Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:13, 28 December 2016

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

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.

December 22

Add a link

Hello! Do you think that the homepage http://goto.glocalnet.net/bcp/ is worth to be added under the Bible Code text. Most of the homepage contents can not be found elsewhere. Best Regards Lars Bobeck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.224.148 (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to ask this would be the Talk page for the Bible Code article. Wymspen (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to read the following book on line?

Is it possible to read on line the book "Facultatibus Partium Animalium" (Latin) that was printed in 1544? (A lot of such books are available on the internet because these books don't have copyrights) I'm looking for it and I don't find it 93.126.88.30 (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed by poster. Blooteuth (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book that I've asked about was written by Rāzī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Zakarīy (and printed in Basileae, 1544) rather than Galen. 03:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

WorldCat has 24 entries for this but all are physical books, not e-books. jnestorius^(talk) 17:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Razi's book is listed here which indicates a microfilm exists. Its introduction Abubetri Rhazae Maomethi, ob usum experientiamque multiplicem, et ob certissimas ex demonstrationibus logicis indicationes, ad omnes praeter naturam affectus, atque etiam propter remediorum uberrimam materiam, summi medici opera exquisitiora... roughly translates as: On account of the use and the many Abubetri Rhazae Mehmed, from demonstrations of logic and on account of the most certain indications, in addition to the nature of all the emotions, and also for the sake of remedies, the richest of the matter, the doctor works of the searchers of the Most High, to whom nothing is more useful to the act of the practical requirements is found, for they are deep at all, or of Hippocrates ambiguous or obscure, or Galen fusiora it with complete fidelity and great learning, he explains, and in the light of the physician of Toledo by Gerard of Cremona, and bringeth forth, Andreas Vesalius Bruxellensem, Albano Torino Vitodurano, latinitate given, and now for the first time compared with the very great zeal of the book, which was restored to the ancient of castigatissime, so that a medical candidates can be understood, the use of which nothing at all is of advantage to the wretched of mortals, against all these diseases, species, could be compared with a list of each of the books that are contained in this book, and she and eleven emblematical devices is indicated. Blooteuth (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found three e-book links for that book: [1], [2] and [3]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 23

I can't seem to find a page I opened not so recently

I've been trying to find a page that main topic is about certain high school clases or electives, which include street law, business administration and home economics, that help students learn skills for their everyday lives, so they can live independently. Please help, I would really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YOSUE3699 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Life skills-based education or Life skills. Rmhermen (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP can check their browser's History list of sites visited. Blooteuth (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sri sri ravishankar article has invalid refrences

Ravi_Shankar_(spiritual_leader) The article in the above link has invalid references. Under the LIFE section it states that Ravishankar has got a science degree from St.Joseph's college of Bangalore University with the citation numbers 13. The link pointed to by this citation is invalid or incorrect. I am new to wikipedia and don't know where to report this. That's why I am reporting it here. Sorry if I made a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.100.84 (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a valid source? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of each article, there is a "Talk" link. Click on that will show a page where you can raise any concerns you have about the contents of the article. I've taken the liberty of marking (I think the correct) link as a deadlink; this will mark the article as needing looked at. Editors who are good at finding & fixing deadlinks will (hopefully) look at it in a few weeks. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. I was aware of this template but I didn't realise till you mentioned it that it collects all the deadlinks into a list which editors can work on. Thanks. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 24

eye of newt hoax?

The article Mustard seed contains an odd claim that it is called "eye of next". Is this true? It is repeated by lots sources, but I haven't seen a reliable one. Not sure if this is botany, linguistics, literature, or anthropology. Thanks for your help! HLHJ (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

newt, not next. Akld guy (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article[4] claims that several of the terms used the famous witch's brew are folk names for various type of herbs. Taken at face value, though, they all describe things that are very small: a newt's eye and a mustard seed are both pretty tiny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians in Afghan

Did the Romanian armed forces take part in any offensive (as opposed to defensive or non-combat) operations in the Great War on Terror, particularly in Afghanistan? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone??? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question! Wikipedia celebrates curiosity. We are sorry that you haven't received a reply, but these reference desks are staffed by volunteers. Apparently, none of our current staff feel they have the expertise or knowledge to answer your question.

You may find answers elsewhere. One excellent resource is a real-life reference desk, staffed by professional librarians. There may be one in your area, often at a central branch of a public library system. In addition, your national library (e.g. the British Library) may allow online reference requests. An alternative is the New York Public Library's ASK service, which operates by text-chat and telephone. Here's a news article explaining how they work, which describes them as a "human Google".

Please feel free to ask us another question in the future, or indeed to re-post your original question (perhaps re-wording it) after a week or so, as there may be a different set of volunteer editors reading the page then. We apologize for not being able to help you at this time.Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hanukkah

Our article, in the infobox, states that this year Hanukkah goes from sunset on 24 December until nightfall on 1 January. Aren't sunset and nightfall the same? †dismas†|^(talk) 13:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, they are the same.~~ ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for why different terms are used, repeat after me: it makes it more readable than repeating the same word repeatedly which sound repetitive and is a practice you wouldn't want to repeat repeatedly. StuRat (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Not everyone defines nightfall as occurring at sunset ~~(though it probably means the same here)~~. See Twilight. Dbfirs 16:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This site[5] uses the term "nightfall" for the beginning of Hanukkah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew calendar goes into more detail on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article makes it clear that the two are NOT the same. Sunset is the earliest point that the day can be said to have ended: the moment the sun is below the horizon. Nightfall, with the requirement to be able to see three stars of medium brightness is later, and is the point at which that there can be no doubt that the day has ended. Like many Jewish traditions, this is designed to ensure that no-one starts late or finishes early on an important day of religious observance. By starting at the earlier time, and finishing at the later, it becomes impossible to commit an inadvertent fault. Wymspen (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So how should the article say it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be saying that the article is correct, but that they are not identical as you assumed above, rather nightfall is a slightly later time than sunset. Dragons flight (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - the article actually says "The beginning of each halachic day is based on the local time of sunset. The end of the Shabbat and other Jewish holidays is based on nightfall (Tzeth haKochabim) which occurs some amount of time, typically 42 to 72 minutes, after sunset." Wymspen (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all. †dismas†|^(talk) 21:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Not so fast. The link I posted earlier, which at least appears to be written by Jews, says the new day begins at nightfall rather than sunset. So which is it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This site says "evening", which would correspond to "sunset" rather than "nightfall". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are kinda bad at telling when the sun is below the horizon. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/11/20/sunsets-are-quite-interesting/ (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew term in Jewish law for the time period between sunset and nightfall is bein hashmashot. Probably the closest English equivalent would be "twilight". In other words, we don't know which day the time period belongs to, so we need to be strict about it both ways. This applies by all Jewish festivals, and the Sabbath, not just Hannukah. The Sabbath, for example, begins at Friday sunset (since we need to assume the next day may begin at sunset), and ends Saturday nightfall (since the day may be deemed not to end until nightfall). Definitions of sunset are pretty consistent, but "nightfall" is the subject of disagreement amongst Jewish scholars. One view is that it depends on the emergence of "three stars" - in practice, when the sun is either 4.8, 6.2 or 7.1 degrees longitude below the horizon, according to various opinions about "how small the stars need to be"[6]. A more strict view is that of Rabbeinu Tam, who takes a different approach. He rules that nightfall is only 72 minutes after sunset (most hold actual minutes, a minority view his opinion as the longer 16.1 degrees below the horizon), which can be around half an hour later. The relevant Wikipedia article is Zmanim, which should help the OP with the concepts. I just spotted it now, or else I may not have needed to write this long explanation. Eliyohub (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! It was resolved by my own standards and this later reply has added more knowledge, which I appreciate. --†dismas†|^(talk) 04:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though not directly relevant to the question, the uncertainty of the boundaries of night and day is underlined by there being three differingly defined twilights: Civil twilight, Nautical twilight and Astronomical twilight, which begin or end when the Sun is 6, 12 or 18 degrees below the horizon respectively. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.85.142 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually our article Twilight claims there are five different definitions, notwithstanding that the authoritative reference work Whitaker's Almanac confirms

The beginning of a particular twilight is found by subtracting the duration from the time of sunrise, while the end is found by adding the duration to the time of sunset.

December 25

Geebung time service?

My grandfather (1902–1971) had a novel way of stating the time, especially when the clock chimed or when asked. He would say whatever time it was, with "Geebung" appended; example, "eight Geebung". I knew, even as a youngster, that Geebung was a place in Australia, but only recently did I try to find out where this came from. My grandfather lived in Auckland his entire life and was a keen radio listener and my thinking was that there might have been a time signal over the radio in the 1920s or 30s that originated from Geebung. However, search engine results for "Geebung time service" yield no useful results. Anyone able to shed light on this? Akld guy (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a guessing game, not a reference desk:198.134.93.254 (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gebungt is German for "begun". Is it possible that's what he was saying? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gebungt is not a German word. "begun" would be begonnen or angefangen. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it's gebongt that means "begun", according to Google Translate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where google translate gets that from. gebongt can be used colloquially for okay or alright. With quite some stretching one might interpret it as "struck" (as in "the bell struck" or "the clock struck"), but I doubt that that it has anything to do with Akld's grandfather. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the term IS of Germanic origin it may be related to “Punkt”, a term which in the context of time means “on the dot” / “precise”. There has been some significant migration to NZ from Germany around the 1850s and your grandfather either may have had Germanic ancestry or may have heard the term in his childhood. Of course, this is mere speculation. Cookatoo, AKA --62.47.37.164 (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My grandfather had no German ancestry, but my grandmother did, her parents emigrating from Germany in 1890. She never spoke German, but her parents undoubtedly did in the presence of my grandfather. However, I think this German connection is probably not correct, and the connection is to Geebung in Australia. Akld guy (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the placename "Geebung" is surely pronounced with a soft "g", in which case it would be a red herring. 86.185.150.23 (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My grandfather always pronounced it with soft "g" as in "Jeep", which is how I understand the Australian place name is pronounced. Akld guy (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the replies, and especially to @Wrongfilter:. On reflection, the German connection may be stronger than I had thought. As already stated, my German great-grandfather and his wife emigrated in 1890 and his name was Anton. Anton's father was Wilhelm and he was a policeman or watchkeeper in Germany. It's possible that "eight gebongt" was a policeman's procedural handover at shift change, meaning "eight o'clock, all's well". Perhaps Anton and his wife kept the tradition going. If they did, my grandfather would undoubtedly have heard them using it before they died in 1924 and 1935 respectively, but he dropped the hard "g" in favour of "Gee" as in "Jeep". Akld guy (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no German connection. In IPA notation you would see that "Geebung" and "gebongt" are words that share neither a common pronunciation nor a common meaning. Neither the German noun "Schiebung" (IPA [ˈʃiːbʊŋ], meaning wangling) nor the German neologism "gebongt" (IPA [ɡəˈbɔŋt], meaning okey-dokey) can be used in connection with clocks or hours. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the theory, gebongt was not being used in connection with clocks or hours but with the situation at handover from one shift change to another. It was the situation that was "okey-dokey", not the time. Do you have a reference that says that gebongt is a neologism and unlikely to have been used in the 19th century? Akld guy (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary explains the rare verb bongen as "a 20th century derivation, formed from the noun Bon", based on Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language, 24th edition, 2001, p. 139. I have here before me the 23rd edition, 1999, p. 125, confirming the same. It is found in this meaning (derivation of the noun Bon, voucher, i.e. to make a voucher) from 1960's to 1980's. Afterwards the past participle "gebongt" gained the slang meaning "okey-dokey" (first reference 1979). I assure you again that there is no possible connection. In the time of our grandparents that word "gebongt" was not even known. Our grandparents would have used for a full hour "Schlag 8" (stroke eight, precisely 8 o'clock) and our parents would have used "Punkt 8" (point 8, precisely 8 o'clock). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting irritated with your insistence that gebongt is not used to mean "exactly" 8 o'clock. I never said it was or that it might have been used that way. OK, so Schlag 8 and Punkt 8 mean 8 o'clock precisely. Who cares? What I said was that gebongt might have been used by German police to mean "all's well". Nothing to do with the exact time. You have said that it was never used in the 19th century, which I accept. Akld guy (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In mediaeval times the watchman would walk the streets and at the appropriate time make the comforting call "Eight o'clock and all's well!" Did this have a German equivalent, and, if so, what was it? 92.24.110.81 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secret recipes

It is known for some companies such as Coca Cola and McDonald's that the recipes for their foods and beverages are secret and only a couple of people in the world know them.

1) How are these products manufactured and sold worldwide if no one knows the recipes?

2) Can't anyone take a product to a laboratory, make analysis of it, and figure out what it's made of and how?

--Qnowledge (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) The manufacturer knows the recipes

2) The skill in cooking is not just getting the quantities right but how you combine the ingredients to get the unique flavour. 86.185.150.23 (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here it says, among other things, that Dr Pepper is "made from 23 different ingredients known only to 3 senior employees at one time". Are you implying that these 3 guys PHYSICALLY manufacture the all the Dr Pepper beverages in the world? --Qnowledge (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, there is a key plant which manufactures the flavouring cordial, which is then shipped round the world to be diluted and bottled. All it needs is a couple of people who can put together the key mix of flavourings that make the drink unique - that mixture can then be used by many others who don't know the ingredients. See http://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/the-coca-cola-system Wymspen (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what's most cases? If you're referring to Coca-cola, if you read your source carefully, it doesn't actually say that all Coca-cola syrup is manufactured in one plant. It seems surprisingly hard to find how many places it's manufactured at but [7] mentions 10 facilities in North America and 20 outside North America which manufacture syrup or concentrate, but it doesn't say whether all of these are manufacturing Coca-cola itself from scratch. This source does mention a facility in Swaziland which replaced the pre-apartheid facility in South Africa both of which did seem to be manufacturing Coca-cola syrup [8]. This isn't unique to Coca-cola BTW. I search for info on KFC and likewise I couldn't actually find any info on where the seasoning blends worldwide were generally made. While it's true that formulas can be guarded in the various ways described in this thread, I haven't seen strong evidence it's really as secretive as a lot of the mystique suggests, e.g. with the number of people who know. E.g. I'm not convinced all KFC seasoning is manufactured in the US, and even if it's true it's always a precondition of using 2 manufacturers, this significantly opens up the number of people who know at least part of the formula. Nil Einne (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that stories of jealously guarded secret formulas are largely made up for marketing purposes. It's hard to find trustworthy sources for this, since the details are inevitably secret, but This American Life #427 (transcript) offers some support for it. The episode points out, for example, that the mythology surrounding the Coca-Cola formula includes both a written copy in a heavily guarded safe and its being known only to two people who can't fly on the same plane lest it crash, which seems inconsistent. Ira Glass also writes on the episode page: "As for our bigger point, that the ingredients to Coke's supposedly super-secret formula can be figured out without much trouble by anyone who wants to, that seems incontrovertibly true. Versions of the recipe have been published starting in the 1960's. Not to mention that a device called a gas chromatograph can tell a trained scientist the ingredients in coke or any other beverage, not with perfect accuracy, but close enough that you're in the ballpark." -- BenRG (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked as a cook in three chain restaurants, I can assure you that their cooks' bibles begin with warnings that the ingredients and their preparations are trade secrets, and we are (were) required to acknowledge this as a condition of employment. These are pretty much open secrets, but I suppose these rules would be offered in evidence in a civil suit for infringement of trademark or theft of intellectual property. See, for example, Bennigan's Death by Chocolate, which was prepared by only one trusted employee in a staff of dozens. Not really hard to reverse engineer, but any edge over the competition is valued.

μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on KFC Original Recipe, complete with the actual ingredients. It mentions that the secret version is kept safe by being mixed together by two rival seasoning companies (in this case, Griffith Labs and McCormick's). Our article on Coca-Cola formula details a slightly different, but similar, setup. The short version is that you can keep that stuff secret by having multiple companies involved with discrete parts of the process. While a gas chromatograph might detail the molecules, it wouldn't tell you much about how to put them together. You would be close but all colas are nearly the same thing anyway; either the minute differences are all important or - more likely - the whole thing is more about brand loyalty than anything else. Further reading is at secret ingredient (which, oddly enough, doesn't redirect to love). Matt Deres (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coke tastes different from Pepsi, although the obvious difference is a higher sugar content in Pepsi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat confused why McDonalds was mentioned here. I'm not aware that McDonald's has anything that has the secretive mystique of KFC or Coca-cola. E.g. [9] is from McDonald's Canada showing you how to make Big Mac sauce. Okay it isn't the exact same as made commercially, but that's said to be because they're looking at something a home cook can make rather than someone buying ingredients commercially. And notably as mentioned here [10] they aren't adding preservatives because it isn't designed to be something to keep. Nil Einne (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's addressed in our article. It's long been referred to as 'secret sauce'. Matt Deres (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have to be old enough to have heard a "secret sauce" commercial, which I think went out in the 80's, when the marketting went more urban and less housewife-on-the-run oriented. When I drank soda, I started with coke, and found pepsi sickeningly sweet. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find Pepsi Throwback far more palatable - It has exactly the same amount of sugar, but it's cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup, so it tastes far less sweet. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where it's addressed in our article. The only thing close is some nonsense from the Daily Mail relating to the video I mentioned above which says it's not really been a secret for years. The Daily Mail is correct that the video itself does say it's not really a secret, but this doesn't necessarily mean it was ever actually thought of a secret except by weird people. As for the marketing mentioned above, is this worldwide or just in the US? Mostly searches for McDonalds secret sauce finds nonsense including from people after 2012 talking like they cracked the code which suggests more hype by weird people, I mean you get the same nonsense about "secret menus", some of which even suggest dumb crap like asking for unsalted fries and adding your own so you can get fresh fries. With the case of KFC and Coca-cola, it seems clear that this is an actively promoted claim worldwide. (Even if the mythology appears suspect at times.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did find [11] relating to the inventor of a Big Mac saying he wouldn't ingredients because it wouldn't be a secret, so this does suggest it was an actively made claim at one time although it's still not clear this is a worldwide thing. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 27

Post

Could someone help me with this please, the entitled posts answer is unsatisfying. I require a list of all the articles available. 27.147.226.140 (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are rather a lot of them! Why was the link to Special:AllPages not helpful? Do you need advice on how to use it, or were you looking for a document containing every title? That would be a very large document, but perhaps someone can generate it for you? Dbfirs 20:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That list also contains non-content such as redirects. They are technically articles (hence their inclusion), but may not be the kind of thing you want included. If so, your request should specify if you want them included or not (or perhaps sit as a separate list for you to manage). Sorry, no idea who might be willing to generate that kind of thing. Matt Deres (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/latest/enwiki-latest-all-titles-in-ns0.gz is a periodically updated gzipped list of all article titles (including redirects). -- BenRG (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

Merle Haggard's friend "Rabbit"

One of the leading lights of outlaw country music, Merle Haggard, died in 2016, and I was looking over stories about him. One that you see repeated over and over is how Haggard was imprisoned in San Quentin Prison at the same time as Caryl Chessman, whom he met, and he was deeply affected by Chessman's execution. He also had another acquaintance by the name of "Rabbit" who escaped San Quentin, killed a police officer, and was returned to the prison, where he also was executed. These events supposedly altered Haggard's path in life, made him seek a more profitable one.

If you go looking for who exactly "Rabbit" was, you'll find it as Jimmy "Rabbit" Hendricks in a number of sources, including at least one Wikipedia article.

Problem is, no one named Hendricks has been executed in California in the postwar era, at least according to this page. However, there is listed a James Kendrick, from approximately the right time. Kendrick's appeal to the California Supreme Court, which was denied, can be found here. In the recounting of the background facts, it appears that he did in fact kill a police officer. The escape is not mentioned, but unless it was charged in the same court proceeding, I suppose it might not have been.

Can anyone find out whether Kendrick escaped from San Quentin prior to his fatal crime spree, and whether he had the nickname "Rabbit" or knew Merle Haggard? --Trovatore (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be the case. I don't want to join newspapers.com, but the front page of the San Bernardino County Sun for March 1, 1960 has a huge headline KENDRICK IS CAPTURED. "Escaped convict James Kendrick was taken alive after a brief gunfight last night at Shell Beach." --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 06:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. I'd still like to find confirmation that he had escaped specifically from San Quentin, and anything about his nickname.

(Ideally, it would be nice to be able to clarify the situation in the Sing Me Back Home article, and anywhere else the story is mentioned in Wikipedia, but right now what I know is suggestive but not conclusive, and even if it were 100% convincing I'm not sure there's too much hope of finding something that passes muster with the original-synthesis rules.) --Trovatore (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From California Highway Patrolman, here, we find "James Kendrick, San Quentin escapee". --Trovatore (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could as on Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange if there are any Wikipedians in the San Quentin area who could check the newspapers in the main library. LongHairedFop (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentioned for March 1 says, "Kendrick, known to be armed and considered dangerous, escaped from San Quentin last Dec. 7, apparently riding out of a maximum security area in a laundry truck. Since then he is believed to have left a trail of armed robberies in Southern California, culminating in the shooting of Duvall." Duvall being CHiP officer Richard D. Duvall. The article says nothing about any nicknames except "Jimmy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The paper for November 4, 1961, reports on the execution, which had occurred the previous day. No mention of any nicknames. One interesting comment from governor Pat Brown (Jerry's father): "Brutal, vicious attacks on peace officers, which have recently increased across the nation, must stop." Note the relatively short time between capture and execution. They didn't mess around in those days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Rolling Stone article from this past spring identifies Haggard's friend as James "Rabbit" Kendrick.[12] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 :Though not directly relevant to the question, the uncertainty of the boundaries of night and day is underlined by there being three differingly defined twilights: [[Civil twilight]], [[Nautical twilight]] and [[Astronomical twilight]], which begin or end when the Sun is 6, 12 or 18 degrees below the horizon respectively. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/94.12.85.142|94.12.85.142]] ([[User talk:94.12.85.142|talk]]) 13:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
+::Actually our article [[Twilight]] claims there are ''five'' different definitions, notwithstanding that the authoritative reference work  ''Whitaker's Almanac'' confirms
+<blockquote>The beginning of a particular twilight is found by subtracting the duration from the time of sunrise, while the end is found by adding the duration to the time of sunset.</blockquote>
 = December 25 =