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.

June 9

Batman’s Ras-a-gul’s mask

Where to buy from, and does it even function as displayed in the movie? 116.58.205.46 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ra's al Ghul ("Ghoul's Head" or "Demon's Head") is a fictional supervillain appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics, commonly as an adversary of the superhero Batman. Fan references: [1] [2] and a video about the character's history. A DIY guide to Ra’s Al Ghul's Costume. This rubber mask doesn't do a lot. Blooteuth (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of when the Star Wars toy marketers produced plastic light sabers, and some kids were upset that they didn't actually work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, small kids don't know what's possible, and deceptive ads certainly encourage their misconceptions. When I was a kid I got a toy "Star Trek phaser". Now, I didn't expect it to vaporize anything, but I did expect a beam of colored light to come out, as it did in the ad. I was disappointed. StuRat (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The movie referred to is probably Batman Begins - but I don't recall Ra's al Ghul wearing a mask in that film. Perhaps the OP is thinking of Jonathan Crane ([[Scarecrow (DC Comics) or Bane (DC Comics), both of whom wore distinctive masks as part of their role in the trilogy. Given the reference to "functioning", I suspect Scarecrow, since Bane's mask doesn't really do anything visibly. MChesterMC (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glasses for reading, when making a speech

Hello. I've just been given reading glasses. I'm also a minister of religion and so often lead services, alternatiely reading from a book and looking up at the congregants. I've never worn glasses before so can anyone help me work out: what do I do with them in services? If I leave them off I struggle to read; if I put them on, when I look up I struggle to see and it's presumably bad for my eyes. What do you think? THanks 176.35.31.63 (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three options - get bifocals, get half lenses, or let them slip down your nose so that you can look over the top of them. Wymspen (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of those three, the following fourth option would be best: See an optometrist. They are trained to give professional advice on exactly this problem. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Especially regarding the "presumably bad for my eyes" part, which may or may not be valid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result of following the fourth option may be glasses with Progressive lenses which give the advantage of bifocals but without the distracting border line between segments. Blooteuth (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By substituting a distracting border area. Well, that's a matter of personal preference. I don't think I'm stepping on anyone professional toes if I point out that frequently putting glasses on and off causes wear on the glasses frames, particularly if you get in the habit of doing it one-handed. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a suggestion from a fellow glasses wearer: when you look up at the congregation, don't try to focus on details/individuals, allow that view to remain blurred. I appreciate this may conflict with a natural desire in the circumstances to 'connect'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.208.38 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to put your reading glasses on to read, then take them off when not reading. This can actually be helpful, as it serves as a sign to the audience that a transition is occurring. So, you put on your glasses and they know to grab their Bibles or hymn books, and you take them off and they know to put them away. Hopefully you have room on your podium to put them down there. Now, I don't suggest you do this with every glance towards the audience between reading lines, for those you can just leave them on and not worry about the audience being blurry. StuRat (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another option is half-glasses, where you just look over the top of them. They are reading glasses but only half the lens area is used. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd AmTrack Battalion,

Elements of this battalion were deployed during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancehurley (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question?--Jayron 32 17:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

Is calling for "Bastille Day" on a forum illegal?

The IP was blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notwithstanding the back-and-forth sniping, how the fuck did this not get closed for asking for legal advice?--WaltCip (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this posting I argued for people who have access to classified information to start leaking information. Someone replied saying that my posting is in itself a violation of the law:

"You do understand that this post is treason under federal law right? You are calling for an over throw of the government, that's what "Bastille Day" was, the start of the French revolution... your comments are very, very dangerous, and I know for a fact... the secrete service, FBI, NSA and other government agencies are monitoring ALL of these boards and they know your true identity... This is a very, very foolish post, and it is too late to take it down they know where you are... not smart."

Count Iblis (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you encourage someone to break the law, then you are certainly laying yourself open to a conspiracy charge. But the broader issue- aren't people calling for tugged overthrow of the government all the time? SWP, etc.? There is also presumably a difference in advocating something and actually doing something to further that end. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually find any indication in conspiracy (criminal)#United_States that encouraging someone to break the law can be conspiracy. Conspiracy is an agreement to break the law, and usually requires at least one overt act by one of the conspirators. As to whether it's possible to prove the existence of an agreement without two-way communication, that's beyond my limited expertise.

In the United States, my understanding is that it's generally legal to advocate the overthrow of the government, even the violent overthrow, as long as it's a theoretical political position. See Yates v. United States. Of course, this should not be taken as legal advice by the orginal poster. --Trovatore (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. SWP for example. Although I wasn't really focussing on US law, more that of — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, you tied our hands a bit by telling us about the background of the question. Without presuming to offer legal advice, I would suggest that Brandenburg v. Ohio and imminent lawless action may be of interest. --Trovatore (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing an opinion is covered by the First Amendment. The respondent may have been bluffing you - like they do with "legal threats" here. But to be on the safe side, you should probably contact an attorney. Although that could snowball. Your best bet might be to just stay away from that topic in public venues. And by the way, I do concur with the writer's comment about Bastille Day. That was a poor analogy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know that there's a yuge difference between expressing an opinion and encouraging treasonous actions, right? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Treason is very narrowly defined in America. Mere words seldom amount to treason. Taking up arms against the United States would be a different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And so does leaking classified information during a time of war! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has the most recent arrested one, something-Winner, been charged with treason? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The US has prosecuted only about 30 treason cases in its entire history. The last one was Tomoya Kawakita for actions during World War II. So no, no one recent has been formally charged with treason. While there is some ambiguity, many believe that the law requires giving aid to an enemy nation upon which the US has formally declared war. Despite engaging in many military conflicts, the US has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II. Dragons flight (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Adam Yahiye Gadahn was indicted. If they hadn't offed him extrajudicially, we might have someday had a test of the question of whether you can have an "Enemy" in the meaning of Article III section 3 without a formal declaration of war.

In any case, whether or not al-Qaeda was an "Enemy" in the relevant legal sense, it's quite clear that Gadahn did "adhere" to them. The idea that calling abstractly for the end of government secrecy could be "adhesion" to a particular "Enemy" strikes me as extremely strained. But once again, no one should take this as legal advice, and I am not a lawyer. --Trovatore (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is if the leaked secrets aid the enemy even slightly! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Evidence or go away. --Trovatore (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of treason is all the evidence I need: "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT" -- so if you leak government secrets and this ends up helping the enemy, then THIS FALLS INTO THE THIRD AND LAST CATEGORY OF TREASON (giving the enemy aid and comfort)! So admit that you lied and shut your yap! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are only two categories. The first category is making War against the United States. The second is adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. To get into the second category, adhesion is required. So basically you're completely wrong about this, as about everything else you've said about this thread. --Trovatore (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LIAR -- the constitution says there are THREE categories, and giving the enemy aid and comfort constitutes treason either with or without adhering to them! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith, which you did not on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Thank you, and happy editing! — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I assume good faith in your case when you just BLATANTLY LIED about me -- I haven't visited the humanities desk in YEARS! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point than whether you assumed good faith, you are just simply wrong. There are only two categories. --Trovatore (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YOU are the one who's wrong (regardless of whether or not you lied) -- there are THREE categories: waging war against the USA, adhering to their enemies, and giving them aid and comfort! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It goes a bit more than "overthrow of the government". The events commemorated by Bastille Day resulted in the summary killings of a great many of the aristocracy. Calling for a "Bastille Day" is calling for an armed uprising in which you intend persons to be unlawfully put to death. Akld guy (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Lawfully', I think, following the masses' mandate of absolute power. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawful power resides in Congress and the President, not in the masses -- you understand this, right? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You realise this was regarding what Bastille Day actually was, right? You realise that is the context of the question, right? You realise you made a totally subjective assumption that deaths caused in 1787 were unlawful, right?

You don't? Right. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they were unlawful under French law at the time -- that's not a subjective assumption, that's objective fact! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using Bastille Day as a metaphor does not equate to violent overthrow of the government. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the face of it, your post falls under at least half a dozen different statutes: conspiracy to mishandle classified information, incitement to criminal activity, very likely also incitement to violence and/or incitement to terrorism (the "Bastille Day" reference can certainly be construed as such), conspiracy to aid the enemy during a time of war (this, BTW, is potentially a death penalty offense), and because of the context in which you made this post it likely also falls under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (if so, this means, among other things, that it may fall under the jurisdiction of the military commissions established by President Bush, where you will not have the same rights that you would normally have in a US court.) And you may also have broken other laws which I forgot to mention, but this will do for a start. In short: you are in one whole sh*tload of trouble (to put it mildly), and I certainly wouldn't want to be you! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no evidence for these baseless claims. Go read Brandenburg v. Ohio --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You go read the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the National Security Strategy Guidelines (which in combination supersede Brandenburg v. Ohio in terrorism-related cases such as this one!) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you've provided no evidence whatsoever for this absurd claim. Statute laws and executive-branch reports do not "supersede" case law interpreting fundamental constitutional principles. --Trovatore (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They do if the military commissions are involved, because these are a completely separate system which is not part of the judiciary and not answerable to the judiciary! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give evidence or go away. --Trovatore (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the IP has a clear idea of how things work in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is, the Authorization for Use of Military Force gives all the authority to deal with terrorists to the PRESIDENT, not the courts! And the National Security Strategy Guidelines further make ANY action which helps terrorists in ANY way an act of terrorism in itself -- so, technically, making any ruling which hinders the President in fighting terrorists would make the judge a terrorist! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, etc. The Supreme Court of the United States has been unambiguous in their authority to review and overturn decisions related to military tribunals if they violate the constitution. I'm sure the Justices will be surprised to learn that you think that makes them terrorists, which is just total nonsense. Dragons flight (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Ex parte Milligan — you can't try civilian citizens in military tribunals in the first place, terrorism or not. (Not that there's any connection between calling for the disclosure of secrets and terrorism, anyway.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last case of these is superseded by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and in the other three the supreme court has BLATANTLY OVERSTEPPED ITS POWER to even HEAR them, and committed TREASON by overturning the President! So they ARE terrorists as per the National Security Strategy Guidelines, and President Bush should have had them dragged off to Camp Gitmo (and in any case should have disregarded their illegal and treasonable rulings, just as Lincoln had done in Ex parte Merryman)! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's really quite impressive. Every single thing you have said in this discussion is wrong! 100% batting average, and out of a lot of at-bats too. --Trovatore (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "The President is authorized to use all necessary and proper force against those nations, organizations and/or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the 9/11 attacks, or harbored those persons" don't you understand?! And note that it DOES NOT say "except US citizens" or "unless the supreme court says otherwise"! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laws that violate the Constitution are invalid. But in any case, force that violates the Constitution is not "proper". --Trovatore (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you've sided with Al-Qaida, you're an ENEMY at WAR with the United States and are NOT protected by the constitution, period! By your standards, bombing Dresden during WW2 was unconstitutional because those poor innocent Germans (many of whom were in fact diehard Nazis) were killed without due process!

Also, WTF do you mean, "every single thing" I said here is wrong?! Do you deny that Hamdan and Rasul (the plaintiffs in 2 of the cases listed above) are terrorists who deserve to die for murdering thousands of Americans?! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore has it right. The relevant rule in the US is that the First Amendment broadly protects speech even when advocating criminal activity, except when the speech is designed to produce an imminent lawless action. This standard requires both that the speech advocates for criminal activity that is imminent (and not merely at some indefinite time in the future) and that the speech is likely to produce such criminal activity. I won't offer an opinion on whether your post meets that standard, but I've never heard of any prosecutions for inciting imminent lawless action as the result of broadly directed comments made in a public forum. Every imminent lawless action prosecution I've ever heard of involved a speaker with actual knowledge that specific members of his audience were likely to act on his call to violence / criminality. Of course, anyone (including the government) can look at your comments and judge you positively or negatively based on their content. But that is different from the consideration of whether an actual crime was committed. Dragons flight (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You posted this on the Washington Post's newsblog, which is moderated. The first thing that might happen is that someone complains about your post and it is taken down. The next thing is that the Washington Post could disable your account. If they take it very seriously they could report you to the FBI. Then you would get some FBI officers coming to talk to you to persuade you not to put such things up in future. Since neither of the first two things have happened, the third isn't likely to either. If it does, you could contact the ACLU. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Britain (which like the U S is a common law jurisdiction) sometimes judges produce a decision which conflicts with the law as everyone thought existed at the time. In those circumstances Parliament may pass a statute expressly saying that the law is what it was thought to be. So far as I know, Congress can amend the Constitution by passing a statute ("amendment") to change it. 213.104.49.143 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, an amendment is much much much harder to pass than a mere statute. You're correct that it can be done, technically. It requires a 2/3 majority in both houses, then ratification by 3/4 of the states. (Unlike a statute, an amendment cannot be passed by Congress alone; it requires the assent of the states.)

(There is another possible technique, a constitutional convention, ~~which bypasses Congress altogether and~~ sends amendments for approval directly to the states. It has never been used. There was a constitutional convention, but that was the one that wrote that procedure.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Constitutional amendment#United States. I'm surprised we don't have a standalone article, but maybe it's redundant with Article Five of the United States Constitution, which also see.

I was wrong that a convention bypasses Congress altogether; seems that it would have to be Congress to call the convention in the first place. However Congress doesn't actually have a choice in the matter, so I was almost right. They have to do it whenever 2/3 of the states request one, and there doesn't seem to be any way for them to do it otherwise. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To do what we're expected to do here, and draw people's attention to our own articles, the IP (the one who has up to this point been regarded as being consistently wrong- except by themselves) can see a recent object lesson, here. In front of thousands of people, an American citizen publicly stated that "that if the same laws were applied to U.S. presidents as were applied to the Nazis after World War II [...] every single one of them, every last rich white one of them fromTruman on, would have been hung to death and shot—and this current administration is no exception. They should be hung, and tried, and shot. As any war criminal should be", referring, of course, to the administration of George W Bush. And regardless of the meltdown that Fox News went into, no-one got arrested, charged, or convicted of treason :) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only because the National Security Strategy Guidelines are not being enforced like they should be! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that if Bastille Day implies the revolutionary overthrow of legitimate government by force, then surely the Fourth of July must mean the same thing. Wymspen (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bill Stepien, Bridgegate, Trump

we don't speculate about criminal matters, see WP:BLP

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

Why wasn't Stepien prosecuted for his role in Bridgegate? Also, what has Donald Trump said about Stepien after taking him on as political director?2602:306:CFC8:DDB0:ACC0:1F97:E6AD:B0E5 (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article indicates that they didn't really have anything on him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree. The article indicates the opposite--1.) the "cover" text, and 2.) the claim by Wildstein that Stepien was in on it. I'd like to know why he wasn't prosecuted. I'm also interested on any comments by Trump or the White House concerning Stepien when he was hired as Political Director. Thanks.2602:306:CFC8:DDB0:790A:A48D:2C1C:AA9C (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the "cover" text message wasn't mentioned in the article, I just realized.2602:306:CFC8:DDB0:FCD6:929D:31DF:E0F9 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hat per WP:BLP μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

British International Motor Show 1996 edition

Does anybody know the exact dates of the 1996 Motor Show at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham? Unfortunately the above article doesn't mention the event at all. Also, is there any evidence that it was styled "Motorshow 96" [sic]? I'm looking at a selection of rail-and-admission tickets issued from various places at various dates in late October 1996 (between 18th—apparently a preview day—and 27th), and all show "Motorshow 96". Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Radio Times, there was a report about it on October 20th. http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/a06448ef691547b293ccdbe1f0efbc80. This flyer says it opened on October 16th http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Alfa-Romeo-Nuvola-Concept-Car-UK-Press-Pack-1996-NEC-Photograph-x-3-/371617113799?hash=item56861b26c7:g:yDgAAOSw1DtXKhjB. But this one says the 18th to the 27th http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Alfa-Romeo-Press-Pack-for-British-Motor-Show-October-1996-Inc-photos-of-Nuvola-/222128090573?hash=item33b7ddadcd:g:iK4AAOSwH6lXRCzF They all refer to it as the SMMT 1996 British International Motor Show. Wymspen (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wymspen; it looks like 18th to 27th was perhaps the public show and the 16th (and no doubt 17th) was for the trade or other special guests. I'll go with 18th to 27th in the thing I'm writing. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)

An advertisment "our models will drive you wild" in the London Times on 10 October has it as the "British International Motor Show, NEC Birmingham, 18th to 27th October" no mention of "Motorshow96". Another entry on tv programmes show that the BBC coverage was called "Motorshow 96" but it doesnt appear to be a name used by the show organisers. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it does say in the small print "Ticket Prices - Adults £9.00 Children £5.00 except the Daily Telegraph Preview Day (18th) All tickets £16" MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See British International Motor Show#Birmingham and Docklands. Many years ago my father took my brother to the Motor Show. Unfortunately, the day they chose to attend it was closed to the general public (it was "trade only"). It was only a single day that the public couldn't get in. The Show always ends on a Sunday. It used to be a nine - day affair, beginning on a Saturday, then extended to eleven days (beginning Thursday) and twelve (beginning Wednesday). In 1996 it ended on Sunday, 27 October having begun, presumably, on Thursday, 18th. 81.151.100.147 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments. MilborneOne, the prices quoted helpfully confirm more details of the tickets I'm looking at. As well as several admission-only tickets (issued at stations) @ £9.00 on 22nd and 24th, I have a rail-and-admission ticket from London to "Motorshow 96" (looks like that name was just used as railway-speak shorthand!) @ £35.00 for 27th and one @ £42.00 to "Motorshow Preview 96" on 18th. The £16.00 quoted above confirms that the special rail fare to Birmingham International must have been £26.00. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalty to organisations

Generally, in most countries, do organisations prefer people who are loyal working for that 1 organisation or do they see the value in people moving around, particularly early on in their career to get an understanding of a particular profession across different organisations? 82.17.229.129 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago, banks would not employ anybody who had worked for another bank. As a result, someone who had got tired of working for a particular bank changed direction and moved into insurance. This was at the beginning of their career. 81.151.100.147 (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In contract, in academia, spending your entire career at one institute is considered a very bad thing, and will often harm your chances of getting more funding. Fgf10 (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even Harvard or Oxford? Even if your field is something like Old English where Oxford is probably the undisputed best? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no idea about humanities. I was talking about proper academia. Yes, even Harvard or Oxford (which aren't always the best at doing anything). Fgf10 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to generalize over such a wide expanse. Do you really expect that McDonald's and the Vatican would combine to form some sort of average? Just one of the many, many, factors that would be at play here would be the relationship between the cost to onboard a new person versus the costs associated with them staying on (due to increased salary, coverage of vacation, etc.) That relationship will vary wildly by industry and organization. Matt Deres (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is the real question. Is it something like, "I've worked for over 25 different companies over the last 5 years. How can I make that sound good in an interview?" 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Stepien

What has Donald Trump said concerning Bill Stepien, who is his White House Political Director?144.35.45.81 (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

Spelling

Does Wikipedia use British or American spelling? Nedhudir (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the subject and how a reader would find that subject described in reliable sources. You can read about it at WP:EN. uhhlive (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really the right link. A better one is MOS:ENGVAR. --Viennese Waltz 18:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "ENGVAR" link doesn't mention varieties such as Indian English. 79.73.134.123 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP didn't ask about those, only about British vs. American. --Viennese Waltz 19:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention it anyway. It gives the example that Mumbai should be in Indian English, and it also mentions that region-specific terms like "one crore" should not be used if a universal term (10 million) exists. ApLundell (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(S)he didn't ask for reasons either, so the answer to the question is "yes". It would have been better to have posted to the Language desk. 79.73.134.123 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A more thorough answer is "Yes, both." —Tamfang (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but the thing to remember is not in the same article. 86.176.19.17 (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except in the case of direct quotes etc.... Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obese RAPE

Statistically speaking, in the West are overweight / obese women less likely to be sexually assaulted or raped (especially in public setting)

Perhaps we can extend this to other forms of sexual harrasment? Why would this be the case, if true? Would it be logical to conclude that obese / XXL women are safer in public, and perhaps weight can offer a degree of protection from unsolicited advances or worse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.172.132 (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation does not imply causation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite. But I don't know if it's possible to say why. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That study does not show the opposite. It says that women who have experienced sexual assault at some point in their lives are more likely to be obese, not that they were necessarily obese when they were sexually assaulted. In fact, the authors mention possible "longlasting negative effects on physical health" of sexual assault. - Lindert (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, you're right, thanks, I skimmed it too fast. This seems to be a very widely repeated finding [3]. In fact, history of sexual assault correlates well with many diseases of lifestyle. I have found no studies looking at risk factors that potentiate being raped, though there are studies looking for risk factors to commit rape. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rapist is going to look for someone vulnerable, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Factors associated with being a victim of sexual violence and information on the same topic from US governmental sources: National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

Mini-Wardrobe

What category does this fall under? 116.58.200.29 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]