Language desk
< June 13	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language 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.

June 14

"Big red box"?

Hi, ignorant American here. I was following the progress of the run-up to the General Election in Australia and the hot "incident" right now seems to be menugate. What is the "big red box" in reference to? I assume it's some political symbolism that's lost across the (other) pond. Thanks. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing political, just misogynistic. A woman's "box" is her vagina. Ms Gillard has red hair. Rojomoke (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of political discourse in Australia right now is not something we Australians are all proud of. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mistake this crap for your actual political discourse. The media tends to focus on rubbish like this, and the Howard Sattler sacking. I'm not saying it was wrong to take a stand against the misogyny or the homophobia inherent in those people's actions, but they're very minor matters in the grand scheme of things. It seems that, to get any sort of attention, you have to do the wrong thing. Those of us who spend our lives doing right things are nobodies as far as the media is concerned. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it would appear. In the UK the Chancellor of the Exchequer waves his Red Box at the crowds every year and nobody turns a hair. I'll be interested to see the headlines should we ever have a female Chancellor. Was the original intention of the newspaper article perhaps a pun on "box" (the female pudenda) and Red box? If so, it's lost travelling over more than one ocean.Tonywalton ^Talk 23:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a newspaper headline. It featured in a menu used at a fundraising function for the Liberal Party of Australia (the Opposition). There are various versions of how much the local Liberal candidate and host of the function, Mal Brough, knew of the menu, and when he knew of it. One version has it that it was created by the chef as a private joke and never even made it out of the kitchen. Other versions say very different things. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I now see what it was about. I still wonder if it was intended as a seriously rubbish reference to ministerial paperwork. Poor taste, whichever way one looks at it. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us are aware of red boxes from programs like Yes Minister etc, but that tradition never made it here. The allusion was entirely biological in its intent. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it's seriously rubbish. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is failing to understand the full depth of the joke (it works on so many levels). It is indeed a reference to ministerial boxes: the joke was used to more satirical effect by Julian Clary about Norman Lamont a few years back (before anyone asks, the satire was about the homophobia of Lamont's party). Henry ^Flower 05:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It was indeed a reference to ministerial boxes" - you say this with such conviction. How do you know this was in the author's mind? Ministerial red boxes mean nothing to most Australians, so I'm inclined to believe this is coincidence. You may be right. But I guess we'll never really know. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old joke, of specific application to politicians. Henry ^Flower 09:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Box", in the sense that Rojomoke gives, would be understood by some in the UK, although it's not really mainstream slang. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That usage would be considered essentially obsolete in America. Don't know about other countries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's alive and well in Australia, where this issue is located, whereas ministerial red boxes are unknown here. I had a search around for any commentary on the matter that made mention of how "big red box" was an allusion to ministerial red boxes, but I found nothing. Here are two British sites that fail to mention it: [1], [2]. All the commentary I've seen is on the vulgarity, the sexism and the offensive references to body parts, one in particular. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Regional usages. Like the "fanny" reference a few days ago, which is G-rated in America and X-rated in some other parts of the English speaking world. And I recall there was some overseas snickering in the early 1970s about the phrase "Watergate buggers" which was often appearing in American newspapers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. heard the term gang bangers in an American movie last night, and wondered what having consensual sex with several individuals at the same time had to do with their alleged crime. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of a play on words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the contemporary American version. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a play on words? Do those you use it to describe a member of a gang really think of the multiple sex partners version when they say it? It didn't seem that way when I heard it used. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a play on words in the same way "Deep Throat" was. Even if you don't know about the X-rated reference, it still works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I didn't understand, though, was why the quail was described as being in a big red box - was it served in a box? - it seems doubly gratuitous.Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it literally. It was just a way of introducing an offensive remark under the ostensible guise of a menu description of a dish. The point was to get "big red box" in there somewhere. Anywhere would do. People would make the desired connection and get the double meaning. The author was relying on what Ronnie Barker said: "The marvellous thing about a joke with a double meaning is that it can only mean one thing". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the restaurant's version of the story anyway, it wasn't actually used, just an (offensive) in-joke, so there was no actual box and probably no actual quail. For what it's worth, I thought "big red box" referred to (1) the red box used by KFC and (2) Gillard's Communist past and nominal Socialist Left affiliation today. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians don't tell the truth. This restaurateur is a strong supporter of the politicians involved. (Donor to the party involved, I believe.) I see no reason to believe him either. I shall continue to observe, and draw my own conclusions. HiLo48 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they do tell the truth (about themselves, anyway) if they think no one's recording it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brennero

How do Italians pronounce "Brennero", the Italian name of Brenner, South Tyrol? Is the stress on the first syllable or the second one? darkweasel94 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The stress is on the first syllable. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. darkweasel94 (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]