Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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 17

Who is a better RBI Governor; Urjit Patel or Raghuram Rajan?

Raghuram Rajan’s departure as the Reserve Bank of India Governor was a shocker for India and raised confusion and doubts on the intentions of political play but the stepping in of the new chief is even more of a buzz. Urjit Patel is Kenyan born and holds degrees from London School of Economics, University of Oxford and Yale University. Both are really talented in numerous fields but question is "Who is Better"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.195.235.128 (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't answer requests for opinions here. See at the top of the page. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And even if we did, first you would have to define "better". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And a notable point, if you mean better at being the Reserve Bank Governor, considering one has only been in that role for a bit over 3 months even if he's dealt with a particularly contentious government plan, I think anyone comparing them would come to the conclusion it's too soon to decide. Nil Einne (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eating with hands

Hi! Would it be relevant to create an article about eating with hands? There is not much information about it on other articles. Ericdec85 (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have multiple reliable sources about the subject, sure. Otherwise, it would fail our notability standards. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you need a source to prove that some foods are eaten with the hands, like pizza, hot dogs, sandwiches, hamburgers, french fries (UK chips), and potato chips (UK crisps). That's common knowledge. But as for the health risks, that would need a source. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Sky has four citations to say that it is blue. Looking out the window would be original research. An article about eating with hands would need sources or else it would fail the notability guidelines. For health risks, you would not need just a reliable source, but specifically a reliable medical source. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:You_don't_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue Iapetus (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Those four citations explain why it's blue. That it is blue is a given. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at night. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the OP could redirect his article concept to Finger food. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could follow the various links in List of eating utensils and see what they have to say about "not using" those utensils. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pointless name calling

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not exactly surprised that the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the ref desks have signally failed to grasp the point the OP is clearly getting at, which is the Indian practice of eating with hands. This is covered in Etiquette of Indian dining. --Viennese Waltz 19:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly surprised at your "Tweedledummer" M.O. of leveling person attacks. Only surprised when you don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really, VW, you have promised to be more civil, and not to show up like a vulture only when there's a victim to attack. Please answer the OP if you can, rather than call names. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think there is a potential article here (and I don't mean when de wife forgot to bring the knife , fork and spoons on a camping holiday, which made consuming the soup coarse a novel experience). But many people's of this World do eat their food (with the right hand) as a normal practice. That doesn’t mean they are backward but that this is their traditional practice of enjoying meals together. Bit like US citizens eating burgers, pizzas, etc. from polystyrene and cardboard boxes. So to the OP, yes go for it! The practice is so wide spread, that there must be plenty of references. P.S. Should the question be not be about eating with fingers. It was only Kings and other royalty that brought (say) a leg of a swan to their mouths, grasped in their greasy hands.--Aspro (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viennese Waltz comment was hatted above, but was never the less valid in this context. So reinserted his ref to Etiquette of Indian dining which comments on just the Indian tradition of eating with fingers. What about the rest of the World? Sure we need an article on eating with fingers. Ericdec85 has only been editing since September – don't bit the newbie!--Aspro (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence was valid. The first was just a typical childish I'm-better-than-you-are attack from VW. It would be best to erase everything from that hatted section except for the sentence about the link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, good luck with your article. A Google search for ""eating with hands" and "eating with hands in Islam" might help. Google also suggested ""eating with hands in Chile", the first result for which was Don't eat anything with your hands in Chile!, which is very bad manners apparently. It used to be the rule here in England too, and a gentleman would be able to eat a banana at the table using only a fruit knife and dessert fork. Allegedly, when the first Pizza Hut opened in London, the staff had to rush out and buy some knives and forks for their puzzled customers. How times have changed. Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly is good adverb and only very anecdotal. Remember that in the later part of the 1970's, drove to Hay Market (or some where in London) to the first Mac Donald's to open in Britain (for those in the US, Britain is a little unsinkable aircraft carrier off the west coast of Europe) yet for years before and long, long before the first Pizza Hut washed upon our shores, I frequent many a Italian owned take alway that proffered... guess what? - Yes you have got it in one – Pizzas! Knives and forks???! Mind you, if one was with one's girl friend or neighbours wife, one had to be very careful afterwards as to where one (or the other) placed ones hands : ¬ ☼ --Aspro (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember the first MacDonald's in the Haymarket, it curiously omitted any seats, they only had a sort of plastic misericord which you could perch on while eating your burger. No knives or forks either, unlike the homegrown Wimpy Bars. The story about Pizza Hut and cutlery used to feature in their own advertising and I do seem to remember cutlery being provided, even in the days when pizza was the only thing on the menu. It's a nice story anyhow. I am also encouraging to see that some Americans can eat in a civilised fashion, see Outrage in New York after Bill de Blasio uses knife and fork to eat pizza - Public stunned by mayor's use of utensils at pizza restaurant. Obviously a reliable chap. Alansplodge (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. There's no excuse for eating pizza with a knife and fork, especially New York style pizza. It's akin to putting ketchup on a hotdog.--WaltCip (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In Napoli, you eat the entire pizza with a knife and fork. There's no picking up a slice. It's just how everyone does it. It's the culture". How to Eat Pizza Like an Italian Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We ain't in Napoli. :P --WaltCip (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't eat any hot chilis with your hands. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published an article about fufu at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102003250.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Parmanent link" Information

~~I have few old articles of WP without its "Parmanent link" Information, how do I re-find it? 103.230.105.26 (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

You might be looking for the Help desk. If you have the page source, look near the top and find the article id (curid) and the revision id (oldid). Then construct the URL like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?curid=40297&oldid=755403240 Alternatively, most pages have a "last modified" date on them, so enter the title and look at the history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's spelled permanent. StuRat (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like Clark and Barkley. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That depends where you are - in England Clerk and Clark are pronounced identically, as are Berkeley and Barkley - and they all have the same sound: (ɑːrk), not {ɜːrk) Wymspen (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And like Darby, which in America is pronounced "Durby", except in Brooklyn where it's "Doiby". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean Derby? I can't really believe Americans, who pronounce Derby as Derby. also pronounce Darby as Derby. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BB linked to there. I had to read his comment twice to see what he meant. Dbfirs 22:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I followed Medeis' lead, who did the same thing, and I think Wymspen made the same mistake as Jack. But we Americans pronounce it "durby" when referring to an American horse race, and "darby" when referring to an English horse race. As for "doiby", that's what Curly called his hat. We know our derbies. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arghh so ur an american wabbit. Time to eat your meal for the second time.00:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)86.187.161.66 (talk)

No need. Any leftovers get sold to Brits as "bangers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

Cite the Page Link Information

I have few old articles of WP without "Cite the Page" link information. What do I do in order to retrieve the information?103.230.107.10 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cite This Page" link is only available for articles in mainspace. If you know the name of the page, you can go directly to Special:CiteThisPage and enter the name in the search box - this will give you the citation details for the latest version of the page. If the page has been deleted, then you won't be able to access it. Do you know what the name of the page is? Tevildo (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked and used as you guided. I'm looking for the exact old article's version, not the most recent's one. 103.230.104.12 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you'll need to look at the revision history. If you can get to the current version of the page, click on the "History" tab at the top - this will list all the previous versions of the page (apart from very old revisions, before about 2004). You can then select the one you want by clicking on the date in the list. Tevildo (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

"No such thing as a seagull"

There seems to be a bit of a meme going around that "There is no such thing as a seagull". The argument seems to take one of two forms, both of which seem utterly spurious to me:

a) "The correct name is "gull", therefor it is wrong to call them seagulls" (which ignores that fact that many creatures are known by multiple names, and language is defined by usage); or

b) "there are many species of gulls, each with its own name, none of which is "seagull"" (which seems to be a straw man argument based on the assumption that people are using "seagull" to refer to a specific species rather than as an equivalent for "gull").

My question: does anyone know where this meme originated, and why so many wiseacres seem to think they are being clever by claiming it? Iapetus (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "no such thing as a seagull" indicates (1) it goes back a good number of years; and (2) technically it's true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found a good source through googling, I encourage you to share such references when you've already done the search and are also posting on the reference desk. Here [1] is an appearance of the idea in 1992 NYT, one of the earlier hits I found at a glance. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

side discussion on references desks, and what our volunteers here are called upon to do.

The OP, or any reader, can google the subject and decide which entries are interesting enough to pursue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, yet somehow most of us at the reference desk succeed at posting references, despite the fact that google exists. Likewise, people ask us questions every day, despite the fact that google exists. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, maybe, but in this case it is not my place to tell the OP which particular google references to look at. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is PRECISELY OUR PLACE TO SUGGEST REFERENCES TO OP. Forgive my emphasis, but this is our fundamental remit, and it is important. I am shocked to think that you might not have grasped that fact after all these years. This is a reference desk, what we are supposed to do here is provide references. I have collapsed this bit so as to not distract from the other replies, if you'd like to discuss further, feel free to move this whole thread to the talk page. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Googling provides a whole raft of references. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not reliable ones. Again, virtually 100% of our questioners are aware of google, and virtually 100% of our regulars know how to provide good references. If you're so sure that "google it" is the only answer people need, then please save us some space and just stop typing here- by your own logic, it is useless. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did Google before asking here. Most of what came up looked unreliable, and was generally making exactly the sort of spurious arguments I and others have mentioned. Iapetus (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is sophistry, and people seem to like it because it makes them feel clever. There are absolutely seagulls; I've seen some this year. If anyone tells me there is no such thing, I'd find a conversation partner who is not so facile, and disingenuous. No True Scotsman is tangentially related, as is bad faith. See also cooperative principle, which this argument blatantly violates. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main objection seems to be that there is no unique seagull species. The word Gull refers to a shore bird, so a seagull would be a sea shore bird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no unique crow species either, but crows exist, nonetheless. Same for robin or dove. Yet somehow most of us are able to talk about these things, pick one out of a line up. It's really quite common. Would you say that cars don't exist because there is more than one type of car? What about houses? Hopefully these illustrate the utter inanity of the "argument" OP outlines. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source [[2]] says that a Black-headed gull is, "definitely not a 'seagull'"; which suggests to me that some gulls are seagulls. The same source [[3]] also says that some gulls are, "strictly marine". It doesn't name them but I do know that Kittiwakes only come ashore to breed.--Ykraps (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term seagull was used by John Milton, Charles Dickens and Thomas Gray, and appears in the OED, but I don't know what restrictions some people read into the prefix. I suspect that each region calls its most common gull a seagull, even if it is hundreds of miles from the sea, but there may be exceptions to that guess. Dbfirs 21:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ykraps, the comma before such quoted phrases is not necessary, and could be misleading in some sentences. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mantis, I hope you don't mind what I did to your links. —Tamfang (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This idea seems to have been at least locally common as far back as 1938. One Louis Joseph Halle, in his Birds Against Men, says:

The initial step in mastering the subject of gulls, I found, was to learn never to call them "seagulls." To do so betrayed one's ornithological illiteracy and violated the canons of good form. There is no such thing as a landgull, though gulls occur inland; consequently there is no such thing as a seagull. One might as well talk about sea-albatrosses, or landsparrows.

Unluckily Google Books only gives a snippet view, so I don't know the context. Who has been teaching the author such things? --Antiquary (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Laridae#List of species. None of the individual species of gull has the recognised common name "seagull". As that article says, ""seagull" is a layperson's term that is not used by most ornithologists and biologists". Regarding earlier examples, there are many species known as "crow", "dove" or "robin". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Seagull" is just as much of a common name as "robin". That's the whole point of common names - all that matters is usage. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SemanticMantis: Is this claim comparable to saying "there is no such thing as humans, only homo sapiens sapiens"? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Quixotic Potato: sort of... it depends in part on which specific line of "reasoning" is used to get to the resulting "no such thing as 'seagull'". Some of them do seem to be analogous to your example. But I don't think that matches well with NYT bit I linked above. That one is especially silly, because what they are claiming as evidence is not: the quoted bit clearly explains how forty some bird species are called seagulls, even if the individuals in question do not live near the sea (I'm not sure, but I think every species of Laridae can be found near the sea, that is, there are no purely freshwater/terrestrial gull species.). That is why I made the analogy to robins -it would be silly to say there is no such thing as a 'robin' due to the fact that there is more than one species to which the common name can apply. So the headline "Sea Gull? There's No Such Bird as That" is quite incorrect, or at best, intentionally obtuse and misleading. But "Seagull? That could mean any of a few different species of birds!" is perhaps not very compelling. Those that focus on "sometimes some seagulls can be found very far from the sea" are perhaps more analogous to: "Many animals known as anteaters don't eat many ants, they in fact eat mostly termites. Therefore, there's NO SUCH THING as an anteater!1@#$ZOMG$WTF*BBQ" Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SemanticMantis: Thank you. Yeah, that is a bit silly. The meme is probably more about feeling clever (based on misinformation/faulty reasoning) than it is about actually spreading useful information (like so many are). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

How many times has Wikipedia been edited?

I was hoping to discover how many times any Wikipedia page has been edited, since the inception of the encyclopedia. I found this page but the number seems ludicrously small considering there are over 5 million pages on the English Wikipedia alone. --Aabicus (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not possible to get an entirely accurate count since I believe some of the early pre-wikipedia edits are still not accounted for, although their number is going to be well within the margin of probably a minute of edits or something. The number in the above page seems resonable to me. Per WP:Size of wikipedia, there are 41 million pages on en.wikipedia. En.wikipedia and to a much lesser extent commons predominantes among wikimedia project. I'm sure you can find some statistics somewhere but even if there are 8x the number of pages when you take into account all other projects (and this frankly seems too high), that's still only 328 million. That would give slightly under 10 edits per page on average. This may seem a little low, but remember for every George W. Bush with ~~400k~~46k edits (Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages with the most revisions), there's probably 100-1000 pages with maybe 2 edits. In fact, size of wikipedia gives an average of 21.08 revisions which is a little higher, but it wouldn't be surprising if other wikis have less average revisions or alternatively the total number of pages is wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Special:Statistics has the number of edits for en.wikipedia. meta:List of Wikipedias while only covering wikipedias has 158 327 989 pages in total (including en) and 2 299 548 087 edits. meta:Wiktionary has 30 665 041 pages in wiktionary. So it doesn't seem my 328 million figure can be that far off. And actually I just found meta:List of Wikimedia projects by size which gives 292 156 773 pages for all wikimedia projects although the edit count is a little higher than the above counter. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I never thought of the statistics like that. Thank you for your research into my question! --Aabicus (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that they give a number of 865,168,899 which is considerably more than the current value of the referenceID (755962507 for this edit). Has so much of the early edit history been lost? Prevalence 07:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I'm assuming the way special statistics counts edits is including some stuff which don't get a revisionid somehow but I don't know how. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually none of the history is lost - see Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. Everything from February 2002 onwards is preserved and many earlier edits have been reinstated. Most of the remaining revisions which are not present in the database are in the January to August 2001 period; these were found and are available as a text file. The number of these is insignificant compared with the current total. Warofdreams talk 17:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why never a herding dog in western films?

Good morning or good night from France, my dear "100 mouths Godess".
In Europe everybody taking care of cattle uses a herding dog, but in westerns I never see dogs. How can you explain this difference? Is it because using a horse makes dog useless?
I already asked this question on the French reference desk (called the Oracle) and I was explained that it's because in Europe we do intensive farming while at the time of westerns they did extensive one.
I thank you for your thinkings.--Jojodesbatignoles (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question. The answer proposed cannot be the full story, because Australian farms ("stations") herd animals across huge distances, and yet that country has developed several species of herding dog. I wasn't aware that "sheepdog" covers two different types of animals; those that are Livestock guardian dogs lack the herding instinct. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact, you can herd cattle with helicopters, robots, drones and remote controlled cars. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In Europe everybody taking care of cattle uses a herding dog" - I'm very doubtful of that (at least in the UK, which is still technically part of Europe). I don't think I've ever seen cattle being herded with a dog (unlike sheep). Iapetus (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, an adult cow, much less a bull, might be a bit much for one dog to control. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StuRat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHjA5IriDmA (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wardog: see above. About six minutes in the dog gets kicked, and he basically ignores it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to reply to Iapetus and StuRat, but that video says it all. That dog is worth thousands! Dogs are regularly used where I live (northern England) for beef cattle, and perhaps less commonly and certainly less aggressively for milk cows that are usually more placid, though I've seen over-eager dogs nip at cows' heels unnecessarily. A bull or a cow with a calf will attack and maybe injure an inexperienced dog. Dbfirs 19:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They did use bulldogs in the American West occasionally, mostly for tracking and catching strays. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. You learn something new every day. I'd just never seen cattle being herded with dogs, despite living in relatively rural areas with quite a lot of cattle farms. Iapetus (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are westerns that feature a dog that herds sheep, like The Proud Rebel. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the OP. No doubt Iapetus, the UK is in Europe. I went many times to GB and I remember seeing very smart dogs directing sheep.
I made a generalisation from what I remember about my grand parent's farms, my uncle's farms and now my cousin's farm. It took place in France. In all these farms, dogs easily and peacefully directed cows and young animals. The dogs showed no fear ; on the contrary, if the cows were too slow, my cousin would just "call" his dog using its name (in fact I think the dog reacted according to the tone of my cousin voice) ; the result would came so quickly that I think that the cows understood what was asked to the dog.
Thank you for all your answers and videos.--Jojodesbatignoles (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all evidence to the contrary (plate tectonics, distance, and historical, cultural, ethnic, and language links, etc.) those in the UK insist that they are not part of Europe, and withdrawal from the EU is only the latest form of this insistence. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't paint all of us with the same brush, we're not all idiotic Breixters, and there's plenty of Brits who are perfectly aware that we're in Europe. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Brexit was NOT about whether the UK is (or should be) part of Europe geographically, but whether it should sacrifice its own national interests to appease hostile nations like France and Germany -- so whether one voted for Brexit is NOT an indication whether that person thinks that the UK is not in Europe geographically! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read France–United Kingdom relations and Anglo-French War. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All those wars were long before the American Civil War, and in wars last century the United Kingdom was defending European countries (Belgium and Poland respectively). Dbfirs 08:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I remember seeing dogs helping men to deal with cows in the Pyrénées (mountains between France and Spain). I was a great help for them because it was at an altitude more less 2500 m, and some men were rather old.--Jojodesbatignoles (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

Plausible alternative explanation in criminal case

I have read that if a defendant in a criminal case can put forward a plausible alternative explanation of the facts, this could result in his being found not guilty. Is this correct, and if so could a user please give me the legal source or sources for this. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is just another way of describing the "burden of proof (law)" in criminal trials. The prosecution has to convince the judge, or the jury, that the defendant is guilty "beyond reasonable doubt." If the defence can provide a plausible alternative explanation of the facts, that is just one way of casting doubt on the evidence. It would still be up to the judge or jury to decide whether to find the defendant guilty or not: they may not believe the alternative explanation, however, plausible it sounds to the defence. Wymspen (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Maybe start with reasonable doubt? Also, it may vary by legal jurisdiction. Dragons flight (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not offer legal advice.--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General inquiries about the legal process do not constitute legal advice. StuRat (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions with answers that may vary based on jurisdiction which can lead to assumptions about validity of legal defenses can and does constitute legal advice.--WaltCip (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just state what jurisdiction(s) the answer is for, or a general disclaimer that it may not apply to all jurisdictions. If you can't be sued for saying it, it's not legal or professional advice. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

probably not a good thing to get into this debate, even if it weren't for BLP concerns

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note that the reverse is not true. That is, a defendant is often found "not guilty" even when there is no plausible alternative. OJ Simpson comes to mind. StuRat (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the state failed to prove its case against OJ. A lot of the stuff you and I "knew" about the case was not entered into evidence, so the jury couldn't consider it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or fortunately, if what you think you know was wrong. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OJ Simpson is a bad example, because it's plausible that his son Jason committed the murders (see e.g. this article), though that never came up in the trial. A better example might be Jack Kevorkian's three acquittals, but I don't think it's relevant to this thread in any case. -- BenRG (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

"On the Natural Faculties" is part of the writings of Galen a prominent Greek physician, surgeon and philosopher in the Roman Empire during the second century C.E. A textual translation is available here. The Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire de Santé (BIU Santé) (see link) of Paris hold printed editions of Galen dated 1490 (Latin), 1525 (Alde Manuce, Greek), 1538, 1549 (Froben), 1565 (Giunta, Latin), 1679, 1821-1833 and 1854-1856 (French). Blooteuth (talk) 20:43, 22 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)

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]

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]