Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 May 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< May 2 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 4 >
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.


Contents


[edit] May 3

[edit] Appreciation

Really do appreciate the assisstance. Sources for the UFO links are at the bottom of both links, and a photo of the delegate is in the first link. Again, really do appreciate the assisstance. Thanks. 205.240.144.220 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

These[1][2] NY Times searches indicate, at least, that the purported article does not exist from 1992; and this search implies that Linda Cortile does not even exist. I'd hate to think what kind of responsibility is being overlooked when such a source is claimed, but the source has no record of having ever said anything resembling the claim. All in all, I'd say that history.com is more inclined to publish UFO reports and/or alien abductions; a friendly note asking ufocasebook.com for more details about their sources would probably be appropriate as well, since mentioning only a year and someone's last name makes it difficult to find the referenced article. V-Man - T/C 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A Google News Archive search does find a number of article discussing a Linda Cortile recalling abduction under hypnosis.[3] However, most of these seem to be supermarket tabloids, certainly not the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, and the closest to a reliable source, Wired News, only states that some guy wrote a book claiming' that Linda Cortile was abducted near Brooklyn Bridge etc. Indeed, pretty much every result is an interview with Budd Hopkins, the author of the book: there isn't a single interview with the real Linda, or even any attempt to check his stories... Laïka 07:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no verifiable citations in those articles. A true citation will have the exact date the article was published, the article title, and the author's name at the very least. Otherwise it is impossible to tell what they are supposedly appealing to a source for. It is very suspicious and clearly not a good source — a poorly cited article is as good as an article with no citations. That is probably why the links were removed. --24.147.86.187 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I doubt you can answer this, but...

I cannot find this anywhere on the internets. What are the names of the 5 council members for Parke township, Clay county, Minnesota? Яussiaп F 02:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm current disassembling the Clay County website, although I'm pessimistic on that accord. Maybe I'll get lucky. –Pakman044 02:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Which I was right to be pessimistic. I checked through Minnesota Secretary of State's office website; it couldn't find any elections in Parke Township listed in the last four years (it has local elections at least through 2004; Clay County only appears to local elections in even years). I discovered a PDF on the Clay County website that listed the Hawley Herald as the paper where they print their legal classified listings. It's only printed on Mondays, and has no website, according to Minnesota Newspapers Directory, but I'd bet it would have a record of elections in that body. Finding an archive of that paper is another story. Maybe some regional paper would have election results, but I'm thinking that's the direction you have to go in. –Pakman044 02:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
According to this list, which includes contact information, they are Bruce Bang, Colin Melby, Eric Nelson, Nancy Bjorndahl, and Joseph Marvig. Marco polo 12:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a good find; I didn't even notice that when I was disassembling their website! –Pakman044 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yup. That's an amazingly good piece of work, Marco. Kudos. --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] jogging

Hi, I jog every morning at 6:00 (or 6:10) to 6:30 on my treadmill and I was wondering how long it will be till I see results? (also, what kind of results.) -thanks alot! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.211.8.100 (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

it takes a few months —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.126.66 (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
It depends, partly, on what kind of shape you were in to start with. If you were considerably overweight, or in very poor physical condition, you will see some results relatively quickly (probably within 4-5 weeks, based on my own experience). It's difficult to give any better information without more specifics (i.e., your calorie intake, the number of calories you burn while running, your current weight or physical condition, and so on). Carom 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It also depends on what specific results you are seeking, eg. a weight loss of 10 kg, an improvement in fitness of 10%, or whatever it is you are doing it for. Having a specific goal will help you to achieve it. JackofOz 08:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Everyone's body is different, so it may take you more or less time than average to see a given result. If you reduce your caloric intake or keep it steady, you should start to see some weight loss within 4 weeks, if not sooner. (However, you may not see any weight loss if you take the attitude that because you ran on the treadmill, you can now eat more than you would have eaten before!) You will also notice that your exercise is getting easier and maybe even that you like the way you feel afterward. (Some people even come to look forward to the exercise session.) Marco polo 14:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"It's half the calories! So you can eat twice as much!" - Marjorie Dawes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.48.15.234 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Also, you may lose fat but gain muscle mass, your net weight loss may be minimal but your increase in fitness significant.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 03:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benson and Hedges Silver cigerette boxes

Unsure if you will be able to help, but i've noticed recently that Benson and Hedges Silver cigerette boxes have had a random variety of signs/emblems printed on the underside of the cardboard lid.....can you shed any light on why they are doing this!?

The first hit on Google (a search engine useful for this sort of question) says it's just marketing. --TotoBaggins 13:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MRS1608

Hello, I recently bought a Zoom MRS 1608 digital recorder. I now wish to buy a bag for it however the only place I can find one is at [4] This site however does not cater for Uk esidents. Does anyone know where I can get a: World Tour Strong Side Gig Bag for Zoom MRS1608CD.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Please? some one help me...81.144.161.223 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] URL help

I started a Wikipedia Article today, the URL is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbeard%27s_Cave I would like to know if and how I could change it to the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackbeardsCave [note there is no longer %27s_ in the URL]

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maikido (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Why would you want to? The article title reflects the name of the venue, as given on their website. The %27 in the URL merely replaces the apostrophe. As a wiki link it would be rendered Blackbeard's Cave. Whether the article is about a notable subject I'll leave to others to determine, though I will edit it somewhat to get it to fit some of wikipedia's style conventions. If you did want to rename it, there is a Move link at the top of the article - move means rename in wikispeak. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Of course you'll only have pagemove privileges if your account is older than 4 days, and you can only move pages to titles that don't already exist. Also, you might want to read WP:COI and WP:NOTABILITY--VectorPotentialTalk 16:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
That page was deleted because your article seemed to be an advertisement. See WP:ADVERT.--Shantavira 18:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Paul Jernigan

Is the story of "Joseph Paul Jernigan" true? According to some websites, he was executed in Texas for murder (Aug. 5, 1993), and his body is being displayed on the internet as the "visible man" and (currently or only in the past?) in an exhibition in San Francisco (Exploratorium) although he has never consented to it. (He is said to have consented that his body would be used for science, but never consented to a use for an exhibition like this.)

I can't believe that any civilized nation would allow something like that to happen, but I haven't yet found any website saying it's just a hoax or urban legend. Anyone knows more? --Ibn Battuta 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm intentionally not posting a link to the online exhibition out of respect to the dead man's dignity in case the story should be true. And whether true or not, Wikipedia should probably not be a venue for it... You can easily find the website yourself if interested for whichever purpose.--Ibn Battuta 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The best we have is in the article Visible Human Project. There does seem to be an issue of a lack of informed consent. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Thanks, strange I hadn't found that article... I'm quite astonished that apparently this is no hoax, but a "scientific" endeavour, using the bodies of two people who have not consented (the woman apparently not at all)--and all this in a country where human subject protection is usually such a big issue. I really start wondering why I'm bothering with Internal Review Boards and other ethics guidelines for some tiny studies if there's such stuff going on at the same time! Still can't quite believe it... --Ibn Battuta 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
They consented to be used for scientific research and being chopped up into little pieces and shown to people constitutes scientific research — it is not fundamentally different from how donated cadavers are normally used (they are often used for educational purposes and dissection) except that by being digitized the audience is greater. Practically every "donate your body to science/medicine" consent form is primarily about examination and display. Do exhibits warrant a separate category of consent? I'm a bit dubious. I don't see the ethical "damage" as being any greater via an enlarged audience, while on the converse the potential good as been magnified greatly. But I could see arguments on the other side as well (generally rooted in the idea that the dead don't want to be seen naked, which always strikes me as a bit misguided, but okay); I'm just pointing out that I don't think anyone thought it would be a special case. It wasn't done "without his consent," the question is whether or not the usage in the consent form he signed includes this use. --24.147.86.187 03:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I firmly disagree. Even if those people were so naïve to think that everything was included (and again, we're talking here about procedures in a country with some of the world's strictest policies about ethics guidelines, informed consent, etc.), then they should know better today, and at the very least after the scandals about the Bodyworlds exhibition. (That exhibition was not on the internet, just a regular exhibition. Then rumors started to spread that some of the bodies were from people executed in China...) While the "donors" of the bodies in Bodyworlds were argued not to have signed any consent whatsoever (a claim that could never be proved... nor disproved), the difference between no consent and a consent that doesn't cover what is being done seems not that large to me. And in both cases there is an odd flair of "but hey, we're doing it for some greater good!" Yeah, sure. As much as I've enjoyed the Bodyworlds exhibition (I'd go again tomorrow, well, I'd check first if this consent issue is really resolved, but you get the idea...), there is no reason whatsoever to pursue "worthy causes" in immoral ways. And I would've thought humanity has learned that at some point. So even if those making money out of it will probably never understand, I would have thought the public would be a bit more critical... --Ibn Battuta 09:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If you agree to hand your body over to science - but don't specify in more detail what you do and do not want done with it - then you get what you specified. Are we arguing that educating people as to the makeup of the human body is somehow not a scientific use? I'd have to differ on that one. The Visible Human project most certainly is used for good science - it's an invaluable anatomical resource. I'll agree that having your body frozen and sliced into half-millimeter thick slices lacks a certain dignity - but if you don't specify the precise manner of disposal of your remains then I don't think there are grounds for complaint. The visible human project is truly amazing - I strongly recommend everyone to go and find one of the available online viewers for the project and to take a look. SteveBaker 14:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, I don't agree. There is, as with any other contract, a limit as to how one side to the contract may interpret it (supposedly the English term is "receiver's viewpoint", but I'm no pro). At the time of the contract, there was no hint of what they would be doing with his body. Jernigan could not have reasonably have guessed that someone was just developping this new technology/project and that this body would be used for it. Like it or not, that is a problem even on legal grounds, let alone moral grounds.
And it is for this very reason that I don't feel compelled whatsoever to visit their websites. It makes me sick that they can abuse someone's body and nobody intervenes because one of the dead was supposedly not backed up by his family, in the other case it was the husband having all this started. (In the second case, I'm not sure what the view of the woman was; the consent, however, seems to have originated from the husband. Great.) In a country where the last crap is taken to court, I would have expected something else.
Science is nice and wonderful (see above for my opinion about Bodyworlds). But just as there are (and should be) concerns about using the research that the Nazis did with non-consenting victims, there should also be a limit as to what someone can do to make money in "science" and get away with in this case. BTW, curiously enough, the article says that a renowned Austrian university doesn't regard the project too highly. Makes me wonder, even if all the moral issues were not at stake. But they are. --Ibn Battuta 22:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Queen's handbag

Queen Elizabeth II is in the States for a couple days and the news services have bunches of stories about it as well as pictures, naturally. In these pictures, she's shown carrying a purse. So, that got me wondering... What does a Queen carry in her purse? I'm guessing it's not keys to the Rolls, pepper spray in case of muggers, and her credit cards. She has plenty of attendants and such, so why would she need to carry anything? Is this just a matter of style or what a "proper lady" should have according to members of her generation?

And in case the Queen edits the Wikipedia and answers questions on the ref. desk in her down time... (You never know...) Hey Queen Elizabeth! I hope you have a good time here and get a chance to sample the local cuisine! Dismas|(talk) 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

She will probably have some British food with her in tupperware boxes, Dismas, but that might only make sense to readers of Britain's tabloids! I vaguely remember reading or hearing something about the contents of her handbag (must have been a quiet day for real news stories) and I think it said that she really does carry stuff in there; the usual mundane things like lipstick, tissues, and so on. Adrian M. H. 21:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Really! Thanks for the info. I was fairly certain I wasn't the only one who ever wondered that. Oh and about the tupperware boxes, that's what I carry my lunch in when I go to work so I just took it humorously even though I don't read British tabloids. Dismas|(talk) 21:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The football, perhaps? Who knows what those Brits have up their finely tailored sleeves! -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This might explain why it's specific to those who read the tabloids. It also helps if you have some knowledge of the class status of a)the queen b)tupperware. 217.43.138.193 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
According to unofficial site, "The Queen carries a comb, a handkerchief, a small gold compact, and a tube of lipstick on her handbag. Most people think that the Queen never carries money. This is not true... The Queen does carry money on Sunday's - a folded note of unknown denomination, which she discretely places in the collection plate when she goes to church." -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Best belly laugh I've had in months - the Queen answering questions on the Ref desk in her spare time - what a hoot! (No disrespect, Ma'am, if you're reading this; anyone is welcome, and I for one would love to know your personal views on a wide range of topics.) JackofOz 03:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What, no biscuits for the corgis? Anchoress 04:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't this answered by the Straight Dope once upon a time? —Tamfang 07:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes it was.-Czmtzc 14:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paralyzed

Is it possible to get paralyzed from getting shot by a spud gun with something like the size of a potato? --22:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Without any medical knowledge I would suspect that it is 'possible' that pretty much any object hitting you could cause paralysis, but that such things are more freak-accidents rather than run-of-the-mill. ny156uk 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If you are talking about the pneumatic cannons rather than the handheld type, the answer is yes. An object the size and mass of a potato launched at a velocity sufficient to propel said potato 100 or 200 yards could easily kill you or paralyze you if it hit your head, neck or spinal column. I don't have the physics to calculate the force that would be generated, but it would be considerable.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 03:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)