Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

Ready? Ask a new question!

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:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 28

Unknown 4-Mast Wood Sailing Ship Identification Help Please (photo)

Ship in Philadelphia --is their George Washington Bridge in background. See here: http://itemofinterest.blogspot.com/2011/09/test.html Any ship ID ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cramyourspam (talk • contribs) 02:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

arr oops. asked by CramYourSpam. thank you, SineBot. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no George Washington Bridge in Philadelphia. Looks like the Benjamin Franklin Bridge to me. Deor (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a schooner, all four masts are rigged fore-and-aft, maybe around 1000 ton. Looks like it is tied to Philadelphia's Municipal Pier #11. Any idea on the date of the photos? Are you sure it is wood and not iron?—eric 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

oops about the bridge. well done user deor. its benjamin franklin bridge. the photos seem to be mid-1920's to mid 1930's. not much later than that i'd guess just from the look of the filmstock. Cramyourspam (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the USS Robert H. McCurdy. The article says she was towed to Philadelphia in 1919. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WOW. well done. many thanks Cramyourspam (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Saturn V Testing

I'm looking for basically a citation for the following; Lloyd Emerson (Moen) Knain, tested (vibrated specifically) the Saturn V vehicle. He put the vehicle together and the vibrated it for testing, all I am looking for is any information that is cit-able. Thanks. Jlk18000 (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What was his last name? Moen or Knain? Why did you write it with a name in parentheses? I found nothing at Google Scholar or Google books linking such a person with the Saturn V, and no scholarly journal articles by him. What is the basis for your belief that such a person was involved in testing the rocket? The closest I could find for any reference at all was a 1935 "Who's who in American Education" which lists JE Knain of North Dakota and Ida Moen of ND, with apparently Lloyd Emerson Knain as their child (it is hard to be sure what the snippet represents, with the omissions): "KNAIN, JE, Supt. of Schls., Milnor. ND; b. Northwood, ND, May 18, 1890; s. Mr. and Mrs. Edward NOK; BA, Univ. of ND, ... O. Ida Moen of Gales- burg, ND, Dec. 31, 1916; c. Ione Marion, Lloyd Emerson: Member; Phi Beta Kappa, Pi Gamma Mu. ...." Failure to find documents does not at all prove that he did not do the testing mentioned. I did find a publication on education, a 1933 Masters thesis by Joseph Edwards Knain of North Dakota, likely Lloyd's father: [1]. Many thousands of unheralded individuals worked for contractors and subcontractors all over the country involved in getting the US to the Moon. Edison (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about not making that more clear, his last name was Knain, and yes this seems to be the issue I am having... is simply put, theres nothing to say that he actually did anything, however I know he did. (I am a Knain myself, and closely related to him with personal writings in our Family Tree book with him stating he worked on that project, as well as many others, with many other family members (including myself) to back this up as personal record, however I, and it seems you as well, cannot find information regarding this. In fact, I'm actually surprised that you found ANYTHING about the Knain surname, seeing as how if their last name is Knain, I personally know them. If theres anything that you think could help find a reference, I have limited, but a size-able portion of information that might be helpful.Jlk18000 (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You might check to see where he worked. The more precise the information you start with, the more likely you are to strike gold in archives that are not available online, at the archives of NASA or at their contractors, in local newspaper archives, or in local historical societies. If he said he did that job, he probably did. I would have expected the job of "putting it together" to be assembly at the launch site, but vibration testing would likely have been done on non-launched test samples at a contractor/subcontractor. Look up which contractor produced the Saturn V. The article lists Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas, and IBM as "lead contractors," but NASA politics dictated spreading out the contracting to as many congressional districts as possible. Here is a description of a "Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand" in Huntsville Alabama, which was used for vibration testing of the rocket in 1966 and 1967. Here is more genealogical information on this (your?) family. Edison (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

He worked at Boeing, was the Chairman in 1964. The link you gave Is actually mostly my work as it is, also sadly is just a dead-end for any information I'm looking for at the moment... Yes, the "Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand" is exactly what he worked on, the question at hand is finding something that ties him and the tests. I'll dig around online for a little longer, if all else fails its only a 2-3 hour drive to Huntsville, and if they don't have it I don't think anyone will. Jlk18000 (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember a newsreel which might have had this. The rocket assembly was horizontal and some kind of mechanical vibration was used with various sensors and inspections, but that's all I remember. 69.171.160.229 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Psychology of thieves

I had a valuable bike stolen from me a few weeks ago and I've been bothered by it ever since. I can't really wrap my head around the selfishness of someone who thinks it's ok to cut a lock and ride off with somebody else's bike. I mean, there can't really be any empathy or decency there can there?

So my question is for anyone who's stolen something personal, i.e. not just from a store: what's the deal? How can you rationalize your act? Is the person you're stealing it from just some chump, and to hell with him? What's the deal? Vranak (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Once, many years ago, somebody stole one pedal off my bike. May seem trivial, but it makes it quite unrideable. I still can't really wrap my head around that one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose no one here will admit that he has stolen something personal, so no one should feel entitle to answer your question. Anyway, I've met people in exactly the same situation as you. It's incredible how much feelings people can attach to a bike. Maybe, you could explain to us why does it happen. I mean, the attachment, not the stealing. The latter is easier to explain, even if you don't feel like that: I doubt any theft thinks about the harm being done. He will only think about the huge opportunity to steal a valuable bike. 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I won the bike in a hockey pool, and I used it frequently as a basic means of transportation. How could I not be strongly attached to it? It's irreplaceable because its value was so high and I am not willing to spend that amount -- especially knowing there's a shameless thief around. Vranak (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It'll fall somewhere on the scale from sociopathic behaviour through to simply being too stupid to appreciate the harm done to the victim. Being very stupid is a leading criminogenic factor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I've never stollen anything of value from anyone, but I think perspective is the key here. One factor here is desperation. People who have substance addiction often are in desperate need of money for a fix, they wont be thinking much about the consequences for themselves or the victim. Class can also lead to desperation. Many people have little opportunity for social advancement and will never be able to afford a bike like that, based solely on their circumstances, from their perspective you don't deserve the bike anymore than them so why shouldn't they take it from you? Property is theft! and all. From your perspective, you worked hard and made the right decisions to earn the bike. From the thief's perspective you received the bike due to your circumstances and don't really deserve it, you just feel entitled to it. --Daniel 22:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't afford that bike either though -- I won it as a prize in a Vancouver-area hockey pool with hundreds of entrants through careful consideration and ample thought. It was the year before the subprime market crash so they won't be putting up anymore as prizes. Vranak (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But Vranaka, how can the thief know something like that? Winning a prize is not very common, what he/she may have thought was, more likely, that you are quite rich and could afford it. Unless you think that the thief knows you personally? I am sorry for your loss of property, but you have to understand that other people do not know what you know about your own life. A as said before here, some people are indeed very, very desperate (there have been drug addicts who have killed an old lady to be able steal 50 dollars from their handbag). --Lgriot (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

From my experience, people who claim that property is theft are rarely from the lower classes. They are much more middle class and stupid (and normally not criminal). I don't believe thieves have any ideology, it's just plain opportunism. Quest09 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but if our positions were reversed (me and the thief) I'd be wracked with guilt and unable to sleep until I got it back to its rightful owner. I can only assume that the perp has severe emotional blockage or a dysfunctional ethical system to not feel similiarly. Vranak (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

They certainly have to be somehow different: less empathy at least is a necessary condition. Anyway. Try to think about it in a more positive light: you had the chance of riding it for free for some years. Now it's gone, but you've learned a lesson in impermanence. (Note: report the theft and exact description of the bike to the police and do search regularly for it on sites like ebay, it might appear). Quest09 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the thief actually thought "property is theft," or bought into some kind of anarchist ideology. I was merely using a leftist lens to examine the situation. Feelings of desperations and alienation from other classes are very prevalent in lower classes and some definitely feel that higher classes do not deserve their wealth. Not all people have the same ethical system so the characterization of someone's as dysfunctional isn't always valid. On another note, I once had my bike stollen on my college campus. I found the guy riding it a few days later and chased him down he was likely from a higher social class than me, in this case I guess he was simply thrifty and didn't want to spend money on a bike so he stole mine. Quest's idea to look for it on eBay or craigslist is a good idea. I had another bike stolen from me. I went to replace it by looking for similar bikes on craigslist and found mine for sale. I just arranged a sale and when the guy showed up, I took my bike back. --Daniel 23:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, a wikipedia article on the profile of thieves could be interesting, I'm sure there are studies out there that break down the reasons people steal, and personal traits and upbringings which are linked to thievery. I once hungout with a group of 17year olds and some were thieves, including grand theft auto and house burgalary, many of them did abuse alcohol and various drugs, and many of them knew they had little prospect of a bright future as none of them would be attending university. There definitely is a lack of empathy, but there are other factors too. Some is a group mentality and peer pressure to also become a thief. If you hang out with thieves it makes it seem less worse, like it's normal. And than there are also some thieves who are just strung out crack fiends/base heads whatever you call them, they need money for drugs and that's all that is going through their heads. Public awareness (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a lack of empathy, or the presence of apathy. StuRat (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Was in a rush, fixed now. Public awareness (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, I'd say some portion of them are basically socialists, and feel they are just as entitled to your property as you are. Amazingly, though, this doesn't apply to others stealing from them. They feel that they are poor, so stealing from them is immoral, but not from you (yes, you may be poor, too, but they didn't think so, based on your bike). StuRat (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A somewhat shaky, not to say complete and utter bollocks, understanding of socialism there, Stu. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It makes perfectly sense Stu: the whole thing happened in Canada, and they are all socialists over there. That's why there is much less stealing in the US. Quest09 (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

StuRat, please don't troll the thread. Public awareness (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a truly bizarre understanding of the word "Socialist". You probably shouldn't try to get your understanding of political concepts from the right-wing extremists on talk radio. APL (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Most revolutionary thought clearly distinguishes between personal possessions: things in more or less continuous individual use; and the means and tools of production that are property. Private property in the means and tools of production is considered "theft," the dividing line between the petits-bourgeois use of personal possessions to make profit, and the small capitalist making profit off means and tools is of course payment of wage labour to workers. Some past instances of working class responses to personal theft I've observed in the literature include beatings without reaching the point of wounding or maiming. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But thievery is not selfish, Vranak. Far from it. It is an immature and parasitic dependence on others, certainly not a form of self-reliance or a cause of self-respect. Be sure that if caught the thief would lie or make up some embarrassing excuse for his actions. You should be proud that you don't know how to get into the mind of this person. And I'd recommend you also closely examine the motives of some of the rather bizarre rationalizations and guilt trips others have made on this thread--not for your pleasure--but as an example of yet another and even worse sort of immorality to protect yourself from than simple physical theft. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Part of the motivation may be not just the benefit the thief enjoys from selling the stolen goods, but the hurt the victim suffers. A comedian once talked about male rape in prison, and said "It's not just the pleasure he feels; It's the expression on your face!" Edison (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that Edison is an administrator here. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And your point is, μηδείς? Edison is, I think, making a very apposite point. Some people positively enjoy inflicting cruelty on others in one way or another, and a thief (just as a rapist) may derive additional satisfaction, beyond hir acquisition of items of value (or physical pleasure), in the mental (and/or physical) pain caused to hir victims. In the case of rape this is obvious to most people; in the case of theft it may be less obvious, and hence worth pointing out by the analogy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.236 (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has asked yet what the explanation for not stealing is. We're apparently all in this together and should love our fellow human beings, but for what reason exactly? User:Medeis observes that thieves tend to make up excuses - I heard somebody say "I see that guy at his window every night with his laptop, I'm going to steal it," and on asking him how this was OK he said that the laptop was sure to be insured and the owner was just looking at porn. However, the excuses for not stealing seem to be just as spurious, and typically circular, reducing to "it's bad because it's bad, and you shouldn't do it because you shouldn't, and because people don't and because of empathy and that's why you won't do it and shouldn't". The only time in my life I've heard a coherent explanation, I had to actively pursue the question for an hour with somebody who had ideas about moral philosophy, and even then I still wonder about the explanation and find it tenuous. The question of why we should bother to vote in elections is similar. Society seems to be protected from chaos only by vague goodwill and inexplicitly held moral theories. Also, I too hated it when my bike was nicked.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The best explanation I've heard (apart from "I don't steal because God will send me to Hell for eternal punishment if I do") is the concept of a social contract. I agree that I won't steal from you, and in exchange you agree not to steal from me. It's not that I wouldn't be better off in the short term if I were to steal your fancy bike, it's just that if I do, then there's no reason keeping you from stealing something else I value. That's a bit of a precarious situation, and relies on both of us believing that long-term maintenance of the social order is worth more than short-term selfish gain. This obviously opens itself up to the free rider problem, where someone ("a thief") abrogates their end of the social contract, while you're still fulfilling yours (e.g. they steal your bike, even though you have no intention of stealing their flat screen TV). In those cases society tries to use punishment (fines and jail time and/or threats of eternal damnation) as a deterrent, but that relies on the thief believing that the chance of getting caught and the punishment likely to be received outweigh the chance of getting away with it and the benefit likely to be gained from the theft. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If we consider the problem of not stealing from the standpoint of homo economicus then the cost (time, money, amortisation of anticipated gaol sentence) of stealing needs to be placed against the cost of an equivalent substitutable good. Bicycle theft has been heavily investigated for labour technique in the Netherlands: all bicycle locking systems can be easily defeated, the aim of buying a bicycle locking system is to buy one that makes defeating it not cost effective. (I think this kind of homo economicus view isn't particularly credible, given observed economic returns on bank robbing and drug dealing in the US. Also this only covers professional criminals, not amateurs or hobbyists.) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

By far the majority of thieves are in poverty, basically they are life's losers. Very very few actually make decent money or are rich. People like me have no compunction about finding them and sticking them in prison whatever sympathy we might feel for their plight. I am an atheist and don't believe in any of that punishment by God or moral stuff but none of my family way back has gone in for wrongdoing that I know of so there's no earthly reason for me or my children to do so either if we don't want to be life's losers. Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to equate morality with God and superstition. This mistake is usually made by the opponents of atheists, and used as ammunition against us atheists. Puzzled though I am by the details, I'm sure morality has a rational basis. Following family tradition, on the other hand, is not very rational. Consistently doing as your ancestors did would mean you had to attend church, and perhaps take up a profession like farrier, fletcher, wainwright or cooper.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What on earth has rational got to do with it? I am here because my parents were here because their parents were here and I wish my descendants to be here as well in the same way that I am here and wouldn't be if my ancestors had not also wished that. It is written in my genes or upbringing or whatever. Rational is how to achieve aims, not how to give aims in the first place. It has struck me that I might be harming my children by not going to church and making out that I believed in all that rubbish but the hypocrisy would just be another form of wrongdoing as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This promises to be a great discussion, but I think I have to respect the "don't start a debate" and "keep your answer within the scope of the question" rules, so I can't continue. Pity.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

September 29

Will a medical office and hospital being build behind my home lower my property value and make it hard to sell?

I live in a small neighborhood that is surrounded by a field. The city would like to rezone the field behind my home for medical offices and a hospital. Will my home value suffer if they build the medical offices and hospital? Will the rezoning make it harder to sell my home? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.133.67 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hire a lawyer or get some legal advice. Talk to your neighbors and contact the zoning board and attend any relevant meetings. You may be entitled to compensation if a change in zoning lowers the value of your property, although it may be a hard and losing cause to fight city hall. See takings clause. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject, but I don't think your property value would suffer. If it was an airport or a factory and you were being rezoned to industrial, than I would be worried. While your property value could go down from noise from sirens, your land value may increase as you become more urban and you may be able to sell your property for business use depending on the rezoning, which may bring more money than selling your home as residential. I too suggest you keep in the know about the building and zoning plans, but the high cost of a lawyer probably isn't worth it unless you own a mansion or you see something seriously wrong. Public awareness (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Obviously the advice of someone whose name is "public awareness" is cheeper than and more relevant than that of a lawyer trained in the relevant laws. Never mind what I said about taking the issue seriously and getting professional advice. Just give up. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My name was given to me by another editor when I finally got an account. [Can you imagine a world without lawyers?] Don't make me lawyer you with WP:COI. :D

You might be able to sell your house to a rich doctor. There's a conflict between negatives (noise, increased traffic, construction work, other development nearby, and a possibility of perceived social undesirables such as drug addicts arriving for treatment) and the positives (improved transport links, increased amenities catering to influx of people, near to major employer). It may be harder to sell in the short term while construction work is going on, but it's hard to know the long-term effect on house value, as this will depend on the existing area and the changes (houses in the middle of nowhere tend to be less expensive than those in built-up areas). You could check nearby property prices: find a similar neighbourhood with a hospital, and compare. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Land value tax

I'm having a bit of a problem understanding a part of land value tax.

"Because the supply of land is inelastic, market land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay, rather than on the expenses of landlords, and so LVT cannot be directly passed on to tenants."

Say you are renting space in a building and paying $1000/month. A new LVT tax is introduced charging the building owner and other building owners $XXXX/month. The rent I pay is determined through competition for my demand with other local buildings, so why would my rent not go up? Also how is land inelastic? If the owner of a 10story apartment building saw there was increasing demand he could build, in theory, another 10 stories ontop of his building. Is land slightly elastic, thus the statement at LVT wrong and there is a deadweight loss created. If rent goes up due to the tax there must be a deadweight loss. Please no discussion on whether LVT is good or bad, just on whether the quoted statement is true or not. Thanks, Public awareness (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you build another ten stories on top of a building, you're not increasing the supply of land. Land value tax is typically calculated on the area of land, not on the floor area of the buildings. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Headphone cord curl

My headphones' cord (1⁄16 inch (1.6 mm) wide, wire encased in what seems to be some kind of very flexible plastic or rubber) has a tendency to curl. What can I do to either get rid of the curls or to prevent them from developing? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Untwist the cord. The curl is caused when the cord twists. Dangle the cord free, and watch how it untwists; let it unwind on its own, and throw a few additional "untwists" for good measure, and it should curl less. --Jayron32 04:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Expanding on that: In my house, this action is traditionally done by gently lowering the headphones (or the telephone handset, etc) over a railing/down a stairwell, allowing the cord to untwist on its own. Do this a couple of feet at a time until you're holding the plug; when the phones stop spinning, let it rest in that position if you can, otherwise pull it back up and let it lay flat on the floor.

"Works for me..." --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans and Kennewick Man

I just finished reading the article about Kennwick man and I am a bit uncertain about a point in the article. The writer stated, "In a publication about Kennewick Man, anthropologist Glynn Custred of California State University East Bay said "expert on Asian populations" "physical anthropologist" C. Loring Brace of University of Michigan" believed "people related to the Jomon" came before the "modern Indian" and that "two varieties of American Indian" arose from the former being "absorbed" by the latter with the "Plains Indian" resembling the older group.[4]", now, as I understand, the two varieties of Indian came from somewhere other than America. If this is a correct interpretation of reading, then the Indians came from Asia. This logically leads me to conclude that the term "Native American" is a misnomer. There seems, then, that there are no Native Peoples in America but that they all came from somewhere else. If I take a plant and go to Japan and plant my plant, even if it is there for a million years, it would not make it "native" by any stretch of the imagination. It would make it pretty darn old but even so, not a native plant. So, I'm wondering if I'm reading this correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.56.242 (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "native" is a relative term. See Indigenous peoples, especially phrases like "...before the arrival and intrusion of a foreign and possibly dominating culture", "...groups that existed in a territory prior to colonization or formation of a nation state", etc. Also see Settlement of the Americas. Pfly (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are no native peoples from anywhere, save Africa. The question then becomes how long does a people have to claim occupation to a land to be Native. There is some question about when the first people crossed the Bering land bridge to be the first pioneer population of Humans in the Americas; and even on how many crossings there were. There are competing theories on how the Americas were settled. One holds that the settling originally happened in a single crossing, and that this first pioneer population represents the sole ancestors of the entire population of the Americas. A second theory holds that there were multiple settlements, and that the people we refer to as "Native Americans" or "First Nations" may have actually been of a later wave of people who displaced the earlier settlers. (i've somewhat oversimplifed the two theories for the sake of keeping this short-and-sweet, but you can read about them at Settlement of the Americas) That's the crux of the dispute over the Kennewick Man. If you ascribe to the "single settlement" theory (called the "short chronology" in the literature), then all human remains are direct ancestors of the current Native American/First Nation peoples, and thus they have cultural rights to those remains. If you ascribe to the "multiple waves" theory (called the "long chronology" in the literature), then Kennewick Man may be sufficiently old as to have predated the arrival of the peoples we now call Native Americans, which would essential mean he doesn't "belong" to them. --Jayron32 05:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There are also theories that humans came to North America from Europe, living at the edge of ice and fishing for sustenance as do Alaskan natives. Edison (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are probably theories that it was settled by space aliens as well; the scientific evidence (as shown by things like mitochondrial DNA studies and archeological finds) tends to support the settlement via the Bering land bridge as the main route. There are various theories of various groups of people who reached the Americas in the years between the initial settlement and the Colonial era, see Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, but to my knowledge there is no solid evidence of any pioneer settlement of the Americas via Europe directly. --Jayron32 22:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pfly is correct that Native is a relative term. The claim that humans are native to Africa ignores that primates Euarchontoglires are native to Eurasia. The claim that the Americas may have also been settled in part from Europe is based on mitochondrial evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)), hardly on the same level as spacemen theories, but of course ignorance and scorn together create a powerful explosive, so I won't criticize what Jayron32 has said, lest it come back to bite me. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there you go, that's an excellent reference! Well found. --Jayron32 04:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly states that the Solutrean hypothesis is not well supported even by the genetic data. Rmhermen (talk)

:) --Jayron32 04:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Solutrean hypothesis noted the similarity of the Solutrean arrowheads to those found later in North America. It is inappropriate to ridicule it as being just like saying people came to North America from space ships. Europeans could certainly have migrated to North America when the North Atlantic had ice, but I have never understood how they could have transported flint working techniques over a long span of time while living on the edge of the ice. It is interesting that some scientists classify Kennewick Man as Ainu. That seems more credible than one TV documentary and much discussion in the blogosphere which noted that the skull with muscle and skin added (pic) looked remarkably like Jean-Luc Picard (pic). Edison (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You make some very well-thought-out and important points, Edison! --Jayron32 18:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed non-free thumbnails. —Akrabbim^talk 18:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Two identical questions about the difference between innovation and creation, which won't necessarily receive identical answers (maybe that was the point)

what is the difference between innovation and creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.5.130 (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

what is the difference between innovation and creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj kulkarni (talk • contribs) 09:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicely illustrated

. Warofdreams talk 12:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The article Innovation says innovation means making a substantial positive change to something. Creation or "to create" typically means to bring something into existence or make something happen[2]. So innovation is improving an existing thing, while creation is making something new. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Adam was the creation, Eve was the innovation. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Beauty

What is beauty? Why is it that computer rendered faces are so much more prettier than real girls? Money is tight (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're not hanging out with the right girls. Since beauty is so subjective, it's hard (dare I say, impossible) for us to tell you why you don't find real girls as pretty as fake ones. Dismas|^(talk) 12:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What is beauty? I don't know, but John Keats had some observations on the issue. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.236 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Faces with a left-right symmetry are perceived to be more beautiful than asymmetric ones. Most human faces are, to a greater or lesser extent, not completely symmetrical. Computer rendered faces are probably just more symmetrical. 194.176.105.147 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Most people find truly computer generated faces to be quite disturbing. See Uncanny valley. This is different from faces which are modified by "touching up", which generally involves evening skin tone, removing blemishes, and that sort of thing. But a human figure which is created from scratch by computer tends to be off-putting. --Jayron32 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

D: Look at picture 4 on this page, for example. 86.162.71.40 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a Japanese version of a Barbie Doll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they are more attractive. They are more mainstream, and therefore, they appeal to more people. However, has some human ever fallen in love for a computer animation? Quest09 (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be kind of a high-tech Pygmalion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

S1m0ne (2002) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We have a very good article on physical attractiveness. Looie496 (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dismas, maybe I'm not hanging out with the right girls, but it's more likely you're not looking at the right CG animations. Look at [[3]] from 0:32 to 0:43. I finding her unusually attractive. I don't recall seeing any real person this pretty, including the best looking actresses out there (but I have seen prettier CG images, i.e. not animated in a movie). Money is tight (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Beauty must be very much in the eye of the beholder. That CGI person did nothing for me. Pfly (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks fake, of course. Put glasses on her and she would look like a fake Sarah Palin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok look at [[4]]. If you still don't think that's pretty, please give me a pic of what you think is pretty. Money is tight (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not bad. That has more of a painting look than a CGI look. Regardless of the medium, you'd be hard-pressed to find a woman to compare with Ingrid Bergman in her prime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I find her attractive but I wouldn't say unusually so and I definitely don't consider her more attractive then all real people. I do find her more attractive then the one in the wallpaper image who doesn't really do anything for me. Beyond the not 'hanging out with the right girls' thing, it may also be the 'girls' you do hang out with are CG so that's what you're used to and find attractive. Besides that, it's not clear to me if you played the Resident Evil games and watched the movie. If you did, your opinion on the above images beauty may be influenced by any emotional connection you formed with the Claire Redfield's character. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Beauty in general is the result of unity of form. An impala is quite magnificent, but one mangled by a lion is not. Yet its bleached skeleton will be restored to a type of beauty. The same with buildings. A well kept, well designed building is beautiful, while an abandoned burnt out lot with broken windows is ugly. But return after centuries to look at ruins showing a form swept bare of debris and the beauty may be restored. In humans, unity of form is best exemplified by symmetry and signs of sexual health such as full red lips.

Here is a woman who puts Ingrid Bergman to shame.

μηδείς (talk)

Isabella's quite attractive, but I still prefer her mother, Ingrid Bergman. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I could not possibly argue with you there. Have you seen Cactus Flower (film)? μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, OP, maybe you have a paraphilia for computer generated images. You know, if it exists, there's a paraphilia for it. --Belchman (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the idea mentioned above, that symmetry plays a huge part - when designing a computer model using 3DS Max, for example, many models - especially faces - are designed completely symmetrical. The simple fact is, it takes half the time to do it that way. See this. In reality, when a baby is forming in the womb, gets born, and grows up into an adult, the genes are operating individually to create that person. The operate under the same rules, but with disparate resources, resulting in asymmetrical beings, such as us (and in many cases, mutations and what we call deformities). If the genes all had the exact same resources, and no mutations, we would all look exactly the same, like clones. The human brain looks for symmetry to make sense of the world around it - a simple survival instinct - and symmetry is the most simple, and therefore attractive. Hope this helps. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Diploma

HELLO MY NAME IS CAMILLE HUDSON AND I GRADUATED FROM THERE I DIDN'T MARCH AND WHEN I WENT TO PICK UP MY DIPLOMA OR WHATEVER YOU CALL IT I WAS NEVER ABLE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ANYONE SO HOW DO I DO THAT NOW IT HAS BEEN SOME YEARS . THANKS I WILL APPRECIATE A RESPONSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.145.150 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(personal data removed.) This is Wikipedia, an internet encyclopedia, not the office of a high school. You are most likely to have better results contacting the school directly. Rmhermen (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Could I be an awful bore and ask you to turn off your Caps Lock miss? Thanks so much. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do go back to your school or college. You might still be able to pick up your diploma. Good luck. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

eHOW Advice Article, Condo Regulations in New Jersey

The article by Elaine Severs, EHOW Contributor cites The New Jersey Common Interest Real Property Act of 1995 as one regulation regarding condos. I cited this in a conversation with an NJ official that works this arena and he said the cited "Act" is not a New Jersey law or statute. He said it might have been a bill. Could you look into this with the author and have someone call me. If the official is correct, the article should be corrected. HELP!

Jack <removed telf. nr.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.105.208 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is going to call you: any answers will be here. I think you are talking about an article on eHow: if so, you need to contact them directly: this is Wikipedia, and we have no connection with eHow. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Number of Greenland Islands

What is the current thinking on whether the Island of Greenland is one island, two, or three? I see our article on Geography of Greenland says that "The ice is so massive that its weight presses the bedrock of Greenland below sea level and is so all-concealing that not until recently did scientists discover that Greenland might actually be three islands." The supporting reference, however, is just a passing mention in a newspaper article. Apparently the three-island theory is based upon findings reported in 1951, for example here, asserting that the icecap conceals two deep sounds running from coast to coast and splitting Greenland into three islands. Is this still considered a viable theory? There are, of course, small islands, such as Uunartoq Qeqertaq, that are concealed by the icecap; this isn't what I'm talking about. John M Baker (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell, but a separate tectonic plate for Greenland has fallen out of favor. Maybe [5] will have some clue. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the Greenland ice sheet has a nice map that suggests that although the central depression is below sea level, that area wouldn't be connected to the sea, so just one island. This older version [6], from the National Geographic in 1981 has the central depression connecting to the sea to the west, but basically still one island. Mikenorton (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Depends on scale. It's complicated. See: How Long Is the Coast of Britain?. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated in the OP, I recognize that there are some very small islands that are separate and am only referred to large-scale separate islands. John M Baker (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Miami News public domain?

Hi, I'm wondering if a 1958 issue of the now-defunct Miami News would be in public domain so that its images could be used here. Here's the article on Google News. Thanks. Delaywaves ^talk 23:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to know the same thing about this 1961 Pittsburgh Press article. Delaywaves ^talk 23:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Likely not. Both articles indicate that the papers were acquired by other newspapers; that likely includes their intellectual property rights. In any case, it's very, very hard to establish whether something is a legitimate orphaned work — a work whose copyright status has elapsed because technically nobody owns it. Unless one has a very strong reason to believe that is the case, one cannot assume it. It's also not clear if the copyright to those photos was owned by the newspaper, or a wire service. In any case, the photos are not exactly very good quality, so I think the loss is pretty minimal. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

September 30

wikiHow

Does wikiHow have any policies similiar to the Wikipedia policy of “Not Censored”? 75.6.243.251 (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing here to suggest they do. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia's “Assume Good Faith” or “Not A Soapbox (and/or) Means of Promotion”? 75.6.243.251 (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many writeups describing its various policies. Does wikiHow not have similar writeups? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, I don't know, that's why I came here to find out... 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This list of wikiHow Objectionable Images seems inconsistent with a "Not Censored" policy. John M Baker (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so I guess I can rule that out. What about the others? 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

They have a few policies here, but their approach is to establish an intentionally minimal number of policies. John M Baker (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You can see what policies they have at the page I originally linked to. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is gold so valuable?

Why has gold always been so highly valued, especially in ancient times (in modern times it at least has some use as a good electrical and thermal conductor)? You can't eat it, it's not hard enough to make weapons to hunt for food or to make tools for other purposes, you can't build a shelter with it, it doesn't float. I don't see how mere rarity without practical value would have been any use to ancient peoples. It may look pretty but you can starve to death or die of exposure looking pretty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callerman (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Gold article has some suggestions about it. It's been valued since before recorded history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

1. Your "deficits" of why gold shouldn't be valuable are actually all great reasons it should be a form of currency. Currencies based on food, weapons, and shelter are not really very good currencies — that's just a form of bartering. A neutral currency with a known value (tacked, as the case of gold usually is, to the rate of production) lets you do more complicated transactions than otherwise. (What, you don't want my fish? All I have is fish! What do I do now?)

2. It's not clear that gold was overwhelmingly valued by all people at all times in the same way. The Incas valued it a lot less than the Spanish did, for example, and found the Spanish lust for gold to be laughable. (Everything's fun and games until the smallpox sets in.) Once there is a stabilized market for gold — e.g., people you know will buy it — then it can become more valuable to everybody who has it. Until then, its value will be based on exactly who you are selling it to.

3. You seem to be imagining hunter-gatherer types on the Savannah valuing gold. That's highly unlikely. They wouldn't have had access to much of it, in any case. Mining requires a high degree of organization, and there's only so much gold lying around waiting for you to pick it up without any processing. I suspect that gold was not especially valuable until more organized mining and metalworking was possible. Our gold article indicates that it has been known to be used by the Chalcolithic or copper age, which is pretty dang civilized as far as human development is concerned, even if it looks primitive from a modern standpoint. These aren't people living in bamboo huts and acting out some kind of parody of the "savage" — these are people who live in organized communities with leaders of some sort and make most of their calories based on farming, which allows them to support people who are full-time artisans or blacksmiths or miners and things like that.

4. In the end, things are valuable if people find them valuable. That's tautological, but true. If there's a guy willing to buy something of yours for a good price, you'll probably be willing to sell it to him for that price, even if you think it is worth a lot less. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Gold is pretty and resists corruption and causes few allergies, this makes it great for jewellery. Gold is easily worked, making it more desirable to work for decoration than, say, steel. Gold has interesting conductive properties for electricity. Finally gold is a commodity within which all other commodities find their value reflection (see Volume 1 Chapters 1-3 of Das Kapital). This makes gold, like the US dollar, or the Euro, or the Australian Dollar, or negotiable US bonds, or certain shares useable as currency. Unlike other currencies listed, many people (falsely) believe gold to have an "inherent" value as money. But gold as money does have some advantages: it isn't contingent upon the survival of particular states, it is dense and so highly portable, it is easily divided with a chisel making it readily negotiable. Historically some of these reasons were more important than others. "Before recorded history" wealth meant either possessing the military power to directly exploit villages, or possessing masses of slaves—here gold had a decorative purpose based on its lustre. In feudal societies gold was as much decorative as it was financial, it was used to resolve rare high value trades between rulers (such as ransoming a King stupid enough to get caught in battle), but people also valued it for its displays in cloth of gold etc. In contemporary society gold is both a currency (rarely directly traded, usually traded on certificates of ownership that amount to goldsmith's notes), but it is also highly valued for decorative purposes. Silver is more interesting given the vast decorative demand out of India. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's as intrinsically valuable as any fiat currency is (or as much as currencies backed by other precious metals) outside of the small but significant intrinsic uses (gold has some good industrial properties in electronics, etc.). The special place for gold as a precious metal though is interesting. Some have suggested that the difficulty and random nature of gold finds helped maintain some price stability, although I've heard alternative variations of the same thing too. This book: The gold standard in theory and history, Barry J. Eichengreen, Marc Flandreau, has a lot of background on the historic gold standard.

It's also true that gold's emergence as a currency standard is rather recent. Historically it was silver until the 1880s, with Britain being a prime exception. Shadowjams (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Also note the historic value of salt in ancient times - it would still be valuable if it were not so common. Collect (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Also kind of hard to mint coins from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we only use coins because we use precious metals as money. If we used something else, we would store it in another manner more appropriate to that form, such as bags of salt, or perhaps a salt certificate for larger quantities. StuRat (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think one factor in gold's favor is that it looks different, being yellow. There are more silver-colored or grey metals than you can shake a stick at, bringing down their value. StuRat (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, darn that worthless platinum, rhodium and iridium. Googlemeister (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering that silver was, for centuries, used even more frequently as currency than gold (owing to some rather large deposits that were discovered), I think that argument is fairly specious (pun intended). The fact that copper has never been so valuable as gold makes the argument even less likely. People who care about metals can distinguish between the various silver colored metals quite easily, and have been able to do so for a very long time. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As already noted, gold is pretty, rare, and easily worked . But the suggestion that it is valuable because it makes a good medium of exchange is bassackward. Its high value (among other characteristics) makes it good a good medium of exchange. Also, note that not everyone has to be crazy about gold for it to function this way. So long as some people value it highly it is valuable to you as long as you can trade it. So the answer is, because a good number of people really like it.μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Kind of circular logic, but that is economics for you. Googlemeister (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

MeHag tattoo

A colleague has just come back from a doctor's appointment in Southsea, UK. In the waiting room he sat behind a woman who had 'MeHag' tattooed on the back of her neck. He could come up with no explanation for this, and couldn't pluck up the courage to ask her. He maintains it was certainly MeHag, and there was no possibility of the H being two L's etc. Does anyone have any idea what this could signify? Perhaps it was you? FreeMorpheme (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Were they diagnosed with a disease which causes people to tattoo nonsense on their neck ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of it about. I just wonder if, despite your colleague's certainty, the H is actually an N, and the tattoo is a mangled version of "Megan". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a misspelt Klingon word. Did she have a funny forehead ridge?μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Could it be her name, Me.. Hag.. shortened? Unlikely to be able to rule that out. Or the name of a loved one, I suppose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Could try emailing MeHag@various email providers.com and ask for help.μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally find it difficult to believe that no-one has tried this. It seems like a popular net name. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I did but I wasn't sure why the person would spell it MeHag. The results seem to suggest it is a real name not simply a net name Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Titration

why is only 2 or 3 drops of an indicator is add in a simple acid-base titration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.38.2 (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Try reading Acid–base titration and maybe pH indicator. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What 19th-century ethnic hat is this?

What kind of hat is this? Better yet name the painting that this chromolithograph is based on. Sorry that the image has been collaged over - at least you can see the hats. I feel like I know but now I can't place it. Thanks in advance. (I asked this on Humanities but haven't gotten the right answer yet. Ruled out so far: an Ochipok; Hennins). Saudade7 18:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think you'll get better answers for this question at the Humanities desk. --Belchman (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the hat or the original, but the collage is actually from 1942, by Kurt Schwitters, titled Merz 42 (Like an Old Master). See here (volume 83, hover over the image for the artist and title). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You might receive more information from the Sprengel Museum (the pdf-file on this site is a form for inquiries on Schwitters' works). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Alas yes, I came here after no one at the Humanities desk knew (see original post up there), and I know it is from Schwitters and I am asking for a Schwitters scholar who is trying to identify this picture. I thought I would just start by identifying that hat. It's kind of crazy that this hat is so hard to identify. Maybe there is an international ethnic hat and folk costume museum? Thanks for the suggestions, Saudade7 15:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason I didn't know you were aware it was by Schwitters is because the file summary of the image offers no indication of the work's title or artist, and states "Pre-1900 image used in pre-1920 collage" when in fact the collage is from 1942 (it is also signed "KS 42").

The only more specific reference I found regarding the original was in Bilderstreit und Büchersturm: medienkritische Überlegungen zu Übermalung und Überschreibung im 20. Jahrhundert (Birgit Mersmann, Königshausen & Neumann, 1999, ISBN 9783826014123). On page 60, she writes: "in Like an Old Master [...] he uses an 18th-century, as yet unidentified genre painting from the Munich School, which, in turn, is an imitation of a Dutch master." (my unauthorized translation). Maybe it has been identified in the past 12 years, and I still think the Sprengel Museum's Schwitter Archives might be your best bet. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sluzzelin talk - yes, I didn't want to focus on the Schwitters in my ID just because my focus was on the print he used. I didn't want to get into copyright territory by presenting the entire work by Schwitters - and because I was only wanting to use the image here in the Reference Desk query. My friend has done archival work at the Sprengel Museum archives and I am sure that what you provide is the state of current knowledge about the source material. So I wanted just to come here to the Reference desk and ask about the hat as a different path to identification that did not channel back into the Schwitters literature. To find fresh eyes, as it were. Of course you could not know this and so you were very good to make the Schwitters connection - unfortunately that connection is just where the dead end is for the literature. And so I am just looking for an identification for the hat, or better yet the print that was used in the collage. Thanks for your help though. I do not mean to seem ungrateful :-) Saudade7 02:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, you certainly didn't (seem ungrateful, sorry if I sounded a bit snippy :-). I guess I just felt stupid, but there are worse feelings. Anyway, I had fun trying to locate the original painting, even if I didn't succeed. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahahaha! You were NOT stupid! Only too Smart!! :-) Saudade7 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Facebook Notification

Everytime a friend's birthday comes up, FB notifies me a week ahead via email, and then, on his/her birthday, FB asks me to wish him/her after I log in. Well, I don't want anything similar happening when my birthday comes knocking. I don't want my friends (those who don't already know) to be notified about my birthday. I tried changing my date of birth to a date we've already passed by this year, but FB gave me an automated warning that I can change my date of birth a limited number of times. So, my question is: is it possible to prevent your friends from getting notifications about your birthday without tampering with your D.o.B in your profile? 223.190.208.203 (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

On your profile page, click Edit Profile. On the first page that comes up, Birthday is the 4th line. Set to "Do not show my birthday in my profile". It might have been quicker to look for this than to ask... --Saalstin (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're concerned by this kind of things happening, your best bet is to avoid Facebook altogether. --Belchman (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did do that. But I'm not sure that even when people are blocked from seeing my d.o.b, they'll be blocked from getting notifications about it. And, boycotting FB is not really an option for me, since it's the most crucial tool for my social networking and helps me keep in touch with whatever is going on in college, and whatnot. But I'd really like it if gazillions on half-known college acquaintances I'm not close to keep pouncing on me and wishing me "happy birthday" just because they'd happened to get the notification that morning. =_=" 223.177.242.93 (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So delete your birthday then! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't delete your birthday in FB. They need to know how old you are, and whether you are a minor, so filling in the date of birth is mandatory. 223.181.208.252 (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could change the date to February 29 so you'd only be bothered once every four years? Matt Deres (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just done this myself. Next to the date of birth is a symbol. Click that and change the setting to "Only me". That should do it. Another thing to think about - I sometimes get notifications from people who want to add my birthday to My Calendar. Check to see if you've got this app in your Facebook, and delete the app. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What Tammy said. I don't care much about my birthday and often forget my own age. I've had it hidden for a couple years now and have never been wished a happy birthday by anyone who didn't already know (e.g. close family). Dismas|^(talk) 23:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Business ideas

For a book I am working on, anyone want to suggest something that a fifteen year old girl could do to earn a bit of money. It needs to involve something they won at a raffle, though what that is does not matter, so long as it is realistic. I thought something to do with making food or drinks, though I have heard that involves certain regulations and licensing and such like.

148.197.80.214 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

She could win a bicycle and do deliveries. Googlemeister (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a sweet sewing machine and she either repairs local's clothing or she makes new odd, yet fashionable, clothing out of people's old clothes and sells them at the local market. Public awareness (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Those suggestions will get her arrested for unlicensed commercial vehicle operation and running a sweatshop in a zoned residential area. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends where you live. There's no requirement for bicycle licencing even for delivery people in NZ. She may need a bicycle helmet though Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this in America? Because God knows the British police can be arseholes at times, but arresting a girl for using a sewing machine with business intent? Really? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The OP is in the UK, the girl would no doubt be a [sole trader], no registration/permits, just go to work. There is nothing like [this] in the UK or Canada. Permits/licensing is only for certain areas, like taxi, electrician, nuclear plant owner, etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Public awareness (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A sole trader would be an option, of course. She would only have to do her first year's tax reports after 18+ months of trading (depending on what month she started), and would not have to become VAT registered until she earns £60,000 a year. These little complications (including doing hours of tax reports - tell her to get an accountant) may not be within the scope of the book, though, depending on the time-frame involved. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What's a "sweet" sewing machine, Public awarness? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Could be a sweet Singer.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps PA is thinking of a sewing machine make out of sugar? Or may be one of these [7] Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted an alliteration I guess, fancy, cool, neeto, groovy, spectacular, hip, fly, pretty, gnarly, awesome, amazing, pimpin', non-dull, just don't flow as nice. Public awareness (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a book called something like "50 Ways to Make Money from Stuff You Have At Home"? She could win that... --TammyMoet (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps she could win one of those new fangled personal computers and start selling things on that ebay thingamabob? Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

She could win a RepRap, I can't guarantee she would make money off it though. I presume we're talking short term. You could obviously come up with something like she wins a book on biology which cements an interest in biology leading to her eventually getting her PhD in something in biology and eventually and goes on to form a biotech company becoming the next Bill Gates. I wouldn't say this is completely unrealistic but it would be a 15-20 year concept at a minimum. (You could perhaps change biology to something to do with robots and forget about the PhD.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the items one can make with duct tape.

The daughter of a friend of mine buys fancy colored duct tape at a craft store which she uses to make wallets and other items which she sells at a profit. I can't find any articles here, but suggest you look at this search: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=duct+tape+crafts+for+girls&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to check, in the UK, is there any law that says you can't make and sell food without certain permits and complex higeine checks? 148.197.80.214 (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Loads, starting with the Food Safety Act 1990. However, since 2006 the laws have been made simpler and less stringent. If, for example, people wish to sell home-made cakes at a village fete, that is now allowed: environmental health officers are encouraged to turn a blind eye to it. However, I'd still be worried about being sued if someone's case of food poisoning turned out to be directly caused by the cake I'd made! This site gives more detail. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a story just about every week in the US of children being forced to shut down their lemonade stands. In fact, it happens so often that if you type "police lem" in google it will suggest you are looking for police lemonade stand. As I said above, have her sell wallets and other knick-knacks made from a case of assorted duct tape rolls she won. μηδείς (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The classic is babysitting, if you've got a fairly mature 15 year old and a motivated mother, or family friend with small children, to get you started. She could win a book on child development, or childcare, or a first aid course, or something. Or, she could win something that smaller children think is fun, accidentally befriend some small children at the raffle event, and be asked to babysit by their mother or father. Then it spreads by word of mouth. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Lough Erin

I have been listening to one of my favourite tunes "Lough Erin Shore" and am now wondering if there is anywhere in Ireland or Northern Ireland a Lough Erin? If not, where could the song title be referring to? Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 23:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You may want to see our article on Lough Erne. This appears to be what the song is referring to. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We have an article Lough Erin Shore which redirects to Gleanntáin Ghlas' Ghaoth Dobhair. The English lyrics in our article don't mention Lough Erin at all, but refer to the "glens of Ghaoth Dobhair" which means "the aqueous estuary" and is Anglacized to Gweedore in County Donegal. Where Lough Erin comes into it is a mystery. Alansplodge (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Our redirect seems to be in error... Lough Erin Shore is quite different. However, here are the same lyrics but with a the title Lough Erne's Shore, so "Lough Erin" is propbly an oft repeated error - KageTora was right. We have a page on Erin but there doesn't seem to be a Lough Erin. Alansplodge (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I found a lake actually called Lough-Erin in the 18th century. Mentioned (and explicitly differentiated from the twin lakes of Lough Erne) in The Antient and Present State of the County of Down (1757) and The universal gazetteer (1795). Assumed from similarity to descriptions (near Annahilt two miles to the northeast, triangular, before the Bow lakes and a certain Lake Henney close to Saintfield, famous for its fish) to the 1960 Official Guide to Hillsborough, to now be the lake known as Ballykeel Lougherne (Google Maps).

But then again, we come across a ballad purportedly based on real circumstances in Northwest Ireland, "The Admired Love-Song of William and Eliza, of Lough-Erin Shore" discussed by Charles Dickens in 1852. The story is about an Irish farmer falling in love with an English lady. They elope to Dublin and then to London (thus leaving Ireland). The lady comforts him with:

For three months in great consolation [says William]

This lady she did me adore,

Saying, my Willy, do not be uneasy

For leaving Lough-Erin shore

The song ends with them getting married and returning to Ireland. In both mentions of 'Lough-Erin Shore', it is clear that it does not refer to a specific lake, but to Ireland itself. I don't speak Irish obviously, but is there a possibility that it may not mean "Lake Erin's shores" but instead "The shores of [the bays of] Ireland"?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

October 1

Riviera Country Club, Pacific Palisades, CA

The first line of the HISTORY section states: "The club was originally developed by a syndicate in the early 1920's, a principal member of which was Los Angeles oil millionaire Alphonzo Bell, Sr., AFTER WHOM THE CLUB IS NAMED TODAY. How can that be possible, if the name of the club is The Riviera Country Club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsstix (talk • contribs) 00:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That erroneous entry was posted last November,[8] by someone who appears confused. The Bel-Air community was named for Bell, not this country club. I undid that entry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Interior of the Westgate Bridge

Hi - in news reports on the recent expansion of the Westgate Bridge, I saw that there's a huge workspace beneath the upper deck - can anyone provide an account of what that space is like? With pictures maybe?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You can see its box girder construction (the space) here.[9]--Aspro (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Great - thanks, Aspro Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

place name

where is the place in the world were a mosque,a church,a temple a tree with a snake sitting on its branches, a buddha statue and a pyramid is build adjacent to each other.looking forward for your reply.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.47.124 (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If we tell you and you win, will you share the prize with us? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like Las Vegas. Or possibly some museum. 148.197.80.214 (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Addressing a professor properly

A question from the German reference desk: A graduate student has contacted an American professor re job opportunities, using the address "Dear Professor <last name>". The profesor has replied "Dear <first name>". What would be considered the proper way of addressing the professor from there? Greets 85.180.199.217 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sir?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to become more formal by using the bland anonymous "Sir". Just continue to use "Dear Professor <last name>." It is far too early to become more familiar.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. So it does vary by nation, I guess. In our schools, using the full name and title is the more formal (stuffy) address. 'Sir' and 'Ma'am' is the acceptable [easier] address once sufficient familiarity has been established. Calling a professor by first name is also never acceptable, except if the professor insists and only if preceded by the title or sir/ma'am. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sir is not much used in the States, except by policemen when they're arresting you. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Use "Dear Professor X" until they say, "Please, call me Danny," or whatever it is. If you are still a grad student you are still on the "bottom" in this situation until invited "up". If you are both on more or less the same professional plane I think you are safer in making the jump if they initiate it, but if you're still a student, don't make the jump until invited. Not all professors care that much — but it's the ones that do that are the reason for the custom. (One professor of mine always, ALWAYS, signed her e-mails "Professor Firstname Lastname" which I thought took it a bit far. I'm not talking about her auto signature — that was her normal "sign off," even if you e-mailed with her on a daily basis. Even at elite institutions I have never seen anyone other than her do that, though.) This was my perception, anyway, when I was in grad school. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally, my professors are not so dear to me, so I simply open with "Professor,....." I have had professors that like me to call them by his or her first name in person, yet I have always opened my e-mails to them this way. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are an undergraduate, you should never call them by their first name unless they ask you to (which they really ought not to in most situations). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the US really that formal? One of the reasons for choosing the particular college I applied to at Cambridge in 1973 was that when I visited a friend who was an undergraduate there, everybody I met was on first-name terms, whether senior or junior members. (Note to Americans: "senior members" are roughly what you would call professors, though we wouldn't, unless they held chairs). --ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, the expectation is initial formality. I do not think you should underestimate how brittle the egos of most American academics are. Showing too much familiarity with a professor, uninvited, is seen as sort of low class. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Switch to Dear Dr. ____. It's slightly less formal. 75.71.64.74 (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This is acceptable as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It probably changes a fair bit by nation and less so by university & program. I would continue using "Dear Professor <last name>." though I disagree with several others about how you call profs you know well. I, and many of my classmates, naturally called our profs by their first name only, and only use their full name and title on formal reports. Though this is in Canada, and mostly in my smaller classes, 6-20 students. In your case, better to be too formal than to not be formal enough. Public awareness (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

When you know someone well, you can make the judgment call. But a reply to an e-mail should not assume that just because someone signs their first name, or uses your first name, is permission to address them by their first names. Just my experience of it, having been an undergrad, a grad student, and (for awhile) a professor. When I was a grad school, we generally got on first-name basis with our professors pretty quickly. But that's after you're already accepted and have met them a few times and all that. It's not what you did when you were just starting out and just meeting them. As an undergrad I don't think I ever addressed a professor by their first name unless I knew them in some context outside of the classroom (I did student jobs for a few of them, for example). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Times change, apparently :-). Forty years ago, through many years of undergraduate and graduate work, I never EVER called a professor by his/her first name -- even outside the office.

NEVER.

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

In grad school the professors always told us to call them by their first names, but I never did, I guess I preferred the formality. But when I defended my thesis, my advisor insisted that I henceforth use his first name, as I was now "part of the club", haha. Usually they prefer to be called "Professor" by undergrads though. This is so deeply instilled in undergrads that those kids often address grad students as "Professor" or "Doctor" too. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that these trends are still the case, at least the universities I was at. In my field, it was not thesis defense that was supposed to be (but rarely was) the "turning point," it was the oral examination (that signaled you were All but dissertation), but same difference. It was always amusing as a grad student when undergrads call you "professor," totally obvious to the specificity of the term. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Note also, that the gender of the professor has not been stipulated here. If you wish to go with a shorter salutation, then 'Dear sir' or 'Dear madam' are both perfectly acceptable. Of course, 'Dear Professor [surname]' would be the best way to continue, in my opinion. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Who are these people?

I happened to come by this web page: [10]

Who are the two people on the first image? I can identify the people on the three others:

• A Crusader knight and a Ku-Klux-Klan member
• Jesus and a Spanish Inquisitor
• An ogre and another ogre

But who are the first two? JIP | Talk 21:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Carl Sagan and Bill Maher. (And the last two are trolls, not ogres.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You might, given the robes, expect the Spanish Inquisition, but it's actually Michael Palin. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to say it. Looie496 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but you just did say it.μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The knight is dressed roughly in the style of the Knights Templar, if that helps. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

mystery item of german WW2 uniform

Hi, I was watching The Battle of the Bulge this afternoon and noticed one of the German motorcycle riders had something hanging round his neck which I couldn't identify.

It wasn't the gas mask cylinder - it looked more like a large, almost crescent-shaped piece of lead. (But it probably wasn't actually that).

I found a photo showing what I'm trying to identify although I have no idea how to embed it within this question.

so here's the URL: http://www.motorleathers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/german-style-dot-helmet-1.jpg

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.213.78 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Its a Gorget I believe--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is the fold face mask portion of a gas mask. The cord running from the object over the soldier's shoulder has the distinctive pattern of a German gas mask hose. The cylinders aren't visible as they probably are on the soldier's back. --Daniel 22:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind Jac is right, it is a gorget. Take a look at the pictures on Feldgendarmerie. They are wearing the same item and is clearly visible. The gorget is held in place by a chain that has a similar pattern to a gas mask hose in fuzzy image. --Daniel 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

WOW, thanks guys. It seems my original guess wasn't a zillion miles out. That word is now going to sit in the part of my brain which fails to recall the name for the dot above the letter i and other seldom-used things. (Now, how do I mark this as 'solved'?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.213.78 (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Like this?

Resolved

Alansplodge (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2

Carmen on ice - Katarina Witt

Does anyone know where I can buy this DVD in the UK please?--85.211.142.22 (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazon stock it. Richard Avery (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazon.co.uk only seem to be selling a used VHS tape of the version starring Witt. I suggest you buy this and copy it to DVD.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's ordered, many thanks for the advices.--85.211.142.22 (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Plural of advice is still advice. Vranak (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Now it's already advice³. --Nepenthes (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, Amazon stocks it. Unless he's talking about jungle women, in which case it would be Amazons stock it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

See American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

One store I checked for this product was Amazon. I discovered that they stock it. Thus I conclude that Amazon stock it. Don't the singulat and plural verb forms work equally well here? Not trying to start anything big here, just askin'. :) Franamax (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's fine. Bugs was out of line in making his incorrect "correction". --Viennese Waltz 07:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wingdings

Typing anything in Wingdings makes it look like gibberish,so why would anyone want to use that font? Why does it exist?? 117.97.193.2 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wingdings are dingbats. They enable people to use non-standard symbols or figures in text (usually for ornamental purposes), like this ☺. They're not meant to represent sounds, obviously. Though you can use it that way if you wish. See Wingdings for what it actually looks like. It probably looks like gibberish in your computer, because you do not have the font installed. In which case, see Help:Special characters. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Food coloring

What's the point of putting food coloring in canned energy drinks or drinkable yogurt smoothies? The containers are opaque and most consumers are never going to look at it. It seems totally unnecessary. Please don't respond with "market research shows consumers prefer their drinks purple and their yogurt red". Like I said, most people are never going to look at these two things, they are just going to drink and eat them. Why is there food coloring in such items? It doesn't make sense to me at all. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of us civilised people still like their drink in a glass, so the colour does matter!--85.211.142.22 (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to also add, "don't respond with 'some people pour canned energy drinks in a glass'", but I thought that nobody would actually respond with such a comment, but here it is. Listen, nobody pours an energy drink into a glass unless they are in a bar, and it is usually dark in a nightclub. So, I'm not buying it. If you're in a dark nightclub, you're not going to see the color of your energy drink, which is already mixed as it is, so that answer doesn't hold water. Take for example Rockstar Zero Carb.[11] People do not buy that to pour it in a glass. It just doesn't happen. They drink it out of a can and that's that. However, it is colored like a "wild berry". Why?? And nobody is going to pour a drinkable yogurt smoothie out of its plastic container into a glass, because it would take way too long. Ever try to pour yogurt? So your answer isn't satisfactory. Don't get me wrong. I'm very familiar with the stock answers of "market research shows consumers want their drinks colored" and "it's because people pour it into a glass", but I'm not buying it. It's just not true, and I don't believe it. The fact of the matter is, consumers favor products without food coloring, which is why you see more and more products labeled with "no artificial colors". So why is food coloring still added to products, especially to products that are unlikely to be seen by the consumer outside of their original containers, such as energy drinks and drinkable yogurts? Mr. Green (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Some consumers may care about artificial colouring but realisticly most people who drink energy drinks aren't going to. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that answer, but notice I did not offer these reasons alone or in isolation. There is simply no single good reason why these drinks are artificially colored. And, I can prove it. The target market for energy drinks, for example, are young males who are active with sports, video games, or studying.[12] Do you think these men are going to get out their dainty little glass and pour this can into it with their little pinky finger raised? I think not. They are going to rip open the can, drink it, and get back to their game. The manufacturers also sell a great deal of these drinks to convenience stores attached to gas stations because they know their target market drinks it "on the go". In other words, there is good data showing that this particular kind of drink is consumed straight out of the can, an opaque can that cannot reveal the color. And yet, it is colored like its flavor, a purplish "wild berry" color. Why? There is not a single good reason. We know, looking at the distribution network for this drink and the target demographic, that the vast majority of consumers who buy it never look at the color. Therefore, it makes no sense to add an artificial color to this drink, combined with the fact that many consumers avoid food coloring in the first place. So then, why is it added? Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that most consumers are usually going to consume the product without looking at the colour, but, at some stage, either when they first try it, or when they accidentally spill some, most people will notice the colour. The manufacturers presumably believe that a "healthy" colour makes people think that their product is a "healthy" drink. Dbfirs 12:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor? Find me a single, reliable energy drink review that talks about the importance of the color, or even mentions it. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. The target market for energy drinks, as me and several people have said, and you apparently agree aren't the type who will avoid artificial colouring. Therefore your key reason not to colour the products is gone. (The only thing you have left is don't do it because it doesn't matter.) You then have to consider whether there is a reason to colour the products. The answer is there is, since as several people have said, many people do actually notice the colour at some stage despite your claims to the contrary and for some of them it is going to make a difference. As others have said, it's also part of the wider branding of the product (like how it's promoted). I note you have brought up Red Bull but it seems you've missed the point it's clear one of their intentions is to differentiate themselves from Red Bull and also their products from one another. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The assertion that "nobody pours an energy drink into a glass" is incorrect. My mother always pours drinks into a glass since she considers drinking out of the canister 'uncouth' and not something you do in polite society. I'm sure there are many others out there with similar opinions. Astronaut (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read the discussion a bit more carefully. Energy drinks aren't marketed to mothers who take them home and pour them in a glass. They are sold to young males "on the go" and on the move, people who are involved in an activity. And when they are poured, they are used in dark nightclubs as an ingredient in a bomb shot. Sadly, your mother is not the target demographic for energy drinks. More to the point, the energy drink company in question has, within the last six months, begun targeting women with a new drink in their product line, which is dyed pink. And, guess what? It comes with a straw affixed to the can,[13] indicating that they intend the female user to drink it out of the can, not pour it into a glass. To quote the review: "Juice boxes, milkshakes, and fruity cocktails, all awesome, all drunk with straws. Rockstar should just include straws with all their products." Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the colours are there because the market research indicated that the product would sell better with them than without them. As to why this would be, there are probably as many reasons as there are people! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes—ye olde market research myth. I've heard that line for decades and I have yet to see any evidence it is true. I presume it is printed in textbooks and published in PR trade magazines, yet has anyone ever looked into it? I'll bet you anything it comes from a study dated from around 1955, around the time that physicians smoked and were paid to sell cigarettes in advertisements. Which means that kind of market research is probably just as bogus as medical doctors preaching the safety of tobacco and encouraging people to smoke for their "health". Let's be realistic. Is there anyone who wakes up and says, "I hope my food has the most fabulous artificial colors in it today"? No, there isn't. And, why are these colors in foods that nobody will ever look at or even care to look at? Energy drinks aren't bought for their color, and yogurt smoothies are almost impossible to pour into a glass. No matter how you look at it, there's no reasonable explanation for why these artificial colors are added. And just to prove that this whole notion of artificial colors as an appealing aspect of food is malarcky, try this as an experiment: cook two servings of macaroni and cheese, one from fresh pasta and melted cheese of your choice, and another from the packaged mix variety known for its fluorescent artificial cheese color. Now choose which is more appetizing. There goes the myth. Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I didn't read all of your second comment, but with all due respect, you never mentioned a particular brand in your original question. You also mentioned 'drinkable yogurt smoothies', a product I can imagine my mother trying to pour into a glass or dessert bowl. The reason food colouring is added to anything is because customers have certain expectations of the product's appearence should they happen to see it in good light. If you found out your energy drink or drinkable yoghurt had the colour of, say, day-glo snot you might well make comments about how unappealing it looked to anybody prepared to listen. Such bad publicity is simply not worth the risk for the sake of adding a more appealing colour. Astronaut (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The energy drink is actually clear to light yellow without coloring and the yogurt is white without color. Neither products are intended to be poured into a glass. Further, there is no evidence that consumers of energy drinks care about the color, and yogurt is, for all intents and purposes, usually served white, so adding color to it doesn't change its presentation any more than it appears normally. So, in both instances, there continues to be a lack of any reasonable explanation for why the manufacturer needed to add food coloring. The yogurt smoothies in question are actually too small for the consumer to even try to pour it into a glass or bowl, and it would be inefficient to do so, as the container is too small to allow for the transport of most of the food and the opening too narrow to allow one to scoop it out easily. Both products are normally served without any added color (regular diet Rockstar in the white bottle and white yogurt smoothie) so your argument that it would be unappealing without the color is not true. The two products I mention contain color for no reason at all, and do not appear more appealing with the added color. The argument for adding food coloring in these two instances remains without merit, and I suggest that this reflects on the larger argument for food coloring, which is actually unappealing when compared with uncolored food, contrary to your claim. Please try my macaroni and cheese experiment to experience this for yourself. Food coloring is not appealing, no matter how many times we are told that it is. Viriditas (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A question with such gross logical fallacies can not be answered. It forms a kind of circular reasoning were one of the assumptions explicitly refutes the true answer and tries to justify this with false conclusions.--Aspro (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please provide me with the name, date, and publication of any market research indicating that consumers prefer artificial colors in their food. Or any published material for that matter. Viriditas (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Our food coloring article gives some explanation (particularly: "...make color addition commercially advantageous to maintain the color expected or preferred by the consumer.") But if you are not satisfied, why don't you ask the manufacturers. Their contact details are here. Astronaut (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, energy drinks aren't known or chosen for their color, and yogurt is normally white, so there is no advantage in the two examples I gave you. Further, I provided a third example, using macaroni and cheese, showing that the perceived advantage was actually a disadvantage when compared with a similar but uncolored analogue. We're dealing with a myth here, that has no substantial evidence supporting it. The consumer expects and prefers food that tastes and looks good, there is no question about that. But I have yet to see a single documented instance of food coloring contributing to this experience. We're told that we have to have it, and that we must have it, but in every case that I can see, we don't need it, and more importantly, the consumer doesn't want it. Viriditas (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well to be blunt, you're not looking hard enough. Margarine discusses the history of legislation surrounding what colouring usage, either no colouring or odd colouring (bright yellow or orange or pink) both of which put the consumer off the product. It even discusses how bootlegged butter coloured magarine existed and some people would add their own colouring. Or try asking a kid about what colour sweets they like or do a test with uncoloured sweets (which in many cases will be something fairly light) and see whether colour really doesn't make a difference. (Speaking of kids, I suspect you'd find some do prefer the cheap & nasty macaroni & cheese you mentioned.) I think you also don't appreciate what a lot of products would look like without colouring (including substances primarily added for colour but which may serve other minor purposes). And really if you're going to talk like colouring doesn't make a difference you should always exclude the use of any bleaching agents on your food products which is usually also significantly to do with colour. Don't say this doesn't relate to the energy drink or yoghurt example because you're missing the point, you keep insisting there's no evidence colouring makes a difference but that doesn't really bear scrunity. (I would agree some companies are a little to free with their colouring and end up producing stuff that looks unnecessarily artificial although in some cases I may not be the right market anyway.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So, according to you, the reason artificial coloring is added to dog and cat food is because the color makes a difference to pets, is that correct? Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Colour is colour, artificial or other wise. It is the visual presentation that matters, not origin. So it would unlikly be a subject for consumer testing surveys. You might as well ask for surveys to discover if people want peppermint creams to taste of peppermint- much of which today is artificial too. Same calorific food value as unflavoured mints -so from that point of view, unnecessary as well. --Aspro (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You say that it is the visual presentation that matters. However, I've just given two examples up above—an energy drink and a packaged yogurt smoothie—that when consumed in their expected and appropriate way, do not present themselves in a visual manner. So, if the visual presentation matters, but the consumer does not experience the food visually because of the packaging, then why is food coloring added? We're back to my original question. Viriditas (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The original question is built on confirmation bias. It may sound logical and 'reason-able' to you but it isn't. --Aspro (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You're confused. My original question was, What's the point of putting food coloring in canned energy drinks or drinkable yogurt smoothies? Why is there food coloring in such items? For some reason or another, you haven't been able to answer the question. And, it is true that these drinks were intended to be consumed from their original container, not from a glass, making the use of artificial color unnecessary. This is not "confirmation bias". This is an observable fact based on their target demographic of males on the go, at athletic events, in the car on the road, etc. Further, I have provided evidence showing that their newest product, catered to females, includes the use of a straw to be consumed from the can itself, making the artificial color of the product even more unnecessary. When asked to support your contention that 1) market research shows consumers want these artificial colors, you were unable to substantiate it. It is looking more and more likely that these colors are not used because the consumer wants them, but because the company requires them, whether it is to extend the shelf life of the product or to reduce spoilage. However, the myth that the consumer wants these artificial colors in their food has no support. You are welcome to support your claims with actual published research at any time, but I'm afraid we will never see it. You see, your fallacious argument ("the consumer wants it!") has been used before, particularly by the petrochemical and automobile industry, who in decades past, claimed night and day, that they would not produced fuel efficient vehicles because the consumer didn't want it. They stopped saying that in 2008, but the claim is still alive on the Heartland Institute websites. This canard of "the consumer wants it" is one of the oldest PR gimmicks around. There are no consumers demanding artificial colors in their food, quite the opposite actually. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Consumers have wanted and cared about fuel efficiency in vehicles long before 2008 in a number of countries outside the US. Your other claim is nonsense, most colourings don't extend shelf life or reduce spoilage. If you disagree, well if I may take a page out of your book show me the published researched. As it stands, you're ignoring the examples people have already provided where colouring clearly does matter (outside of energy drinks and yoghurt smoothies). Or are you going to say consumers adding colouring themselves and the availability of bootleg margarine in banned colours and the legislation requiring uncoloured margarine and the demonstrated effect on the popularity somehow needs published research to demonstrate it had anything to do with colours and wasn't just a PR gimmick? You've also ignored the example of sweets and children, the reason why no one has bothered to provide any research is probably partially because anyone who has any experience with children immediately knows colour does make a difference. If you really want research, you could easily find it yourself, I found these in under a minute [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. In fact you seem to be contradicting yourself since you keep claiming colour doesn't matter but then you claim people don't like products which look too artifically coloured (which I agree is sometimes the case). If you don't understand why these are contradictory, I suggest you think about it, since without understanding that, you're never going to be able to understand the issue. (Hint, some times product colouring may make it look artificial to most but often the intention is the product looks natural or 'right' to the target audience. As I said earlier you need to forget about energy drinks and yoghurt smoothies for now and concentrate on what many products would look like without colouring or bleaching and how the consumer reaction would be to said products. Once you can understand that, perhaps you can have a hope understanding the energy drinks and yoghurt smoothies examples.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous! You missed the point entirely. Consumers do care about fuel efficiency in the U.S. but press release after press release from industry groups says otherwise. This was PR pushback against making smaller cars and raising fuel efficiency. They claimed the consumer didn't want it, so they could sell cars that used more gas, which made them more money. How interesting then, is it to find the same bogus arguments coming from the same industry groups, since after all, food coloring is derived from petrochemicals. We're told we have to have it in our food, and that cats and dogs have to have it too. When we ask why, we're told because we demand it. This is the same argument the oil industry insiders made when they working with the Bush admin. They said, "Everybody wants to drive a Hummer; nobody wants to drive a diesel Volkswagen that gets 45 mpg." That's a paraphrase of an actual quote. It's the same bogus argument from the same group of people selling the same chemicals. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have made up your mind that you're not going accept certain explanations. If you're after the truth, keep an open mind. The reason that food manufacturers add artificial coloring to their products is that they, for whatever reason, think that it helps them sell their products. There might have been privately commissioned studies, or it could be just a belief not backed up by anything—I don't know. Speaking as a consumer, I don't find the practice hard to understand at all. Way back when I was a kid, our teacher showed us an educational program about the production of ice pops. Towards the end, the host asked his tour guide why they added artificial coloring to the ice pops. The tour guide passed him an ice pop with artificial orange flavoring but no color, and asked, rhetorically, "Would you believe this is an 'orange' ice pop?" I think he made his point quite effectively. Even if the product containers are opaque, consumers may still see the product while consuming it, so presentation still matters. To me, if all flavors of a product have the same color, the lack of color difference would serve as a powerful reminder that whatever flavor the product has actually comes from artificial flavoring. --72.94.148.76 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How does adding artificial colors to dog and cat food help them sell it? How does adding artificial colors to canned drinks that are sold with straws and intended to be consumed "on the go" from the can, help them sell their products? Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one still confused by this hypothetical 'yoghurt smoothie'? I at first thought the OP was referring to a yoghurt drink, but the OP then said it was impossible to pour one. So I take it isn't drunken. Is it just some sort of fancy name for yoghurt intended to be eaten? But any yoghurt intended to be eaten is usually seen in the container once you open it and on the spoon. Not that I ever have problems pouring normal yogurt myself (sometimes with a spoon to help), well not counting it all coming out in one go so I end up with too much. So how the heck do you consume this yoghurt smoothie if you don't eat it or drink it? Do you snort it? P.S. I didn't mention earlier but although I don't live in the US, energy drinks are fairly popular here in NZ. They're generally yellow in colour (I think mostly from the Riboflavin). You know how I know that? Because I've drunken them including in glasses before and also split some drops sometimes. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Coloring may be added to mask the natural color of the product. Without coloring some products might appear mostly clear or white, but with a slightly off tint. Food coloring is incredibly cheap relative to the other processes in food manufacturer so it doesn't take much to get someone to add dye to a product. In any case manufacturers of these products do it because they think it will help them sell more. That is the only reason they do anything. --Daniel 16:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nil, see the article on Go-Gurt. --72.94.148.76 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Presuming the OP is referring to something like that, I'm even more mystified. A product for children and they ask why it's coloured? Seriously? BTW if the OP is referring to some sort of yoghurt drink well I have no idea what sort of drinks you get there in the US but in Malaysia there are yoghurt drinks and they were often coloured but pouring them was very easy since they were drinks so not that viscous. And I did that all the time because the bottles I got were often ~450-500 ml ones which was more then I usually drunk in one go. If they are single serve, pouring them in to a cup may be less common but I still don't get what sort of product there is you can easily drink but not easily pour. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My theories: either it's because the drink is also sold in clear bottles, so they just make the mixture and pore the same mixtureinto both the opaque cans and the clear bottles. Or it's because the natural colour is actually disgusting, like a brown. Cliko (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Like Coke? HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

At my local watering hole, it's very common for younger chaps and lasses to order these drinks during the day in bright conditions and they are served in a glass, often with ice and perhaps an addition of good old russian vodka. Your initial assertion is based on a false premise old boy - and another good reason for the drinks being the colour(s) they are is quite simple - to differentiate them from other drinks. If you order a coca-cola based drink, a lemonade based drink and a energy drink based drink they will all look different making it easier to hand them round to your drinking partners. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember Crystal Pepsi? No? It's because it didn't take off. People have expectations that sodas and the like have ridiculous colors. The connection between appearance and perceived flavor has been demonstrated a million times over by tests. (Heck, you can do it yourself with Froot Loops, which, if you don't know any better, seem to have different flavors based on their coloration, but if you try them with your eyes closed, you quickly discover they all have the exact same vaguely fruity taste. It is a common science fair experiment.) The idea that they never see the colors is absurd. I know what color half of those drinks have; I can't be unusual. People drink them in a lot of different contexts. Food coloring is absurdly cheap. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Pepsi was killed by Tab Clear in a targeted campaign to eliminate the competition.[19] Further, people drink Pepsi for the taste and the caffeine, both of which Crystal Pepsi lacked. Its demise had nothing to do with color. Read the sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is the OP keeps insisting that the colour doesn't matter because it isn't seen yet it's readily apparent they know the colour otherwise they wouldn't be asking the question and it's readily apparent most people here who've ever consumed or seen an energy drink know the colour. BTW speaking of Froot Loops, there are sweets which have different flavours which are usually in different colours. I guess the OP is going to claim the manufacturers should let them all be the same colour (which as several people have said, it likely to be some sort of offwhite or clearish.). Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My question (why is food coloring added to canned energy drinks and yogurt smoothies?) is based on reviewing the product ingredients, not on my personal knowledge of a color. Since you've bought into the urban legend being promoted about food coloring and about how the consumer demands for it to be added to their food (a statement that remains without any evidence) why don't you explain why the pet food industry adds food coloring to pet food? Is it because the dog and cat lobby demands it? Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Q: Would you pay to drink this?
A: Sure, but why did you pour beer in a urine sample cup? Is there an extra charge for that?

Because adding coloration is cheaper than an advertising campaign explaining why your drink, should you spill it. looks looks like the urine of someone with rhabdomyolosis. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe you've just described the color of beer and ginger ale, which nobody has ever had a problem with before. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you are 'that credulous, Greenity, to identify clear beverages with proteinaceous ones.μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick, what color is Red Bull? That's right, amber. What else is amber colored? That's right, lager and ginger ale. You're welcome, come again. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, both piss and gold are the same "color" but they don't look the same in all aspects, do they? If you want to identify yourself as blind to the difference between opaque urine and clear beer, I won;t deny your blindness. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The primary objective when creating a food or beverage product, like any other product, is to sell it and presumably make a profit. Many many research studies have shown that the way to do that is effective branding. You want a catchy name, a cool logo, slick packaging, a hip image, and good telegenics. If you get all that right, it turns out most people (especially in this target demographic) don't really give a shit about artificial this or that. They're about to ride a mountain bike down an insane slope and ask for the knee replacement 30 years later, or drink their face off in a bar and drive home after. So forget about the "artificial" aspect. The branding aspect though - part of the branding is the look of the product itself. You will be showing it pouring out in the TV ads and on the billboards, and you need something as equally distinctive, hip and youthful as the rest of the marketing workup. So you need a certain colour. And you can't just fake it for the ads, people will spill, wipe their mouths off, yes, occasionally pour the drink out (in my case, probably on the ground). So you spend the extra few micro-cents per serving to get your own particular colour. Selling food and beverages is not about actually providing people with food or beverages, which make up a small fraction of the selling price. You are selling a brand image and an experience, with s small food/beverage component to justify your effort. Not many people get rich with a pile of raw potatoes on a street corner - but turn that into a sexy model holding a bottle of vodka and murmuring on TV, slightly better business model. You might reject all that, but 'tis reality. Franamax (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't reject what you've said all, I just find arguments from ignorance annoying and unhelpful. The fact of the matter is, regardless of how many times this myth is repeated in this thread, the consumer does not prefer artificial colors in their food and contrary to what you've claimed, apathy is not the order of the day. Many people do in fact care, with major U.S. corporations making two sets of products, one with artificial colors for consumption at home, and another without it for sale abroad in Europe. Why would major companies commit to two different sets of products if people didn't care? In the U.S., natural food supermarkets like Whole Foods and Trader Joes have all but banned such products from their shelves. The reality is, consumers are choosing products without artificial food coloring and the food industry can't defend its continued use. Care to tell me why cat and dog food contains artificial colors? Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

For more information on this topic, see Bee Wilson, Swindled: the dark history of food fraud. In my opinion she lets today's food companies off the hook by stressing the continuity with past adulteration, but it's still a great read and a useful reference. You might also like Harvey Levenstein, Revolution at the table: the transformation of the American diet. You are right to say that many consumers question the purpose of food colouring, but as pointed out above, that doesn't so far include all consumers. And in the UK artificial colours are generally being replaced by "natural" ones like beetroot and anatto, but it's still processed food. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dogs and cats don't buy food, their owners buy it for them, and many owners treat their pets like children, so they (perhaps mistakenly) assume that their pets will find strong colours more attractive. Most of us still retain this childhood preference for differently-coloured food, and manufacturers just play to this "weakness" in our psychology. Once the majority of the population joins Viriditas in rejecting artificial colours, the manufacturers will either switch to natural colouring or miss out the colouring completely. Dbfirs 08:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

2010 DST iPhone Bug in the EU and Economic Costs?

In 2010 there was a bug in the Apple iPhone that caused the alarms to go off an hour later than they should have after the change of the clocks due to daylight saving time. Is there any estimate to the amount of productivity lost to the economy because of that? --CGPGrey (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr Michael BAden

I am doing a science paper and I can't find several answers that i need.I am in the 6th grade. 1. Michael Baden's childhood education.(I have his college education)

2. Who mentored him or encouraged him to follow his profession.

3. His mother/father & siblings.( I have his wife & children)

4. Has he had discoveries that actually led to organizations that still continue to work. Like a specific contribution to science.( Ialready have "Assasination Records Review Board)

5. I want to use his JFK and OJ simpson cases that he worked on. But as I read them, I can't tell how his testimony & discoveries set an example for others to come that would be so different than others.

I know these are tough questions, but if anyone could help with pointing me in the right direction for these answers, I would be very thankful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.86.213 (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you have already looked at the Michael Baden article. Did you follow up any of the references used by that article? This Google search shows lots of hits, though I'm unsure how useful they may be - the couple I looked at were not much use for your questions. It is possible that such information is not readily available in published reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is some coverage of your question #2 in his book, Unnatural Death, and it may help with some of your other questions too. John M Baker (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Requests for financial help

I was intrigued by this help desk query and the similar requests for financial help that I have noticed recently here on Wikipedia. While John of Reading's response was appropriate and correct, I wonder why Danny (the OP in this case) ever imagined his request might be successful. I just can't help thinking these requests are all scams. Are these requests ever genuine and are there really people out there with $100,000 to spare that they would donate based on this type of request? Astronaut (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Crowdfunding (e.g. Kickstarter) will be useful here. 69.171.160.9 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There are so many begging letters written that I'm sure some are genuine, but it's impossible to know how many. Like spam emails they cost very little to produce and with enough perseverance will prove profitable. And yes, there are many millions of suckers out there, with massive businesses and churches built from their donations.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

History of Wachovia Bank-slave dealing?

Recently I heard that Wachovia Bank , in it's early years actually dealt in the slave trade making millions of dollars. Is this accurate? Or is my source mistaken? Can the history of Wachovia be traced as far back as pre civil war?173.79.212.93 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Wachovia says that Wachovia qua Wachovia didn't start up until 1879, so that's too late for the Civil War. However it has merged with a huge number of banks over the years, some of which are quite old. So any connections it has with slavery are because they've been merging with banks that have themselves been merged with other banks. Indeed, this apology by Wachovia seems to tell more or less that story (albeit with different institutions than the ones: it acquired two companies which had ties to the slave trade (no surprise, that, given how old they were and how large the slave trade was) over a century ago. Seems kind of a non-issue to me, to be frank, unless one is afraid of acknowledging the U.S.'s history of slavery. It doesn't not appear that Wachovia has ever made any direct profit from slavery. For centuries, Blacks were considered a form of property. That banks thus used them as collateral and ended up owning them is not surprising. Whatever shame there is in that is hardly limited to the banks. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick search finds some more discussions [20] [21] [22] (which includes a link to the report) Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Marshal Tolbukhin boulevard, Sofia

I'm looking for a street in Sofia that used to be called Marshal Tolbukhin in the 1970s. I can't find it on any modern maps so I wonder whether it has had its name changed following the end of Soviet influence. Ericoides (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

October 3

myth creatures

is there any creatures from urban legend or myth, like bigfoot, chupa cabra, that was proven to exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not yeti, maybe later. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The giant squid comes to mind. The cameleopard, once associated with other supposed chimeras (mythical beasts that are amalgamations of two or more actual animals), might be said to be another example. John M Baker (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

See shetani and the many Zanzibaris who have been sodomised by Popo Bawa. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We also find trolls on a daily basis..... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dragons. The bones people thought were from dragons were from dinosaurs, and some dinosaurs were pretty dragonish. Apart from the fire breathing bit. Cliko (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Also Griffins, now thought to be based on fossils of Protoceratops found in what used to be Scythia, and Cyclops, possibly inspired by fossil skulls of Dwarf elephants which used to inhabit various Mediterranean islands. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.215 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You can ask the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WPHAAOE Prokhorovka (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What is this Rwandan Snack?

I purchased this snack on a beach from a street vendor in Gisenyi, Rwanda.

http://imgur.com/SUM1W

The white thing tasted sort of like a combination of rice and Rhubarb with a very sticky and gel-like consistency similar to the chinese Zongzi. It tasted bitter. The package on the left is a pack of salted peanuts. Initially, I just took the white thing and ate it it by itself. Everyone on the beach laughed at me and started staring like as if I was, for example, eating just mayonnaise by itself for something. The vendor came up to me and handed me the pack of peanut and demonstrated to me that i should eat both at the same time.

Does anyone know the english name of these combo of snack and why it was so funny that I wasn't eating it with the peanuts? thanks Acceptable (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Might be ugali/fufu/nshima or similar starch-based African staples? They don't seem to be eaten alone as they are basically flavorless.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

How to find a girlfriend?

How to find a girlfriend? Can you help me? -Ewigekrieg (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You're on a computer. Try computer dating. Or, real-life dating. For example, find a single girl and ask her, "may I buy you coffee/lunch/dinner?" Then talk to her. If a friendship doesn't happen, try someone else. 69.171.160.45 (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Get off the computer. Visit real places where you think a woman you might like to meet would "hang out". Bars are not ideal, and it is best to be sober so that you will make the right decisions and say the right things. Your age and social status will also come into play; sometimes it helps to bring a friend, sometimes it is better to be alone, it depends on the situation. There are also several different strategies you can employ. For example, if you have a cute sister who has a friend, you can bring them along to a coffee shop and hang out and read or use your smartphone/notebook/tablet. Pretty soon, you'll find women checking you out and you'll get an opportunity to say something. This is because women are highly social, and it is much easier to meet them in groups, as they feel more comfortable seeing you surrounded by other people, even other women, as it shows you have social skills and aren't some kind of creepy serial killer. This is why single men by themselves usually don't get hit on, but when they are with other women or men, the odds go up. Sometimes when you double up, such as going out with two men and two women you aren't dating, but are just friends, that will attract a lot of attention and will give you multiple opportunities to talk to other ladies. Keep yourself well-groomed, stay relaxed, and most important, be yourself and smile. Here is something that will definitely work, but you need to be very careful using it: sit down and ask yourself what you are looking for in a woman. Make a list. Ask yourself why you want a girlfriend. Really think about it for a few days. Then, before you go to sleep, envision the kind of woman you want to meet. Really visualize it in your mind and see yourself talking to her and having a conversation. Do this for a few days. Then, forget about it completely. What you want to do is get this woman in your mind so that you're not even thinking about it, so that when you do finally meet her, you will know exactly what to say and what to do without thinking about it. Again, I warn you this technique is very powerful, so please use it carefully and with great respect. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

slimes dam

can u please help with this one,

when designing a slimes dam what are legal compliance issues and how do you construct a slimes dam. please help