Miscellaneous desk
< July 8	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 9

Speedy Deletions

This is so getting out of control. Do you Wikipedians delete everything you ever see?

Nope -- only things which fail the criteria for speedy deletion. --Haemo 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Wikipedians (called 'Inclusionists') are greatly upset by the propensity for 'Deletionists' to delete things that inclusionists regard as worthy. Speedy deletion is USUALLY reserved for things that are blatently, obviously, in need to being gotten rid of - and because they violate copyright or offend some other very basic principle - the need is to remove them rapidly. However, mistakes are made - I narrowly avoided having an image speedy-deleted today - despite the fact that it does not violate the speedy-delete guidelines and that it is used in a front-page featured article! Moreover, the WP:AfD mechanism allows for deletion of many things that don't meet the 'speedy' delete rules. Personally, I'm somewhere between the two extremes. I think the deletionists are out of hand - and that inclusionists are not helping matters by insisting on keeping stuff that's junk. However, deletionists are definitely winning the battle right now. SteveBaker 05:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion one of Wikipedia's biggest problems are the more trigger-happy deletionists. More over, one of the biggest problems with deletionists is their failure to cite and explain rationale in deletion procedure. Simply saying "G4" as a reason is going to frustrate and confuse the crud out of newbies who have no idea what on earth is going on. In other words G4 should be a cited wikilink! And in fact anything to do with deletion should have a formal protocol assigned to it. It is totally unacceptable that an article can go up for AfD with a whole bunch of people not knowing what the hell the problem is.

Moving on to the next problem, that of Delete instead of Amend. Far too many admins or deletionists will nitpick at an article and add the nitpicks as a primary material reason for beign worthy of deletion. I've seen an article deleted because ONE SENTENCE read like a how-to-guide, so in the AfD they listed that as a problem. Of course it could have taken an idiot 2 minutes to correct the sentence - instead the deletion proceded. Its other material problem was that it wasn't well-referenced meanwhile no tags/templates EVER went up saying that the article needs better referencing. In other words in many cases if you add an issue to an AfD discussion you should be adding a tag/template on the article to inform people of this problem. Therefore it is totally unacceptable that articles get deleted in cases where they could easily have been amended.

Finally the next big problem: beaurocracy. In the case I spoke of above, once the article went to deletion all-of-a-sudden, I woke up and tried to salvage it by a) fixing the sentence that read like a how-to-guide, and b) adding some references and sources. And get this... It was G4d! WHY? Because it was "too similar" to already deleted content. So this means that once something is deleted, for example if it isn't well referenced, you CANNOT restore the article by suddenly referencing it. No, instead the ship has sailed and ANY reposted article gets deleted by the deletionist adminss because it "looks" like reposted content. In other words you have to completely and utterly throw away the previous article and start from absolute complete scratch. Rediculous!

So in the end I give up. I'm no longer a material editor on Wikipeida - or I make no effort to be (and don't misquote me on this!). The beaurocracy, bad protocol, and trigger-happy deletionist admins can have their way. I will now sit back and watch. And empathise with some other wikipedians.

I tried so many times to ask other admins to EXPLAIN to me why I can't just amend the article instead of deleting it, and I basically got no response.

This is not me flogging a dead horse, this my contructive feedback on the pro-deletionist system.

One last problem: There has been a race on for a long time about how many 'articles' you have nominated for deletion. It's like scoring brownie points, or badges. There's even an infobox that said "I nominated X articles for deletion, most of the time they were successful". Admins need to stop competing with eachother on how many articles they can delete. You even get admins that become obsessed with it, where it becomes what they do everyday on Wikipedia - look for something ANYTHING to delete. They need to tone it down.

Amen Rfwoolf 12:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, this doesn't make me an outright inclussionist. But on the whole I like to think of my self on the inclussionist 'side' because of these incidents

Overlinking a borderline page may cause such a reaction... 68.39.174.238 12:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why cant medical advice be given here?

Obviously a doctors opinion would be recommended. By is the reason Wiki doesnt allow it because its against the law, or its just a policy, or because someone could get sued? Willy turner 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a bad idea in general. Anonymous medical advice is a dangerous proposition for the patient. Furthermore, it could open the Foundation up to lawsuits and stuff like that. So, kind of, all of the above. --Haemo 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, as Haemo says, all three apply. Rockpocket 04:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, practicing medicine without a license is illegal in lots of places in the world. SteveBaker 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Including the place where the servers are, if I remember rightly from the last time this came up. Algebraist 11:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last time it came up it was about legal advice - it's illegal to give legal advice in the state of Florida, where the servers are. (IIRC) JoshHolloway 12:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that, if I live in Florida, you advise me not to give legal advice, because it's illegal? --Trovatore 22:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal and safety considerations notwithstanding, all it takes is one case where bad advice is taken (or even good advice with an unlucky outcome) to generate a massive amount of bad publicity for the project. I don't want to wake up in the morning to a "Promising young athlete and scholar killed by bad advice from Wikipedia" headline. 99.99% of the time, the correct advice to "I have a headache, what should I do?" is going to be "Have a glass of water and maybe a mild analgesic (aspirin, paracetamol/acetaminophen, ibuprofen) and go lie down." 0.01% of the time, it's going to be "You have bacterial meningitis. Seek immediate medical attention, and trace all of the people with whom you've had contact in the last few days.", and it's that last 0.01% with which we play Russian roulette every time we give medical advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if the headline were "Non-promising poor African old ugly illiterate and stupid man killed by bad advice from Wikipedia"? A.Z. 02:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously imagine that would be a headline? You have more faith in the press than me! The question that should keep you awake at nights is that "Non-promising poor African old ugly illiterate and stupid man killed because Wikipedians refused to offer even the most basic medical advice." is a more likely situation - and one that would also go unreported. (Of course we're carefully avoiding how an illiterate person would get advice from us in the first place!) SteveBaker 12:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would invite the most noxious sort of trolling imaginable, IE. people giving deliberately incorrect but plausible sounding advices. Hence everyone sort of tries to keep that stuff off of these pages. 68.39.174.238 12:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question came up on the science desk last night as to whether Vetinary advice may be given. I guessed that it's OK...but I don't know for sure. SteveBaker 13:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, actually, I noticed that someone added the word "veterinary" to the medical and legal disclaimer at the tops of these Help Desk pages. (JosephASpadaro 22:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That would've been me, based on the initial short discussion last night. Just being WP:BOLD - feel free to revert. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if veterinary does or does not belong ...? But, regardless, what initial short discussion last night are you referring to? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 02:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Over at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#old dog dilemma. I just noticed this discussion here, which answers my question from over there about how long the "no veterinary advice" thing has been in the header. --Joelmills 03:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black U.S and U.K sprinters

Why is the proportion of these countries 100m and 200m sprinters that are black, (ie. seems like nearly all of them), vastly disproportional to the percentage of the 2 countries populations that are black? Willy turner 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's often a selection problem; talented athletes gravitate towards wealthy countries where they can train and compete, so they can excel in their sport. For instance, Donovan Bailey was born in Jamaica, and Bruny Surin was born in Haiti. Another factor you might consider is that many people from minority communities have few other outlets for them to excel in, due to poverty or other pressures -- such as culture, or socialization. --Haemo 01:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but i feel this is a poor answer. Most of them arent foreign. The fact that poverty may contribute to lower educational attainment doesnt really answer the question. Anyone else? Willy turner 02:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black people can run faster? I suspect that the previous respondent with his social explanations would think this racist? But the most obvious answer is often true. For some reason related to the evolutionary niche different people filled in the past, people in Africa (probably from specific regions of Africa, although many in the US and UK can't trace their ancestry this far) developed slightly different muscle tones. This seems to mean when you select the worlds best sprinters they are of African origin. Apparently the difference in muscles means Black people find it harder to swim. I think only one, or maybe no, White people have ever run under 10 seconds in the hundred metres. Cyta 07:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a perception that "black people are athletic", then you may find that black children are steered towards athletic careers at school - just as working class children are steered towards low-skilled careers, and middle class children towards managerial/academic careers. This does not imply deliberate racism from teaching staff, rather an embedded cultural bias affecting perceptions of potential. DuncanHill 08:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Cyta is correct. I asked a question about this on the reference desk a few weeks back, turns out of the 52 runners to do 100-metres in under 10 seconds in timed competition 51 have been black/afro-carribbean, with the remaining 1 being Australian (but if i recall the response, born of an irish and jamaican parents?)...(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_June_20#Competition_100m_Records) ny156uk 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not logical to attempt to draw any general conclusions from a few data points at the far end of a bell curve. It is a big and unfounded leap from "the fastest sprinters in the world are black" to "black people can run faster" - the second statement could be tested by a cross-sectional study, but not by just looking at the extremes. Gandalf61 10:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could be that Black people have a wider range of speeds, but the same average. An accurate statement would be that the fastest sprinters in the world are much more likely to be black. I doubt that such extreme statistics can be put down to social factors. There are plenty of poor White kids who would also want a way out of poverty, and running is something everyone tries and can see they are good at. Those who are naturally quick will be encouraged into sport I guess, but I think it's easy enough to see in a PE lesson who is quick and not, rather than teachers showing bias, however unconscious. Cyta 11:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the perception of potential that matters, not who's fastest in the PE lesson - the teacher asks themself "Is it worth investing time and effort giving this kid extra training & support?". DuncanHill 11:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question that will surely be influenced by their actual performance. I find it hard to believe that 51 of the 52 sprinters to achieve under 10 seconds have done so through a teacher's unconscious bias rather than natural ability (and a good dose of hard work of course). I don't deny that stereotypes exagerate differences but also the stereotype must arise in the first place for a reason. Do you really believe the differences in sprint performance are entirely socially constructed? Cyta 13:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This strongly reminds me of something I was reading (here?) about which groups of people excelled at boxing historically. If I recall, it detailed how at various times, different groups of people (Irish, Black, etc) have dominated the sport, and been held to be 'naturally' better at it. Hmm, I can't find it round here. Where could I have read this? As to "Do you really believe the differences in sprint performance are entirely socially constructed?", I would personally reserve judgement, but would bear in mind that boys used to outperform girls in every academic subject in Britain, and now girls outperform boys. I do not believe either situation shows one group to be naturally more academic than the other. Skittle 14:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of off-point, but I did a nice Open University segment that looked at the boys Vs girls historical performance. There seems to be strong arguments that the changes in teaching style over the past half-century have heavily favoured girls in many subjects. Some even go as far as to argue that the teaching styles have changed to favour girls at the expense of boys. I'm not sure I would say it quite so strongly, but certainly I believe that differing teaching styles, allied with a sub-culture existing that makes many adolescent boys associate 'uncoolness' with intelligence (and, unfortunately, coolness with indifference to schooling) make it more social than anything else. Of coures all my own opinion with no real data to back it up. ny156uk 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We had this question before. The world's fastest sprinters are of West African (not just any African) ancestry. This is because of tiny genetic differences that become very exaggerated when you're looking at the fastest 0.000001% of people. The average West African is only slightly likely to be faster than the average person from elsewhere. -- Mwalcoff 23:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent animal

Are there any animals in North America that are silent?

Yes, Jellyfish. --Haemo 01:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plankton. Acceptable 01:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define silent. I think that both the above species would make some noise, either through movement or biological processes. (sure, it's almost undetectable and certainly below the human threshold, but I define (as does the first definition in wiktionary) silent as the absence of sound). Maybe we should alter the old addage "If a tree falls so quietly in a forest that you can't hear it, does it make a sound?" Capuchin 07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean mute? Though even the Mute Swan hisses. Perhaps fish - its said that if fish could scream, less people would eat them. Mhicaoidh 09:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Even the lowliest insect strives for protection against dangers that threaten its life. Mhicaoidh 09:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard a fish emit a high-pitched squealing as it was being gutted. Acceptable 17:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gutted many different kinds of fish and never heard any such sound. --TotoBaggins 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most fish are pretty quiet, but there are many that make noises. Here is one list of fish that produce sounds deliberately [1]. Parrotfish are quite noisy eaters as they chew away on coral reefs. One particular ticking noise baffled scientist for a while, until they figured out it was generated by herrings expelling bubbles through their anus [2]. The phenomenon was given the appropriate scientific label "Fast Repetitive Tick" (FRT). Anybody want to write an article about fish sounds? --mglg_(talk) 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead animals are pretty quiet. Mhicaoidh 05:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In South Africa there were these fish called 'grunters' (which obviously have a more formal name), and from what I recall they emitted more of an 'oink' than a grunt, but it was a deep-gullotted grunt, that it would possibly make while being gutted, or when out of water. Rfwoolf 12:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the U.S seem to be more religious and socially conservative than the U.K and some other developed western nations?

Willy turner 01:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complicated question, and one no one really can answer definitively. However, Culture of the United States does its best to try and answer it. --Haemo 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the US has a codified Constitution, while the UK does not. Codifying tends to ensure a greater rigidity to the culture at the time it was codified. For example Article Five of the United States Constitution explains how much harder it is to amend the US Constitution than it is for UK parliamentarians to to change the uncodified Constitution of the United Kingdom. So, when the Founding Fathers of the United States ratified that document, they set in place a culture of conservatism that would be the political and cultural bedrock of the US. Rockpocket 02:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the US constitution has a lot to do with it. The constitution has been so badly abused and bent over the centuries, it hardly reflects the original views of the founders at all. We have government working hard to pump tax money into "Faith based initiatives" (in clear contravention of the constitution) - and efforts by nut jobs on the other side of the fence to remove the quaint historical sentiment: "In God We Trust" from the dollar bill because it's unconstitutional. We have people interpreting the right to bear arms when forming a militia as the right for individuals to own heavy machine guns. Free speech (a laudable right when we're talking about an individual standing on a soap box on a street corner) has come to mean the right of large corporations to bribe politicians and use quasi-infinite advertising budgets to brainwash the people. No - I'm pretty sure the constitution isn't it. I believe we simply have different people in different countries. There is a tendancy to think that British and American cultures ought to be pretty similar because the majority of us come from common roots and we speak a fairly similar language. The reality is that our civilisations spent a couple of hundred years separated from each other - with the people on one side of the Atlantic expanding like crazy into new lands - with vast natural resources - with input from people from all around the world - but the people on the other side of the Atlantic coming to grips with a failing empire, sharply diminishing natural resources, a shrinking world - little immigration (until recently) - yet a very stable society with deep roots. Why would you expect two such widely different groups of people ending up being in any way similar? SteveBaker 04:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this answer, while undoubtedly correct, doesn't fully answer the question. What is it about the past 200 years of American civilisation that has led it to be a more religious and socially conservative society than many of those in western Europe? You mention three factors - territorial expansion, natural resources and input from people from all around the world. Are you saying that these factors are in some way responsible for the conservatism, and if so how? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to know the answer - I merely point out that it would be extremely surprising if the two nations cultures were still anywhere near close to each other after the amount of time and the nature of the pressures that each has seen. Nobody finds it surprising that (say) France and Algeria are so different - why Britain and the USA? SteveBaker 05:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - I was only pressing the point because those are the countries the questioner was asking about. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 05:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America does indeed have examples of all those people at the interpretative extremes, yet they also have 299 million people who largely agree they have an undeniable right to certain things, all because a bunch of dudes ~~with beards~~ in wigs (damn you, Toto! Rockpocket 17:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)) said so a couple hundred years back. Conservatism is all about maintaining the status quo with a system of checks and balances, and the best way to do that is with a codified constitution and a system of legal precedence. Thats what the Founding Fathers wanted and thats what they got.[reply]

An interesting comparison is on gun politics. The English Bill of Rights 1689 was not dissimlar to the codified US right to bear arms, in that it ensured "the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law." The key difference is "as allowed by Law." In this phrasing, it remains a qualified rather than an absolute right. This allows us Brits to change pretty much any of our rights as and when we see fit by, virtue of a simple parliamentary majority. For this reason the concept of an enshrined "constitutional right" is entirely foreign, and the conservative (with a small "c") impulse to protect that is missing. So after the sad events of the Dunblane massacre, there was a movement to essentially ban private gun ownership. There was certainly opposition to this, both political and grass-roots, but there was no significant argument that it should be kept because we have a historical right to do so. Indeed, most of the debate was practical and pragmatic, rather than ideological.

This difference in the socio-political ideology between the US and UK goes way beyond politics and law, it colours (and colors) much of our culture. Americans look upon the Consitution with an almost sacred reverence. A bible, if you will, for the surrogate national religion that is Patriotism. This difference has not gone unnoticed among British Conservatives (with a big "c") [3]

However, the geo-political considerations described above should also not be discounted. I don't think its a co-incidence that other Frontier pioneers (as the early American settlers were) share similar conservative and religious values to those in the American heartlands. The Voortrekkers are a good example. Rockpocket 05:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth-faced Founding Fathers

I feel obliged to point out that there were no beards at the Philadelphia Convention. --TotoBaggins 14:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "quaint historical sentiment" In God We Trust dates all the way back to 1956. DuncanHill 08:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As official national motto yes, as phrase or sentiment, no, if one reads the full article. Mhicaoidh 08:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance? Seriously, a lot of people here think that Fox News Channel isn't Rupert Murdoch's propaganda vehicle. It serves the purposes of the corporate and political establishments to keep people ignorant, and one of the side-effects of ignorance is increased credulity for all sorts of silly beliefs.

Atlant 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst all the above responses are interesting, isn't the correct answer to the OP that by distancing the state from organised religions and their groupings, to the extent of not harvesting their not-inconsiderable and freely-donated funds via federal and state tax gathering, those self same religious groupings have been given a state-sponsored and thus, a very strong motivation to persist in their relative intransigent beliefs, aims and mission objectives, so as to grow, and thus grow ever more wealthy and influential? I think that correlates with conservatism.

Indeed, this is an extremely complicated question, and no one knows the answer for sure. Certainly, there are several things to be considered:

The lack of an indigineous aristocracy: In "old" countries, you had a social heirarchy going back centuries. Families had been either serfs/peseants/workers or lords/landowners forever. It was much easier to divide society into classes. In the U.S., most (non-black, non-Indian) families trace their ancestry to immigrants who started "from scratch." The theory is that everyone had or has a chance to get ahead. There is little "class consciousness" or support for policies aimed to benefit one class at the expense of another.

Race. What America does have, in place of a traditional social-class heirarchy, is a racial heirarchy. So instead of being in a historically disfavored group, most Americans -- being white -- are in the favored group. They identify as haves rather than have-nots. While relatively few Americans are cross-burning racial extremists anymore, race permeates almost every political discussion in the U.S. It influences the debate on welfare, public education, gun control, even things like public transportation. People in suburban Maryland campaigned against light rail because they thought black folks from Baltimore would hop on the train, rob their houses, then go back to the city, stolen TVs in tow.

Immigration. Americans get patriotic because America always seems to be under threat from outsiders. The continued existence of a familiar "America" is not taken for granted. In such an environment, criticism of the foundations of the state may be less tolerated than it would be in countries without a good deal of immigration.

History. The United States can be considered one of the few oldest countries in the world. Some states of Europe may be older in theory, but most went through great upheaval around World War II or the fall of Communism. Australia and New Zealand were colonies until the 1900s. Canada really only came into its own as an independent nation in the 50s and 60s. The U.S. is so old that there is an almost mythic quality to the way its founders are thought of. Messing with their creation to a great degeee is considered sacriledge. The U.S. also has the oldest codified national constitution, which in some ways is better suited to the 18th century than it is to the 21st (although it has survived due to flexible interpretation).

Lack of a state religion. There is no history of anticlericalism in the U.S. because no church ever had as much power as the Catholic Church did in France or Italy. It's always been an open market in religion, so Americans don't have the skepticism toward religious authority that may exist elsewhere.

Size and isolation. The U.S. is extremely isolated. If you live in Washington or Atlanta or St. Louis, you're more than a day's journey from any other country. And America is so all-encompassing that Americans don't usually stop to think how the rest of the world does something. On the other hand, British people, for instance, need only cross the Channel to experience the social liberalism of the Netherlands or the universal preschool of France. -- Mwalcoff 23:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of these could be equally true of Canada, which has no indigenous nobility, a horrendous racial problem (with respect to First Nations people), lack of a state religion, a large physical size, and is as isolated as the US, if not more. This doesn't explain why everywhere in Canada with the possible exception of Southern Alberta (which was settled largely by American immigrants, and which, despite what Toronto thinks, is still much less conservative than the most liberal areas of the US) is far less conservative than the US. --Charlene 20:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not convinced that this is true. Canada is far less skeptical of a large role for the State in the economy, medical care, and so on. That's not really the same as "less conservative". In some social attitudes, for example towards public displays of affection, I sensed a far more conservative sentiment in Toronto than in California. Notwithstanding the softcore porn on late-night broadcast TV, T.O. frankly seemed sexually repressed to me. (And really the two things are not contradictory -- pornography is often a way of channeling sexuality into a non-threatening "box".) --Trovatore 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada was more conservative than the U.S. until around the 1960s. It seems to be that, heartfelt as Canadians' liberal sympathies may be, Canadian liberalism stems largely from trying to be different from the U.S. In addition, I don't really think you can compare Canada's racial divide to that of the U.S. Toronto has only about 20,000 people of aboriginal ancestry, and Montreal has about 11,000. By comparison, Chicago has 1.5 million African-Americans. Cities like Hamilton or Kitchener or London, Ontario don't have sprawling minority ghettos. True, there are now a lot of black, Asian and Hispanic people in big Canadian cities, but that's a relatively recent phenomenon. It's a lot more difficult for Canadians to dismiss poverty, street crime and other social issues as "their problem." -- Mwalcoff 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still say it depends a lot on what you mean by "liberal" and "conservative". Canadians are definitely more tolerant of the nanny state, more skeptical about military adventurism, and they're probably more tolerant of homosexuality and interracial relationships. But the question asked about religiosity and social conservatism. Canadians are definitely less likely to be on-one's-sleeve religious, but I think they're by and large more socially conservative (than, say, Los Angeles), except in the specific ways I enumerated in the second sentence. Now, I don't have a broad experience of Canada -- this could be just Toronto, or maybe just my specific experience of one year in Toronto, but it's the way it seems to me. --Trovatore 05:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To correct one point, America is actually the second oldest surviving Constitutional Republic (the oldest is the Constitution of San Marino). The USA is old if we classify a "country" as continuous form of Government over a land from a codified legislature. But Old World countries, like for example the UK, have tended to "evolve" rather than be "born", as New World countries were. The criteria the makes the USA the second oldest country can be slightly misleading. For example, it classes the UK as being only 80 years old. Having been "born" in 1927 when the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 changed its official name to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This may come as some surprise to many Non-Brits, who thought the name was, and still is, England. A sterling answer, though, Mwalcoff. Rockpocket 00:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew someone was going to bring up San Marino :). I don't think that microstate counts, because its 400-year-old constitution is six books long. Fair point, though. -- Mwalcoff 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it is ridiculous to use a name change to say that the UK is only 80 years old - it's also wrong to imagine that the British government is in any way similar to a constitutional republic. Most Americans don't understand just how vastly different the British system is.

We are a monarchy - we have a king or queen who inherits the title by right of birth who is the only person with any power in the system. Parliament and the Prime Minister are merely advisors to the Queen. The police and armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch - they don't promise to do what the government says.

Whilst in practice we are a democracy - in theory we are not.

The government only rules because the monarch says it's OK. The people vote for a government and whatever ministers the people ask for are elected to the 'House of Commons' (Commons means "commoners" - people who are not royalty). The other house of parliament is composed of a weird mix of people: Some inherited their seats from their parents - some are religious leaders and some people are there by virtue of have been given an honorary seat by the monarch. There is no democracy whatever in selection of people to serve in the House of Lords - but the power of this unelected body has been drastically curtailed over the past 50 years, so that's not as horrifying as you might expect. The ministers of the majority party choose their preferred candidate for prime minister (nobody 'elects' him/her) - but that's not the end of it. But in theory the monarch actually chooses the prime minister - it just so happens that the monarch never picks anyone other than the one whom the the ministers suggested. The government drafts laws - but the monarch has to sign them in order for them to actually become law. In theory, the king or queen could choose to act differently. Of course the monarchy never, ever do that - but that's the theory. Hence we are (in practice) a fairly standard democracy - but only because the royal family no longer choose to rule.

We also don't have a written constitution - although people talk all the time about whether some particular thing would be constitutional or not - and great and learned tomes have been written about "The British Constitution".

It's a weird system - but somehow it seems to work very well indeed. When the constitution is written down, lawyers can argue about the minutia of the language to allow or deny things that were never intended. When it's more of an idea of what is right and fair - it's much harder to lawyer the language! I suppose there is some merit to the idea that if all else failed, the monarch could take control of police and military (I suppose) as a theoretical back-stop in the event that government goes off the rails. Whether the military truly would back up the monarch in such a situation is debatable though.

SteveBaker 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that the UK government is structured quite differently than the American one is. But that doesn't answer the question as to why Americans tend to be more conservative than Britons and others in the industrialized world. -- Mwalcoff 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror not swapping up and down

I came across this on one of the answers to a previous question posted on the RD, but I thought to address this in a different question. Why is it that when you look into a mirror, the mirror swaps your left and right, but not up and down? Even if you look at the mirror sideways, it still doesn't swap up and down. Thanks. Acceptable 01:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be an article on this, but knowing Wikipedia, it's probably about 10 times as long as it needs to be. The answer is very simple.

A mirror in the usual position does not swap left and right. If you pick something up in your right hand, the hand that you see holding it in the mirror is still on your right. What it does swap is front and back. When you see your mirror image, you imagine it as yourself facing the opposite way (i.e. behind you). In order to face that way, what you would normally do would be turn around in place thus swapping not only front and back, but also left and right. So when you see front and back swapped, you think of it as "left and right swapped, but facing the other way." It's just easier to imagine that way.

If you stand sideways to the mirror so it is on your left or right, then it swaps left and right, and not front and back: your mirror image is facing the same way you are, but if you pick up something in your right hand, the left hand of the mirror image picks it up. And if you put the mirror on the floor or ceiling, then it swaps up and down.

--Anonymous, July 9, 2007, 03:26 (UTC).

(ec) The mirror neither swaps up/down nor left/right; it just swaps front/back. The reason that you think it swaps left/right has to do with how you are imagining correcting the obvious front/back swap, so as to be able to superpose yourself with the mirror image and compare it to yourself. The motion you are imagining is the one that is natural for people, namely to turn yourself around a vertical axis. That imagined turn will swap left/right as a side effect of swapping front/back. If instead you imagine turning yourself around the horizontal axis that goes from your left to your right hand, then your hands would stay put but your head and feet would switch places. If youthen compared yourself to the mirror image, you would find that the mirror had swapped up/down but not left/right. --mglg_(talk) 03:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above answers cover the terratory perfectly - but it never hurts to stretch our mental muscles a little further! In a photograph, front and back are not swapped because the camera was facing the opposite direction to the subject of the photo - so when you look at a photo of yourself, now left and right seem correct - but are in fact swapped. Take a while to look at your reflection in the bowl of a large spoon. It truly does swap top and bottom AND left and right AND front and back - but it seems to you that it got left and right correct and top and bottom are wrong...argh, this is SO confusing! SteveBaker 04:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differene between stepping on clutch and shifting in neutral

In a car with manual transmission and a syncromesh, what is the difference between engaging (fully depressing) the clutch and shifting into neutral? Both actions will disengage the engine from the wheels. I am asking because I've read on some "Toe-to-Heel" guides that I need to both shift into neutral and engage the clutch while matching revs. But to me that seems kinda redundant. Thanks. Acceptable 03:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've gotta engage the clutch to safely shift into neutral - just knocking the shifter out of gear with the clutch engaged risks grinding the gears and causing untold gearbox damage!

If your car has synchromesh (as all modern cars do) then briefly releasing the clutch while in neutral then depressing it a second time as you slide back into gear (known as 'double-clutching' or 'double-declutching' if you are British) is strictly optional for heel and toe technique. The Heel-and-toe instructions tell you to release the clutch pedal while going through neutral because this spins up the part of the transmission between the clutch and the gearbox to better match the engine speed - which makes for faster and smoother gear engagement even when you do have synchromesh. Double clutch explains this from the perspective of a car with no synchromesh - but it applies to getting the fastest possible shift times with a synchromesh gearbox too.

In general, you're right in that both operations disconnect the engine from the wheels. There are certainly circumstances when you'd prefer shifting into neutral - for example, if you are going to be stopped for a while - because all the time that you have the clutch pedal depressed, you are wearing out the thrust washer (aka 'thrust bearing') - which is designed to take a lot of that kind of abuse - but still, shifting to neutral would be better for the life of the clutch.

SteveBaker 04:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but if my car is in neutral, is there a difference whether I do or do not step on the clutch? Does stepping on the clutch while my car is in neutral help slow the engine revs down faster or something? Acceptable 01:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How a clutch works

There is a difference - but it's a very small difference. There is a small chunk of drive shaft that connects the clutch to the gearbox. If you are in neutral with your foot OFF the clutch then that piece of drive shaft is spinning. If you are in neutral with your foot ON the clutch - or if you are in gear with your foot on the clutch - then that shaft is not spinning. For 'normal' street driving, that makes almost no difference at all. However, if you are a competitive driver, every little helps. The other difference is that when your foot is pressing down on the clutch the 'thrust washer' (aka 'thrust bearing' - see diagram) is being worn out - this is generally not a good thing - so if you plan to have your foot on the clutch for a reasonably long amount of time (eg while waiting at a stop light), you should really be in neutral with your foot off the clutch - just in order to avoid wearing out the thrust washer.

The other reason some people offer for preferring to be in neutral rather than in gear with your foot on the clutch (yeah - I know you aren't asking about that) is that it sometimes happens that someone's foot slips off the clutch and the car shoots forward unintentionally. If you are waiting at a red light - or a STOP sign - then this would be really dangerous - so being in neutral with the parking brake on is safer. The most common occasion when this happens is when you are rear-ended by some idiot behind you - the shock of the impact knocks your foot off the clutch and you are propelled into the path of an 18-wheeler. However, you were asking specifically about being in neutral with your foot on the clutch - and this argument doesn't apply. SteveBaker 11:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So taking your foot off the clutch wihle in neutral while turning corners is best for performance driving? Acceptable 21:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say it like that - I'm mentally screaming "NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!". Listen: I'm very carefully telling you never to sail around corners with your foot on the clutch and the gearbox in neutral because that would be dangerous as all hell! But if you are hard-core heeling-and-toeing around the corner - there will be a brief moment when your foot would be on the clutch then off the clutch then on the clutch again - while the car is in neutral - while you are giving the car a little more gas and simultaneously braking and steering. This happens as you go through the complex clutch/break/gas/shift pattern that gets you into a lower gear smoothly without restricting your ability to brake as you do it. But this requires a fairly intense amount of skill and coordination. If you aren't already a pretty awesome driver (which is doubtful given how little you seem to know about how and why all this stuff works) then you shouldn't attempt this. It's a lot to concentrate on - and messing it up will result in you shredding your gears or killing your clutch or failing to concentrate on steering - or most likely, all three at once. It'll initially get you round corners far more slowly than you're currently doing it...it'll be dangerous. SteveBaker 22:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, one last question: I have compared Edmunds.com guide to the Wikipedia article and have found a slight difference. Wikipedia says to shift to neutral, blip throttle, step on clutch and shift to correct gear. Edmunds says to blip throttle while stepping on clutch on a gear, then shifting to the lower gear, all while never releasing the clutch. Is Wikipedia's technique called a "Toe-to-Heel double clutching downshift", while Edmunds's technique called just the "Toe-to-Heel downshift"? If so, if Wikipedia's technique more advanced and more commonly used by racecar drivers? Thanks. Acceptable 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The element song

Does anyone know where I can download an mp3 of the element song? --Candy-Panda 11:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a dozen different video versions of it on YouTube.com - but I don't know of any MP3's. SteveBaker 11:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jesuitnola.org/upload/clark/images/elements.mp3 There maybe. I can't listen right now so I apologies if that isn't it. Capuchin 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I was looking for. Thank you very much! --Candy-Panda 11:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Onomatopoeia

Moved to the Language Desk

If a duck goes quack what sound does an elephant make? --58.168.222.252 12:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants trumpet. DuncanHill 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have an onomatopoeic word for an elephant's trumpet, are there any in other languages? This would be best on the languages desk. Capuchin 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Overlord

Here's my version of the Evil Overlord lists. How can I make it funnier?

Evil Overlord: The Super-Villain
Draft
Being an Evil Overlord is one of my life’s goals. It’s one of the best careers one can possibly think of. I can have unlimited control over my domain. Heck, I even control my own salary.

Slave: My master, here is your paycheck.

Me: What?! Don’t tell me they only raised my salary by 500%

Slave: But liege, that would bankrupt the Treasury.

Me: How many times do I have to remind you that I AM the Treasury.

Anyways, in every case I have seen in the media, the Evil Overlord is some big villain who makes a big, stupid mistake and ends up killing himself by proxy via the hero. So to avoid the unwilling suicide, I will now make sure that my domain will be hero-proof, and I will promise myself not to do stupid things while Evil Overlord.

I will make sure that once my enemies surrender, they will all be summarily decapitated. The heads will be used for scientific research.

I will make that there are no weirdly composited meteorites or any radioactive spiders in my museums.

Anyone who shows some hint of a superpower will be taken to the countryside and have 12 atom bombs dropped on top of them. If they (singular theys will be permanently allowed in my domain) are atomic energy resistant, they will be kept in a cage in a zoo for the rest of their lives. If they try to escape, 500 rods will be sent through their body instantaneously.

If the superhero escapes anyways, I will go up to him and apologize to him rather than hunt him down (‘it was a mistake’) so avenge his suffering upon me.

I will make sure that my super-fortress-supercastle will have extremely narrow ventilation ducts to prevent intrusion. I will also make sure that any person that tries will be submerged in a tub of sulfuric acid.

If some unarmed hero breaks in and kills all troops, then tells me to fight like a man, I will fight like an Evil Overlord instead and kill him with my blaster. Of course, I would have to rebuild my army. And my PR.

I will not have a self-destruct mechanism and I will NOT have an On/Off switch for my central control system.

My troops will be given weapons with their own power supplies.

My super weapon will have a power generator attached to it and will not rely on any outside source of electricity. The generator will be out of reach and out of sight to any potential hero.

--hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post on Uncyclopedia and see what survives? Skittle 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that there is already a really, really great Evil Overlord list - it has literally hundreds of entries - and covers pretty much all of the usual errors you find in the movies. You used to be able to add more entries to the official Evil Overlord list - at least a dozen of my contributions are there - but I suspect it got too much for the maintainer and he may now have stopped accepting new entries. I think most of yours are (in essence) already there though. I don't recall the one about not keeping radioactive spiders in your museum - that's really good advice! My #1 rule would be: "My guards will be trained so that when they are chasing the hero through that maze of caves and passageways - they will glance briefly into every side-passage as they pass it." SteveBaker 20:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make sure that all security cameras are well hidden, and that decoys are placed at regular intervals for the hero to waste his bullets destroying. Laïka 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One general suggestion is that humor is usually better (except in expert hands) when it is not wordy. Almost of yours are excessively wordy. Compare:

If some unarmed hero breaks in and kills all troops, then tells me to fight like a man, I will fight like an Evil Overlord instead and kill him with my blaster. Of course, I would have to rebuild my army. And my PR.

with:

I will not "fight like a man." I will "fight like an Evil Overlord."

Not perfect, but I think you can see the improvement. Another:

My super weapon will have a power generator attached to it and will not rely on any outside source of electricity. The generator will be out of reach and out of sight to any potential hero.

becomes:

Super-weapons will function under their own power source, which will be kept out-of-reach and out-of-sight.

Not a whole lot funnier, but more enjoyable to read, anyhow. Just a general suggestion from someone who does not claim to be a good writer. --24.147.86.187 02:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Peter's Evil Overlord list among others. – b_jonas 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precarious Pants Problem

Does anyone know the design differences between knickers and britches (or breeches...sp) pictures of each respectively would be very helpful. thanks

Presuming you mean knickerbockers and not knickers. Those articles and Breeches include photos. Rmhermen 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

In England breeches are riding pants designed to use with long boots. (Jodhpurs are for use with short boots)Knickerbockers are either old-fashioned ladies long underpants tied just below the knee or old-fashioned golfing pants worn with knee-high socks.

Regards Den T

They weren't just used by men for golf. I believe they were used in baseball, hence the New York Knicks, and were also used by soldiers in WW1, as in this pic: [4]. StuRat 14:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina residential building codes

I WILL SHORTLY BE BUILDING A LOG CABIN IN THE MOUNTAINS OF NORTH CAROLINA, NEAR WAYNESVILLE. IS THERE PUBLIC DOMAIN BUILDING CODE INFORMATION THAT I CAN PRINT OUT PRIOR TO MAKING ANY DUMB MISTAKES IN THE BUILDING PROCESS.

TED SANKO

Please don't type in all caps. That, combined with being named "Ted" and building a log cabin in "the mountains of North Carolina" will make people nervous. Anyway, your best bet would be to contact the county/town it will be built in. They might have building codes on their site, but you will probably have to mail them or ask a nearby contractor for assistance --L^augh! 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a good start. --TotoBaggins 16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South-West Ireland - advice on cost of living would be appreciated.

I live in Central Scotland and am visiting the Tralee, Killarney, Ring of Kerry areas in Ireland in late September for a wee holiday, driving myself and family in our own car. We have the accommodation and the ferry crossings paid for already but don't know what to expect to pay for such things as say, unleaded petrol, pub-grub, restaurant meal (not haute-cuisine), a bottle of house wine with dinner, a bottle of decent wine from a local shop/supermarket, and typical entry fees to say, the Races (horse), museums, shinty match, boat trips to Dingle etc. etc. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. ps. have tried online websites but not much info. forthcoming.

The Irish Independent gives the price of petrol at 117.3 cents per litre (79 p per litre).[5] Mortons, a Dublin supermarket, gives the price of wine at €7-8 upwards (roughly the same as the typical £4.99 in the UK).[6] Laïka 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 July 9

Contents