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

April 16

Script during a Roman Catholic daily mass?

What is the script during a Roman Catholic daily mass? I'm not sure if that's the right term for it, but I am pretty sure that the daily mass follows a scripted, structured set of lines that are memorized like the Pledge of Allegiance. I know and can recite the archaic modern English Lord's Prayer, which is used during the mass, but I can't follow along everything else. Also, why does the priest alone drink all the wine during the daily mass, while the laypersons drink the wine during the Sunday mass? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Liturgy is the usual term for the "script" of a religious service; the Mass of Paul VI is probably what you're referring to in the case of a modern Roman Catholic mass. That article has links in the bottom to the actual order of business, with the wording in English and (what little is still done in that language) Latin. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Eh. I'm just going to bring a tape recorder. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, see Missal (or "Missalette" for the shorter version designed for lay use) which are often kept on the backs of the pews next to the hymnal. Technically the missal is the published liturgy. In non-Roman Catholic churches, the liturgy is often called the "Order of Worship" while the missal is often called the "Bulletin" or something similar, but they serve the same purpose. --Jayron32 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the daily mass. There may be no hymns on a daily mass, and the priest may drink all the wine as well as only give out the body of Christ. Are you talking about the daily mass, which is shorter than the Sunday mass, or the Sunday mass? Also, one parishioner told me that the length of time may vary between priests. Some priests can do a quick mass in under 30 minutes. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

According to Fr. Leo McDowell's post here, the differences are no Gloria, no Creed, only one reading instead of two. Other changes may be down to individual church practices. Rmhermen (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the script followed during a non-Sunday mass is still called the liturgy and still published in a missal. As far as the wine-bread practice goes, see Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Any part of the Eucharist is sufficient. The wine or the body are both fully Christ, so a person is considered to have taken complete communion having taken either. It is sufficient for one to receive just the body. It is recommended to also receive the wine on a regular basis, but not required. --Jayron32 15:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you on the wine issue except for the last point. Do you have a source for that? From my reading, neither the Eucharist in the Catholic Church nor the Blood of Christ nor the Communion under both kinds mention anything suggesting it's officially recommended the receive the wine regularly. Some may believe so, including some priests and bishops but the official view seems to be it's not necessary, for the reasons you already outlined and so they only went so far as to allow it but not in any way require or recommend it. I mentioned before I never received it at the church I went to in Malaysia, in fact the last article suggests at least in 1989 many in the US likewise didn't offfer it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

From the article I cite, quoting the Roman Missal directly, "Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father's Kingdom..." Later in the same section, it notes the sufficiency of Communion of one kind, but the tenor and tone of the actual quote from the actual Missal clearly seems to say that it provides a "fuller form as a sign" and "is more clearly evident and clear expression" to take Communion under both signs. In other words, just the bread is enough, but taking both is better. A person's salvation does not depend on the wine, but the experience of communion is better for those who get to fully partake in both kinds. That sentiment seems evident in the official missal. --Jayron32 16:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

See also this recent discussion and our Communion under both kinds article. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly I haven't been to a mass for a long time, but we never drank the wine on Sundays (or on any other day of the week). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the wording of the missal, I would suggest a lot depends on how you intepret the different parts. The part which says:

"It is most desirable that the faithful should receive the Body of the Lord in hosts consecrated at the same Mass and should share the cup when it is permitted. Communion is thus a clearer sign of sharing in the sacrifice that is actually being celebrated."

may seem the most clear. But that depends on how you intepret the "when it is permitted" part. To me this isn't independent from the rest of the paragraph. Therefore, unless it's actually offered, there's no need to worry about taking both kinds. Or to put it a different way, at most what you can say is it's recommend that people take both kinds when it's offered. This makes sense, since there's not much the general congregation/laity can do when both kinds aren't offered, except to lobby the priest or those higher up, which often isn't encouraged in the Catholic church and when it is, allowed, that's normally stated somewhere.

In terms of the other parts of the missal like those you quoted, they seem to be directed at the priests and bishops making the decision whether to offer both kinds. So at most, you can say it's recommended that both kinds are offered to the laity on occasion. But even that doesn't seem entirely the whole story since it then goes on to give reasons why priests (and bishops) may not want to offer both kinds. Notably to me anyway, these reasons don't seem to be saying "these are reasons why you may want to only offer both kinds on rare occassions" but rather, "these are reasons why you may never want to offer both kinds".

Or to put it a different way, it seems to me the Vatican was much more hedging their bets, as they often do, rather than coming down on way or the other on whether you should offer both kinds, at least on occassion. Notably the "whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted" point seems to concur with my believe that this isn't something the congregation is supposed to concern themselves with, unless both kinds are actually offered.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW a final thought, is that to me, none of the missal I've read seems to be suggesting the laity needs to go out of their way to ensure they receive both kinds on occassion. I was earliy mostly thinking of it never being offered in a church, in which case the only thing that can be done is to either as I said, lobby the priest etc, or to go to a different chuch neither of which IMO is going to be generally recommended (and actually I suspect we agree on this). But there is also the possibility of it only being offered on rare occassion which a perfectly observant Catholic may still miss out one. For example, if it's offered during first communion (for children I mean, baptism for adults since it's during the Easter Vigil may be something that you're generally supposed to attend if able), I'm not sure if there's any expectation you sometimes attend first communion mass. So if you're in a church with multiple morning mass services, you may perfectly acceptably miss these occassions. I'm not sure if I'd intepret the missal to mean (presuming there's no other reason you need to sometimes attend first communion mass) you need to make sure to attend first communion mass so you can receive the wine. Perhaps the most you could say is that a good observant Catholic may hope they are invited to be a god parent, or have some other reason why they would need to attend the first communion mass, but even this seems to be a case of may be, may be not. Nil Einne (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the important take-away for the OP is that there is not as much uniformity between Roman Catholic churches across the world as they are expecting. I attended a Roman Catholic church weekly until I was in my teens, and the wine was offered at every Saturday and Sunday mass (I didn't attend weekday masses, so I cannot attest to that). Others report having never, or rarely, been offered the cup. It should be clear that there is not (nor should there be expected to be) a singular Catholic Mass experience shared across the world. There is a variety of experiences depending on which churches one attends. --Jayron32 01:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Will a human being be able to walk upright without being taught how to do so?

Human babies crawl. When they reach a certain age, their parents usually train them in walking in some way. But what happens if the babies are never trained how to walk? Will they still be able to walk in the bipedal manner? The human skeleton seems to be conducive to walking upright, which may suggest that babies can eventually walk upright without any external guidance. Or perhaps, babies need external guidance in order to walk upright? What about talking? Instead of using "baby talk" toward a baby, the adult uses ordinary speech and never raises the pitch of the voice. Will the baby still be able to talk like a normal human being, assuming that the baby has no birth defects? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I and my then wife never talked "baby talk" to our kids, and they've grown into highly articulate adults with an excellent command of two languages. They rarely make spelling or grammatical errors in writing or speech. (Naturally.) But we still failed as parents, because they turned out to be the most unpedantic people you'd ever meet.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Most parents encourage speech, as well as walking. But riddle me this, how many children are you aware of who don't speak or walk, even having seen their parents do so? Is there even a word (in general usage) for the phenomenon? μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

And, as I've pointed out to many people who've given up trying for some goal when it all got too hard: how many children are you aware of who tried to walk but in the end gave up and decided to crawl for the rest of their lives? I suggest the answer would be: none. They just keep on till they get what they want. Giving up is not an innate but a learned behaviour, and apparently not a very useful one. But most of us seem to acquire it relatively early in life, at least in relation to some things, and then struggle (or not) with its inertia forever. Strange people, humans. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting question, because there was a case of a feral child found in Russia, not so long ago. She had been kept for all of her life until she was found at around age 7 living in a dog kennel (presumably big enough to also house a child). She had no ability to speak Russian, and acted like a dog, walking/running on all-fours, and even approximating barking sounds when vocalizing. This is, of course, an example of nurture and not nature, as her only 'friend' was the dog. This is also perfect proof that children will copy whomever is with them. Children are taught to walk by parents/guardians, only for safety reasons. Even if they are not taught, if they see you doing it, it is perfectly natural for them to pick up the skill, too. The same goes for language. They will pick up methods of communication very quickly, due to their environment and the people with whom they are. All of this is a product of observation of surroundings (nurture), and not automatic (nature). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 22:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Oxana Malaya from Ukraine, not Russia. Documentary here. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 23:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

She was but one of many feral children. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Jack. Sorry, I should have clarified. That documentary has other cases in it, too, all equally interesting, but her case was the one that seemed to be the most relevant to the OP's question. There are, of course, many cases, which are unfortunately still being found even today. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 00:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I remember this case, but specifically mentioned "having seen their parents" in order to exclude it. In any case, the child quickly adopted an upright stance once human examples were available. Speech seem to be a bit more limited and complicated. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A niece-in-law of mine showed no sign of wanting to walk at age 2. In fact, she was not even crawling. She could propel herself slowly by rolling and squirming, but showed no inclination to rely on her legs for propulsion. I don't know whether she would eventually have decided to try propelling herself with her legs on her own, but her parents hired a trainer to work with her and train her to walk. After a couple of months of training, she was walking. I'm not sure whether her condition counts as intellectual disability. Marco polo (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• For the language part, see Language_acquisition#Representation_of_language_acquisition_in_the_brain. Healthy normal humans have the ability to acquire speech, but there's no conceivable way someone would start speaking e.g. English if they'd never heard it. A few people growing up in isolation could conceivably develop their own language, similar to twin speak, but I don't know of any documented cases of that.
• For the walking part, you might be interested in The_Family_That_Walks_On_All_Fours, video clip here [1]. This shows that not all humans walk on two legs, even if they are given ample exposure to people who do walk upright. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Briefly, that family carries a dominant gene that causes several different issues, one of which is a neuro-musculature problem that makes an upright stance difficult. It's more akin to congenital deafness than being a member of the Wallendas. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but they are still humans ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll refrain out of delicacy from providing other examples of crippled people who are still human, some of whom are friends, neighbors and relatives. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have mentioned this recently, but as far as language acquisition is concerned, of course there would need to be multiple children raised in isolation for a language to be spontaneously developed - and it would not be related to any existing language. See Nicaraguan sign language for one spectacular (and recent) example of this. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 14:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• The evidence shows that children brought up (Nicaraguan sign language in its earliest form) without exposure to language develop a mutual pidgin, which is a limited form of language, missing various natural features, but that the second generation, if they are brought up in the environment of a pidgin, develop a creole language, which has the full features of a natural language. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

April 17

Transparent umbrellas

Women with transparent umbrellas.

I have only ever seen women and girls use transparent umbrellas. Men and boys use opaque ones. Women and girls use opaque ones too. The picture here is from a cabaret show, but this happens in actual everyday life too, with the umbrellas being used for protection from rain, not for show. Why is this? Or do men and boys use them too? JIP | Talk 17:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I certainly have seen them, although not for a long time, now yo mention it. The difference is usually in the color and style of the handle, and color of the fringe or rib tips. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I was unable to find data on usage of clear umbrellas by age or gender. Sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think males just use umbrellas less in any case. They usually aren't as concerned with a few raindrops messing up their hair or make-up. And, for a total downpour, a rain slicker or at least a coat with a waterproof hat may be more common for men (again the hat only works if you don't care about messing up your hair). Try to picture the Gorton's Fisherman with an umbrella. Another historic reason might be that men were expected to do things like open doors for women, (or, going back far enough, hold the reins while they drive the carriage) which becomes difficult while holding an umbrella. Then we have the ultimate feminine umbrella, the parasol (which of course was never clear, since the purpose was to provide shade). So, umbrellas are barely acceptable for heterosexual men, and they better be basic black at that, not clear (and certainly not pink with lace on the edges). Anything "fancy" seems like it's designed to make a fashion statement. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Not being American, I am unable to picture the Gorton's Fisherman with an umbrella, because I don't know what he looks like, and I only ever learned of his existence from StuRat's reply. Regarding Medeis's comment, does that mean that males use transparent umbrellas too, but with a different style? JIP | Talk 17:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a clear umbrella with a pink handle would be a "girl's" umbrella, while one with a black handle would be a "boy's" umbrella. Also women's umbrellas tend to be domed and smaller, while men's umbrellas tend to be flatter, like furniture umbrellas. Unfortunately a google search has not been very helpful. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• See [2]. Our article neglects to show a picture of him. The advertising campaign showed him braving severe storms at sea to bring customers the finest fish, which were then made into God-awful fried fish sticks. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In Japan, transparent umbrellas and semi-transparent umbrellas are available for free at convenience stores and railway stations. They are cheap if you buy them, and therefore expendable/disposable, so many people leave them in the designated umbrella racks for other people to pick up if needed, especially during monsoon season, when intense downpours can happen at any moment. They don't offer much protection, because they are generally small. Just before you say this is stealing - this is not the case. If people want to keep their umbrellas, they will take them into the office with them and put them in the designated umbrella racks there, then take them home at the end of the day. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 18:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

See Why real men don't use umbrellas, Real men do not carry umbrellas, but also Real Men May Use Umbrellas in (US) Navy Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm still afraid neither of the above replies is of any help. I've never been to Japan, so I don't know whether those disposable transparent umbrellas are used more by men or by women. Saying "real men don't use umbrellas" isn't helping. My question is specifically about transparent umbrellas. I've seen plenty of men use opaque umbrellas. I use one myself. The only reasons why I use an opaque umbrella instead of a transparent one is that I haven't even been able to find a place selling transparent umbrellas, and that I use umbrellas for protection from rain, not for show, so I haven't bothered going especially looking for a transparent one. JIP | Talk 18:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies; the gist of my post, and StuRat's above, is that using an umbrella can be seen as "too effete" (to quote my last link). Therefore many men will not use an umbrella at all, and those that do will avoid anything that might be considered effeminate. I couldn't find a reference to support this directly; it's just my opinion. Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with using an umbrella, and I've never thought any other man would have either. I have never thought of umbrellas being effeminate by default. I've just thought of them being protection against rain. Rain doesn't discriminate by sex or gender. Is the overall opinion here that umbrellas being transparent is effeminate? JIP | Talk 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like it may be considered effeminate, but only in some cultures, such as the US. And yes, they serve a practical purpose, but are perhaps less practical than a rain coat with attached hood, as those don't encumber an arm, get blown away in the wind, etc. So, they would seem to somewhat fall into the same category as high heels. Yes, shoes serve a practical purpose, but that particular choice of shoes is not the most practical one, meaning it may at least in part be chosen for it's decorate purposes rather than practical reasons. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I otherwise get your point, but there's still the problem with the distinction between opaque and transparent. This distinction has no effect on the use of the umbrella. Whether an umbrella is opaque or transparent has no effect whatsoever on whether it encumbers an arm or gets blown away in the wind. As I said, I've seen plenty of men and women use opaque umbrellas, but only women use transparent ones. The only reason I don't use a transparent one myself is that I haven't even been able to find one, and I don't think it's worth the bother to go especially looking for one. JIP | Talk 18:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, black seems to be more masculine than clear, at least in the US. Compare a man wearing a black shirt versus a transparent shirt (and note that a transparent shirt even seems less masculine than no shirt at all.) StuRat (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Stu's... too sexy for his shirt, too sexy for his shirt, so sexy it hirts? μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the King is entitled to wear his new clothes. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 07:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) The disposable transparent umbrellas available in Japan are used by anyone who doesn't have an umbrella at that particular time, regardless of gender. British men, regardless of our stereotype of bowler hats and umbrellas, do not usually carry umbrellas. In Japan, though, they are very much certainly necessary during monsoon season, when you don't want to turn up at the office looking like you swam there (It's too hot to wear a coat). Here is a picture of one in action, though not during the monsoon season, I think. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 18:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

On umbrellas in the United States, I think that there may be regional and class, as well as gender, dimensions to their use. Where I live, in greater Boston, it rains a lot, and lots of people travel to and from work or go shopping every day by public transportation. That means long walks outside between your subway station and your destination, often in heavy rain. This is not the light drizzly mist that prevails in England. We get twice as much rain as London, though compressed into fewer rainy days. It is not just a matter of getting your hair damp; without some protection, you will get your clothing and shoes thoroughly soaked. So white-collar men with indoor jobs do carry umbrellas here, but ONLY black umbrellas, unless they wish to express a nonstandard gender identity. Men with outdoor jobs (here's where class comes in) and some blue-collar men with indoor jobs wear rain gear instead. I think that this holds for most of the urban Northeast and downtown Chicago, and for San Francisco in the rainy season, but maybe not so much in parts of the United States where most people get around by car and at most make a mad dash from the parking lot to the shopping mall entrance. I have seen transparent umbrellas, but only in the hands of women. Marco polo (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've seen plenty of men use transparent umbrellas in the USA, albeit mostly on college campuses, and mostly (but not exclusively) Asian men. Here's a few pics I've found online [3] [4] [5]. As for "why?" - Gender norms are weird, often capricious and arbitrary. Why is pink considered feminine, while blue is considered masculine (in some places) - it doesn't have any real logical impetus, and not that long ago those gender associations were opposite in the USA, see e.g. Pink#Gender or here [6]. So use whatever kind of umbrella you like :) (Also, I'm a little disappointed in the strange sexist opinions being presented as fact above, but that's an on-going issue...) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Where I grew up, purple/magenta/pink, red, orange, and yellow were all considered "girl colors". This seemed intuitively obvious, but I remember wondering why it should be so in elementary school when I was 9 or 10. It wasn't until I studied color theory as a post-grad in its relation to epistemology that I realized all the "girl colors" are saturated in red in the RGB color scheme. See sexual availability. (Notice, also, red ties/hankies were once a flaming sign of homosexuality among men. Also, lipstick lesbian does not refer to black lipstick. μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Still not buying it. Lots of men wear read too [7] [8] [9], and men have reddish/pinkish bits too, just like women. Here's a manly man in a red "dress" [10]. But this is far off topic of umbrellas; I was just pointing out another arbitrary gender association. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not buying what I'm not selling. Hero is perhaps my favorite movie of all time, but the color in that screen capture is misrepresented, and that is not a dress, but a robe in English usage. While red might have been a "girl" color, a girl wearing a black dress was not considered butch. In fact, I kissed one. Several. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Well regardless, SemanticMantis has a good point that there is clearly a very strong cultural component here and little realy evidence that these associations are anything other than cultural associations with no biological basis. Definitely when someone of Chinese descent (whether from China, Malaysia, New Zealand or wherever) wears read during the Lunar New Year, it's probably not an indication they are gay or trying to advertise their sexual availability. For that matter, when the leader of New Zealand Labour Party wears red to the TV debate, it probably isn't either. When the king of Thailand or his supporters wear yellow neither. Then of course, there's also the fact that pink (and the fierd red) was probably a more masculine colour than blue in the early 20th century and before in much of the West. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

April 18

Gulf

Britain used to be a protectorate of the UAE. Why did it relinquish control of a region so wealthy in natural resources? World bymyself (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

See Trucial States, aka Trucial Oman. Note that they were a protectorate of Britain, not a colony or possession. The states voluntarily entered into a treaty of protection with Britain as sovereign states, and were not possessions or colonies of Britain. In the 1960s, as with the rest of the states with which Britain still had hegemony, the Trucial states were granted full independence. But this basically was a withdrawal of British defensive forces from the states, they were never a formal part of the British Empire, were never under formal Dominion under Britain's sovereign control, rather they were merely a means to provide military support to prevent lawlessness and border security for what were otherwise sovereign states. This military support did give Britain some say-so in the local governance, but the control was by truce, and the truce was ended by mutual agreement as it was formed. Britain never had "control" over the region. --Jayron32 01:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"prevent lawlessness and border security" ? StuRat (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The short answer is that the British presence represented an immense drain on the battered domestic economy, without any real benefit to the UK. In 1968, Harold Wilson announced that all British military bases "East of Suez" would close by 1971. "On the one hand, the prevailing view is that the long-term relative decline of the British economy compelled the Labour government to withdraw its troops from overseas. This argument posits a strong link between economic retrenchment and military retreat, thus finding some comprehensible pattern in the whole process. On the other hand, a smaller group of scholars contends that the government needed to satisfy domestic opinion, which inclined against overseas commitment." Shohei Sato, Britain’s Decision to Withdraw from the Persian Gulf, 1964–68: A Pattern and a Puzzle, March 2009, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (p.100). Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

On an entirely irrelevant point, that's the first use of "immense" rather than "emmense" I've seen on-line for a considerable period. But my experience may not be representative. Tevildo (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

That of course should be spelled either e-mmense or i-mmense when online. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean I'm not cool? Alansplodge (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Perish the thought, Alansplodge.

Tevildo, we must move in different circles. I have the most delicately tuned hair trigger for spelling errors, but have never encountered "emmense" anywhere. I'll add it to my list of atrocities to watch out for. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Emense" is also depressingly popular among the indociles with whom I associate. Tevildo (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

80 Degrees North Latitude

A quick question for the mathematically inclined: how far from the North Pole (90 degrees north) would a point at latitude 80 degrees north be? Just looking for a simple geographic measurement, preferably in in U.S. statute miles. The formulas at wikiarticle Latitude are way above my pay grade. Textorus (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A degree of latitude is about 111 kilometers [11]. So 80 degrees North Latitude is roughly 1100 kilometers from the North Pole. --Jayron32 02:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoa there. I thought 90 degrees North *is* the North Pole. Also, doesn't the north-south distance between degrees of latitude get smaller as they approach the Pole? Textorus (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I did a rough calculation using this tool. 80th parallel north lists Nordaustlandet as very close to the 80th parallel. That utility notes that Nordaustlandet is 1140 km from the North Pole (try it yourself). Seems like a pretty good confirmation of my estimate. (the link I note says that a degree of latitude is 111 km, so 10 degrees would be 1110 km, while the official Lat/Long of Nordaustlandet is, according to the Wikipedia article, slighly south of the 80N, making this a DAMN good estimate). --Jayron32 03:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

And also to confirm, degrees of latitude do not get closer as you get closer to the poles. If the earth were a perfect sphere, the distance between 0N and 1N would be identical to the distance between 89N and 90N. Longitude gets closer together as you approach the poles, but degrees of latitude are parallel, so each degree should be a consistent distance. In reality, the earth is slightly oblate (i.e. not a perfect sphere) but the difference is small enough for the rough estimates here to make no difference. --Jayron32 03:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

We probably need to define our terms more precisely. Measuring the shortest distance between lines of latitude along the surface of the Earth, the distance is the same near the poles, assuming the Earth to be a perfect sphere. The same would be true if we found the shortest distance tunneling directly through the Earth. However, if we run planes through each line (actually circle) of latitude, then those parallel planes do get closer and closer as we approach the poles. That's likely the cause of confusion here. StuRat (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so on the surface of the earth, degrees of latitude are the same distance apart, all up and down the globe (not counting minor differences due to shape of the earth). Got it. It would be nice if this were clearly stated in the latitude article. The freemaptools.com calculator is great. Thanks for the help, guys. Textorus (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Nautical mile. A navigator, responding to your question, would quickly say that 10 degrees of latitude yields 600 nmi ≈ 690 mi (since nautical miles are 15% larger than statute miles). This is accurate to a fraction of a percent because a nautical mile is defined to be exactly 1852 meters, the nearest whole meter value of the distance of one minute (1/60 of a degree) of latitude along a meridian. -- ToE 11:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• The OP asked for a distance in US miles. WTF are these "km" thingies? μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The OP said "preferably in US miles". You don't have to cherry-pick on that to get an excuse to insult the metric system, used by every country in the world except the United States. JIP | Talk 20:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• As implied by Jayron, each degree of latitude is 1/90th of the distance from the equator to the pole, i.e. each 10 degress is 1/9th of that distance. Going with the old round number of the earth's circumference being 25,000 miles, a quarter of that would be 6,250 miles - and one-ninth of that would be just a bit under 700 miles for 10 degrees. Each ten degrees of latitude being about 1,111 kilometers is not exactly a happy coincidence. The kilometer was originally derived from the presumed distance from the equator to the pole, which would be about 10,000 kilometers, or about 10,000,000 meters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I too passed 10th grade Chemistry, but WP recognises no such thing as a "kil...o...me...ter". μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wince WP has both a redirect and a spelling note in the opening sentence, they do indeed recognize it. StuRat (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If you try using that word in article space it will be changed to the French spelling (even in American articles) within about 30 minutes on average. μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Those pesky French, eh? Alansplodge (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's all their fault! Of course since the internal wikipedia search handles plurals but not this specific alternative spelling, we know there are currently ~39,228 articles with the kilometer spelling [12] [13], whether containing both spellings in an 'or' fashion, both spelling used inconsistently, or only kilometer Atenango del Río; Chisato Station (Mie); Vienna–Bratislava–Budapest Supermarathon; Robert Kipkoech Cheruiyot; Chūkyō Metropolitan Area; Dobrich, Haskovo Province; Trenta, Calabria; ERuf Model A. And this number compares to ~126,177 for kilometre [14] [15] i.e. less than 3.22 times. But why ruin a silly rant with facts? Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is still an out rage when the spelling is changed from -er to -re on American articles, where -er is standard. I have no problem with French spelling in British articles. Had we Americans not defeated Napoleon at the battle of Thermopylae the Brits would be speaking it as well as writing it.

There used to be a user here who did nothing but changes things to -metre, etc. The agendum was even in his username. In an article I was working on, there was a verbatim quote by a nineteenth century English explore who said something about a 5,000-mile distance, which the user insisted (in the middle of a verbatim quote) be changed to a 8,047-kilometre distance. He then proceeded to argue that his school children relations in Australia literally had no idea of what a mile was, even that it was a unit of distance, and were unable to understand anything written in British English since the 1980's.

So if you really want a rant, let me know, I'll email you one. :) μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Given the British and Australian Englishes are mostly the same, perhaps the children had other issues.Hack (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Jami’ es-Sittin

Per edit request. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Where can I find Jami’ es-Sittin on the map?

To the South of Walli Yetaim, there was a structure called “Jami’ es-Sittin” or “The Mosque of the Sixty” in English. It was located on a hill with escarped walls and a carved beam positioned over the door. It is thought to have been a synagogue11. It contains many ancient remains such as column shafts and classic resources. After the consultations made in 1967, a beautiful room to the west was exposed. The room has been plastered two times with white lime, and it has an area that faces south to Jerusalem. The Lintel was removed from the north door, and a pillar a synagogue or a church are encased over the west door. [16] Dr Lol (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A google search for "Jami’ es-Sittin" yielded several hits. Looks like it is/was at 32.0525°N 35.2962°E / 32.0525; 35.2962 or maybe 32.05°N 35.2833°E / 32.05; 35.2833. We also have an article on the city of Shiloh which mentions Walli Yetaim.—Steve Summit (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Exact location of planned 1979 World Scout Jamboree?

The 1979 World Scout Jamboree was planned to be held in Nishapur, Iran. However it was cancelled due to the events surrounding the overthrow of the Shah. I've found information to indicate that planned site was 7km outside on a 10 sq km site (same site as the 1977 Asia-Pacific Jamboree) called Omar Khayyám Scout Park. However according to Google Maps, there appear to be park areas both to the east and to the southwest of town. I'd like information as to which of these was the planned site for the WSJ if either.Naraht (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

April 19

Lawn tool identification

Around this time of year, I usually see someone out doing something to their lawn with a power tool that I can't identify and I'm not sure what its purpose is. The tool is similar to a gas powered weed whacker, trimmer, or edger in that it has a long handle so that the user can walk over their lawn and use it while standing. It's the business end that has me confused though.

At that end is a rotating wheel or drum with what appear to be flexible paddles on it much like a paddleboat. Just imagine something like what is in this image but only about 8 inches in diameter and using flexible paddles with the handle extending up from the lateral center (not an end).

The paddle wheel spins and seems to be just fluffing up the dead grass. No large piles of detritus seem to be gathered.

What does this do and what is it called? I have a guess that it's to just breakup the topsoil in order to make it easier for the grass to come up but that seems a bit ridiculous since it's grass and has been coming up through soil for eons. I've looked over the lawn equipment selection at online hardware stores but haven't been able to find one of these. (Note: I'm in Vermont and the snow has just recently melted from most everyone's yards) Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The process of fluffing up dead grass is called "dethatching", because thatch is dead grass. The device used to do so is called a dethatcher and there are a bunch of different models of dethatchers with different designs. I'm 99% certain this is what you are describing. The purpose of dethatchers is usually to expose or prepare the topsoil to receive seed. Depending on where you are in the world, it could be spring seeding season right now. --Jayron32 01:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sounds sort of like a verticut or power rake, especially from how you describe what it's doing (breaking up the topsoil). The reason people use this is because they want a grass lawn that people can walk on, rather than a crisscross of dirt paths. When the soil gets compacted, the grass dies and can't grow back up through it. This is also why professional turf people will do deep aeration, which usually leaves a lot of dirt plugs lying around (they'll often then go back over and use a verticut to break up the plugs and get the dirt back into the ground before it dries and blows away). Compacted dirt won't let grass seedlings grow, and won't let water penetrate. Even if you just stop walking on it, only some grasses will spread back through... more often it's weeds that grow there and muscle out the nearby grass. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. While I'm not doubting you guys, an image search on Google provides pages and pages of dethatchers and none of them have flexible paddles. They all consist of either blades or, more often, tines. Dismas|^(talk) 03:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Does it look like this? That's a "power broom", and I would have thought it was for sweeping sidewalks and driveways, not lawns. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes! That's the thing! Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 10:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So you said you "usually see someone" -- I wonder if it's always the same someone? It seems an idiosyncratic use of the tool, and not particularly good for the grass. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember each person specifically but it was more than one person that I've seen use the tool. I can't remember what each one of them was doing with it but I know I've seen at least one person out on their lawn with it. Dismas|^(talk) 05:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A number of the pages on power brooms at manufacturers' Web sites say that they can be used for dethatching. (Admittedly, these are usually the larger ones; the small hand-held ones might be less suitable unless one has a pretty small yard.) Deor (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he was hunting worms.Ykraps (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

April 20

How long does it take for package to come in the mail from California to Vancouver?

I'm waiting for a package. Venustar84 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It's going to depend dramatically on the type of package and type of shipping. Overnight delivery was probably available, although perhaps not from more isolated spots in California. Then you go to 2-day, 3-day, or longer delivery, depending on what you are willing to pay for. The shipping terms should have been disclosed when you purchased the item. Or, if it was shipped by a friend or relative, the postal service should be able to tell you the schedule. In any case, they can likely also provide you with a tracking number you can use to track it's progress, using your PC.

If you did buy something, note that some companies take weeks to deliver an item. In that case it's not just delivery to you that takes so long, they probably wait until they get enough orders, then order a batch from China or wherever. StuRat (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the package would have to go through customs. When I worked for a gift company here in Vermont, we couldn't guarantee the shipping times to Canada because our packages might be held up in customs. We didn't know how long that would be and had no way of finding out beforehand. That was only a few years ago and I doubt things have changed much since then. Dismas|^(talk) 05:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's via USPS, it also depends on where it was posted from. There are two post offices near us, one is a huge regional postal center, the other isn't...that makes one to two days difference depending on what time of day we drop your packages off. SteveBaker (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Anything dealing with Canada Post is cursed in my experience. When I mailed something this last summer USPS was quoting shorter delivery times to Eastern Europe than to major cities in Canada. In my case my three-week vacation in Canada was shorter than the delivery time of a package. Rmhermen (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm near the border. Mail from the nearest city in Canada takes about eight days; mail from a thousand miles away within the US takes four. —Tamfang (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Counter-example. I'm in Vancouver. I've had cross border shipments from the UK take 4 days from placing the order and the US take 3. Customs can be, but isn't always, a hold up. Mingmingla (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

NeuroRadiologist help needed

Human Voice Researcher- w/ MRI of 2 singers one Pop, one Opera - facinating responce from inside MRI - Need NeuroRadiologist Opinion (www.DenesStriny.com)

Need Help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.104.246.122 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I moved the Q out of the title for you. StuRat (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Beer Street and Gin Lane

The article Beer Street and Gin Lane is about a 18th century painting depicting "Beer Street" and "Gin Lane", with the intention of showing that drinking beer is good and healthy, while drinking gin only leads to ruin. But gin, by volume, is considerably stronger than beer. Did some people in 18th century England drink as much gin by volume as others drank beer, which would lead to obvious alcohol overuse, or was this only about the actual qualities of beer vs. gin? JIP | Talk 20:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

See Gin Craze which states that the average was 10 gallons per person per year around 1743. Nanonic (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Our article actually states it was 10 litres per person, although 10 gallons doesn't sound unreasonable, either. This BBC article gives a figure of "14 gallons per adult male" in London, which would suggest either that "per person" in our article means "per man, woman and child", or the 10 litre figure is incorrect. (I'm reminded of a book I read recently which describes a (large) medieval book as being "nearly eight metres tall" - it's almost certainly 26" tall in reality.) Tevildo (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This article from the British Library gives a figure of six gallons per person. I think it's time to look for some primary sources... Tevildo (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Et viola. Is there somebody kind enough to do the arithmetic? Thanks. Tevildo (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What has this got to do with small violins? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 05:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we have an article on Sid Snot? No? Well, that's where I got it from. ;) Tevildo (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Think that is a good link. Beer has soluble fiber (one can't see it but it is there), it is weaker and serves as food source. People would drink a gallon a day. It was a bit more complicated than others suggest.. Back street distillers did not separate out the headers and tails during the distilling process. Also the stills often had lead soldered joints. Vodka would be a better description, cause it could be made from cheap potatoes too. Thus, it was not gin as we recognize it to day and did not provide the addition substance that beer did. Err... which I think is a complicated way of saying Hogarth was right.--Aspro (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wilfully homosexual

We've all heard of closest gays. Those who are homosexual and keep it under wraps.

But are there any instances of straight individuals who force themselves to be gay outside a coercive environment (prison, rape etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.244.124 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You're assuming sexual orientation is an either/or situation. It ain't necessarily so. It is often a sliding scale. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Are you saying that no one is strongly hetero? —Tamfang (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not quite what you're asking, because he doesn't force himself (and because it's fiction), but I immedately thought of a late 60s hairdresser pretending to be gay, in order to make out "like a bandit" with all the wives and girlfriends of his friends (pseudoquoting Peter Biskind). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Force oneself to be gay" is a bit vague. Certainly homosexual sex (mutual masturbation etc) can be practiced by non-homosexuals; witness single-sex dormitory schools and cultures where females are kept under lock, key and veil. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, you don't force yourself to be gay. Homosexual and heterosexual are ends of a continuum of sexual orientation, which is how you identify yourself. It is not an act. People can self-identify as one, and still have sexual acts with the other sex. See Down-low for example.--Jayron32 00:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the op means something like forcing oneself to have sex with men, although one would prefer female sheep, but bestiality is illegal? There is also the standard fraternity/british public school thing. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the OP seems to be confusing orientation with behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

At some points it seems to have been fashionable for upper-class men (or those pretending to be) to behave in a feminine manner. See fop and dandy. They had high heels, wigs, corsets, make-up, would faint at the slightest provocation, etc. The closest modern equivalent might be a metrosexual. And of course, there are also straight female impersonators and straight actors playing the part of gay men (like Robin Williams in The Birdcage or Eric Stonestreet on Modern Family). StuRat (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Basically, the answer is yes, assuming you mean homosexual behavior and not gay sexual orientation. Rule 34 applies as usual. Google /forced bi kink/ for a variety of discussion fora, personal ads, porn, etc. It's basically a sub-genre of the cuckold kink. You can probably find all kinds of people who want to talk about that kind of thing at e.g. Fetlife SemanticMantis (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The other phrase that applies here is gay-for-pay. Rojomoke (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The OP is also using "willfull" and "forcing oneself" as synonyms, which they are not.[17] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

April 21

Anime in Japan

Is anime in Japan made for children? I was told by a friend that anime is childish and for children but when I watched some the plot was about a man who activates his magical suit of armor by groping his mentors breasts. This doesn't seem like something that would be aimed for children, at least not in the Western world. I know Japan has some weird ideas regarding children like "lolicon" and incest fetishes. AnimeQuestion (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of Japanese anime and manga meant for adults. Likewise, My Little Pony has a larger fanbase in the US amongst adult men than little girls. It's nothing to do with fetishes. They are simply escapist stories. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not sure that any reference is likely to provide a straight answer to the question, so speaking strictly from Personal Observation: no, anime is made for all ages, just as live action films and printed fiction is made for all ages – that is to say, some is made for children, some for young adults, some for adults, some for all ages: I've certainly seen examples of all of these. In addition, of course, there is (*cough* so I'm reliably informed *cough*) pornographic anime (see also Hentai).

I would expect our article on Anime (there, I knew we'd have one) to provide links that will lead to examples of all of these (with the possible exception of the porn). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I lived in Japan for ten years, and saw a lot of manga which was definitely directed at adults - mostly horror manga, and you know it is directed at adults and not children because of the kanji used, most of which is not taught at university level, never mind primary school level, and of course, the content of the story. Manga and anime is big in Japan, with both children and adults alike. It's not like Disney. It's a massive industry, but aimed at people from all walks of life. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A nice quote from our article on Anime -

“ the labeling [of] Gundam 0080 and its complex depiction of war as a "giant robot" anime [is] akin to simply labeling War and Peace a "war novel". ”

Analogous statements apply to Akira, Trigun, Cowboy BeBop and many other popular anime. Culturally, the otaku stereotype has made its way to the USA, in spirit if not in name - many people see interest in Anime as a childish, nerdy, socially inept signifier, but those people are just ignorant ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Whole wild boar

I'm fairly sure that for most people in northern, western and central Europe, most of the ideas of eating wild boar come from Asterix comics, where Asterix usually eats one whole wild boar, and Obelix eats several. Then when these people go to Parc Asterix in France and order wild boar at a restaurant, they are disappointed because they are only served a small part of the whole boar.

Now is eating a whole wild boar in one go even possible or feasible? How much meat would it contain? Are there any people in the world who have managed to eat that much meat in one go? And how much would such a dish cost? JIP | Talk 19:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Our wild boar article reveals that an adult boar carcass should yield about 50kg of meat. Our human body weight article reveals that the average human weighs 62kg. The graph in meat suggests that the average American eats 16.7kg of pork products a year. So not only can no-one eat that in one sitting, a typical American would take 3 years to do so at normal rates. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

At 544calories per 340g, 50kg of meat would be 80,000kcal, which is a month's worth of energy for an adult. 184.145.87.79 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)