better? Matt Deres (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia has Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario which links to the articles on individual years. Ctrl-F for "restaurant" yields the place in each article where restaurants are mentioned, and each such mention is well tied to a date. It shouldn't take too long to extract the information you seek. --Jayron32 14:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Unfortunately, the data there is out of date or incomplete. For example, this item from January is written from the perspective of it still being January (speaks of Jan 26 as in the future) and there's no mention of when that restriction actually did get lifted (unless I'm missing it). Matt Deres (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're going to run into some additional issues because public health measures often weren't uniformly imposed province-wide. The provincial government, at various times, introduced 'stages' or 'phases' of reopening (or closure), that were variously numbered or color-coded and were applied to different regions at different times. Against the background of a muddled and inept provincial response, regional public health units often were left to impose their own additional measures. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I recall the colour-coding thing well; I led a team at work into a mad scramble to incorporate and assign county/region level designations into our systems so that our procurement teams could have a hope of figuring out demand planning. But I think all that stuff had gone by the wayside after the re-openings of summer 2021. There may have been some small stuff Ottawa way outside that timeframe, but it's probably not going to affect stuff much. All I'm really looking for is from November 2021 onwards. Matt Deres (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 12[edit]