Miscellaneous desk
< September 26	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 28 >

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.

September 27

U.S. Census deffinition of a city

Im trying to find the deffinition of a city according to the U.S. Census bureau. I've looked on their website and tryed googling it, but havnt had any luck. --ChesterMarcol 00:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the US Census bureau use its own blanket definitions for any purpose? My understanding of it was that the legal designation of "city", "town", "village", whatever, was handled at the state level, not the federal level, and that they are not mutually compatible categories. Most things I have seen by the census contain self-defining tites like "Population Estimates for Cities with Populations of 100,000 and Greater", where the definition of "city" is not important. --24.147.86.187 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Census Bureau does define "place". See http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/glossry2.pdf —Nricardo 01:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks, I guess that will have to work.--ChesterMarcol 01:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "city" really has nothing to do with population. Whether a place is a "city" or a "borough" or a "town" or what-have-you is mostly determined by the type of government it has. And to complicate matters, those definitions differ from state to state. — Michael J 02:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MURDER!! or something like that...

sorry, just had to get you're attention (I know the rules about no yelling) ^_^ There's this book (I THOUGHT it was called son of a mobster or something like that, but I doubt it.) The main person is a boy whose father is in the mob (or was it a girl whose father was in a mob? can't remember), but he/she fell in love with someone whose father was in the police or something like that. They couldn't be together until the end, but they always tried to be with eachother during the whole of the book- they snuck around their parents, I think. Any ideas what it could be? I've looked around forever, but I can't find it. I read it a couple of years ago. Thanks in advance! --PolarWolf ( sign ) 03:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Son of the Mob" by Gordon Korman? "Romance between daughter of FBI & son of Mafia" [1] Lazyquasar 04:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC) p.s. If that is correct it should be worth at least an attaboy if not a google barnstar. 8)[reply]

Okay, Thanks! Thats the right book. I'd give you a google barnstar if I knew how, but this is all I can give you- Attaboy! ^_^ --PolarWolf ( sign ) 23:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIR

What is the term IRR means in mortgage loan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gireesh.puthumana (talk • contribs) 10:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In finance it means internal rate of return. Lanfear's Bane 10:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Virgin Mary

What is the ritual and steps for burying a statue of Mary in front yard to help sell your house? Is this a widely held belief? Does the church approve of this? Where did this belief evolve from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reno117 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno but it seems to involve locating her in a partially-buried old-and-now-unneeded clawfoot bathtub for maximum effect; perhaps that's to keep God's holy rain from falling on her holy head and wetting her holy brown painted-on hair? More seriously, I've never heard of this having anything to do with real estate transactions, but adoration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a common practice among Roman Catholics and I assume that some carry this as far as building shrines (of varying degrees of elaborateness) in or outside their homes. One person in my extended neighborhood has built a small mountain in their backyard and the entire thing is decorated as just such a shrine, with shiny things and candles, and it's all crowned by a BVM-in-a-bathtub.

Atlant 11:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this. As for the ritual, I suggest you ask your local priest to make sure you get it right. The church tends to encourage any rituals that honour the BVM; whether burying her in your front yard is a respectful thing to do is another matter. I think we can safely say that it is not a widely held belief. As for where the belief comes from, it would seem that we are in the realms of superstition, and that investment in a few pots of paint would probably be more effective in making your property more saleable. At least, that's what they tell us on all those TV programmes.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joseph, not Mary. Snopes has a good write-up. --LarryMac | Talk 13:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sacramento Bee did an article on this just a week or so ago, but I don't have the paper and I can't find it on their website, but it was definitely a statue of the Virgin Mary, and it has something to do with whether you bury her feet up or feet down. Unfortunately, I didn't pay attention to the article, and sorry I can't find it. Corvus cornix 18:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of news reports about buring St. Joseph statues -- [2], [3]. Corvus cornix 18:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is St. Joseph in the Sac Bee story as well. The story just mentions the BVM because he was her husband. Anxious sellers put faith in icons by Jim Wasserman. Published September 19, 2007. Crypticfirefly 18:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I didn't say "buried". She's a statue and she's in the normal standing-erect position. The bathtub is positioned vertically to create a sort of niche or grotto around her. I don't see an obvious picture in Commons, but this sort of thing is very common in Catholic areas of New England. Now, in retrospect, I guess the original questioner was asking about a different myth.

Atlant 19:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good God! We do have an article on everything: Bathtub madonna. (It came up as the first link when I did a Google Image search for blessed virgin mary statue tub yard.) —Nricardo 06:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers and ref macro

How can I use the <ref> macro to make several different references to different sources, without having to repeat the full citation for each reference?

Jpalme 11:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are talking about the info you can see on WP:FOOTNOTES, but the question didn't come out right. If the sources are different you will need to make a full citation for each, it's only when they are partly the same that you can use part of an earlier citation. Use {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} to cite the main work in the reference sections and use the ref-tags to cite specific editions/pages referring back to the book by naming just the author. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jpalme, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once. This precisely addresses the scenario you seem to be asking about, AFAICT. dr.ef.tymac 22:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold rush

Clicking the above edit link will send you to a subpage of my userspace, so I don't lose this thing in the archives.

I remember editing an article about some American creek that has a significant connection to one of the gold rushes; if I remember it was the place where a find was made that intiated one. Unfortunately, the toolserver is down and because I did only a minor edit, I don't think I recorded it on my userpage. Can anyone help me track down the article I'm looking for? In case someone can do a query on my edits, I'm pretty sure the title of the page includes the word "Creek" - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only mainspace edits I can find by you to articles including the word "creek" in the title are to Bull Creek (a dab page), and Treaty of Buffalo Creek (a treaty with the Native Americans). DuncanHill 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of Sutter Creek, California, which was founded by the owner of Sutter's Mill, where the California Gold Rush started. --LarryMac | Talk 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- A huge western migration occurred in America with the discovery of gold by James Marshall at Sutter's Mill on the American River, on January 24, 1848. Due to the length of time for communication to travel across country, time to travel across country or around South America (which took months or near a year) to the West Coast of California, the "Gold Rush" occurred mainly in 1849, thus the term, "49ers", or "forty-niners".

I don't think there's any article for "creek" which initiated a gold rush. I am aware that gold was actually discovered earlier than Marshall's find in southern California, I believe near Los Angeles. Little happened with people going there to find gold.

Try a search for California gold rush, forty-niners, California Mother Lode, State of California website, James Marshall, and Coloma State Park (I think) where the original Sutter's Mill was.

By the way, it's said that only about an estimated 20% has been found in the "Mother Lode" area of Califoria. Good luck....very interesting history to be learned regarding many aspects of the gold rush, migration, and peoples experiences.

There's also Rock Creek Gold Rush, Gold Creek (Montana), Cripple Creek, Colorado, the Klondike Gold Rush which started in rabbit creek. This google search is your friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the effort guys... Not sure if it's in there, but I will definitely go through the lot. Good thing I have a script that highlights my name in edit histories. Would it help if I said I found info about the place in the first book of an print version of EB? - Mgm|^(talk) 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life

Do any ov you people who use this site n ansa questions have anyfing else 2 do?? or are u all locked away in ur lil room w8in 4 ya mumy 2 bring u milk n cookies?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't speak for other people, but I do lots of other things. Answering questions is a lot more useful to people than vandalism.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would welcome milk & cookies. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah! You didn't know about the Ref Desk free Milk and Cookies scheme? Come on over! I think we still have a few of the oatmeal & raisin ones left.

But seriously - for me, it gives me a good mental work-out each day. To answer questions you have to wrack your brains, test your Google/Wiki search skills, read articles about things you'd never think about reading otherwise - and to a HUGE extent, we teach each other. It doesn't actually consume all that much time - and the payback is more than worth the effort. SteveBaker 14:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe people who use words like "n", "ansa", "anyfing", "2", "u", "ur", "lil", "w8in", "4" or "ya" have even less of a life than I do. Me, I lock myself in my own apartment whose rent I pay all by myself and prepare for an evening with beer, cookies and Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beer and cookies? Oh you are SICK! Please don't tell us whether you dunk them or nor...I really don't want to know that. Repeat after me: Beer & Pizza, Milk & Cookies, Vodka & Caviar, Red Wine & Stilton, Coffee & Doughnuts, Tea & Digestive biscuits, Cocoa & Hobnobs. There are no other allowed combinations - period. :-) SteveBaker 20:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that those combinations will almost invariably 'work', but for those who are willing to take risks, beer and cookies can be done! A dark chocolate chip cookie would probably work with a stout or a porter (particularly with a coffee porter). I've had some nut brown ales that have a bit of sweetness to them that would also go well with some (nut and or chocolate) cookies. See (for example) this page which describes some other beer-snack pairings. This page has some general guidelines. Bon appetit! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, original questioner, with your edit history, you might do better than to draw attention to yourself.

Atlant 19:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, you forgot Skittlebrau. Lanfear's Bane 08:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disabled and pretty much locked in my room.My friends bring me beer and food for my cats. I do this for about 1/2 hr a day then do lots of other things.I have the world at my fingertips and a lively mind.I consider that I have a great life.--hotclaws 09:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this is why its called the Miscellaneous desk..... Think outside the box 14:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could just lock myself in my room and play Team Fortress 2 all day and have my mom bring me milk and cookies. That would be amazing --⁪froth^t 04:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I lock myself in a little room with milk and cookies and answer ref desk questions to avoid my children... sometimes.SaundersW 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible please ansa!!

Is their actualy any proof off anything that happened in the bible?? how do we know who ever wrote it didnt make it up? this is a serious question so please no religious people saying that it happened because of god or anything like that, is their any factual truth?? cheers for your time x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of stuff in the Bible, so that is a huge question. You might like to start by reading our excellent article on The Bible and history. If you want to know more about specific events, feel free to ask for more details.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts are thoroughly proven, like that there was a Jewish state in roughly the same position as the current Israel. There's plenty of archaeological evidence for this. Other parts are thoroughly disproven, like that the world was created in 7 days. Then there's lot of grey area, like whether Jesus existed (I'd guess that he did) or whether the Red Sea parted (I'd say it didn't). Unfortunately, it was the tendency at the time to mix fact and fiction, making it impossible to know which parts are which. We had similar problems with the Iliad, which was assumed to be pure fiction until archaeological evidence emerged of the city of Troy having been destroyed by fire at approximately the right date. StuRat 13:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. well I wouldn't say creation has been "thoroughly disproven"- in fact I'd say it hasn't been, and physics has been rather leaning toward uncertainty on this matter. There's no reason to assume that our current laws of physics were operating in the universe's early history (possibly no laws of conservation to keep the universe from popping into existance), and such things can't just be assumed. There's currently no way to tell what the universe was like, since the uncertainty principle (not to mention quantum theory) prevents us from tracing back through history with empirical means, and per David Hume's disproof of causality we cannot begin to guess what "caused" the "effect" of our current universe. Who knows what a "formless and void" universe acts like? Why shouldnt matter just appear and disappear? Leave the metaphysics to philosophers please. --⁪froth^t 18:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that creation itself is disproven (after all, you could just claim that God created the Big Bang). I am, however, claiming that creation in 7 days (6 days, really), as laid out in the Bible, is thoroughly disproven. Even if you say that a "day" isn't necessarily a 24 hour period, you still can't use any fixed length of time, as some of the steps took billions of years and others only millions. The order of creation is also wrong. StuRat 13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY I WAS REALY REFERING TO MAINLY THE NEW TESTOMENT AND WHERE SUCH THINGS AS THE CRUCIFIXION HAD ANY TRUTH BEHIND THEM?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

then you want to read Historicity of Jesus, historical Jesus and Jesus Christ and mythology. Then you may want to go on and study Pre-Roman history of ancient Israel and Judah, Iudaea Province, Hellenistic Judaism, Origins of Christianity, Hellenistic religion and Hellenistic philosophy. This isn't a question that can be answered in a nutshell on Wikipedia Reference Desk, but if you want to learn more about it, you have come to the right place. You'll just need to take a couple of hours to dig into it. --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unusual - I'm an atheist who actually read the bible from cover to cover (the "King James" edition). I didn't believe in god(s) beforehand and I certainly don't believe in them since - I just wanted to be informed about what all of these millions of christians are going on about.

Frankly, the book is a mess - it reads like it's been written by a drunken psychopath and if you believe it, you'd have to conclude that God is a dangerous lunatic who has nasty mood swings. He alternates between extreme violence, hatred of women, extreme bias towards the Isrealites - and being "Mr Nice Guy" - there is nothing consistent anywhere. The book contradicts itself - it does a really terrible job of promoting and explaining the religion. If I didn't already know, I'd never have guessed that modern christianity is based upon its "teachings".

In reading it, it's really very evident that many generations of religious leaders have tampered with it - adding their own layers of bias - changing words and phrases here and there without looking at the whole. The writing style changes a lot - even in the middle of a story.

Some of the big facts (that certain countries existed - that the Romans invaded Isreal) are undoubtedly true. Other entire stories (genesis, Noah's ark) are really obviously false. Most stories are so full of plot holes and contradictions that they just can't be true.

My favorite (and the story that most differs from what I heard before I actually read it) is the story of the 10 commandments. Moses leaves his tribe and is heading up the mountain to talk to God and get the 10 stone tablets. He's only away on this rather important mission for a couple of days - but his people unaccountably choose this exact moment to go nuts the moment his back is turned and start worshipping pagan gods (Why? Why now of all times? Do we really believe that after all that stuff with the plagues and the parting of the red seas that they'd seriously change their religion just because the boss stepped out for a while?). So when Moses comes back he has such a hissy-fit that he manages to smash all of the tablets (yes - the tablets that GOD GAVE HIM...you really would think he'd be a bit more careful). He then exacts extreme punishments of his people - most of which break many of the 10 commandments that God himself just dictated to him just the day before! So he has to go back to God and pick up another set of commandments - only the second lot are WAY different from the first ten?!?

This is so utterly weird that it leaves one wondering whether God has memory lapses or something. It's more like an episode from a cheap sitcom than it is the foundation of the beliefs of several hundred million people!

If you are even thinking of becoming a christian - I beg you - please read the book before you make a decision! I'm amazed at the number of people who claim to believe in the christian god who haven't read the all-important book from beginning to end - it's insanity. SteveBaker 14:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the Bible does contain many different books, written by many different people, all with different views, politics, and agendas, so it would actually be amazing if it was consistent. StuRat 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox. --LarryMac | Talk 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That was a completely inappropriate use of this page. Lots of atheists read the Bible; so do lots of university professors, some of whom are very religious. Big deal. Answering the question doesn't require mud-slinging and self-promotion. --Masamage ♫ 00:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to doubt that Jesus existed and was crucified. That was a common means of execution at the time and execution was quite typical for those who were thought to be "false profits". StuRat 18:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the questions asked, no, there is no hard proof that any of the events described in the New Testament actually happened. There is no documentary evidence of the existence of Jesus from the time that he supposedly lived. There is no Roman record of his crucifixion. The only sources for the existence of Jesus are the New Testament and a few historical references written years after he is supposed to have lived. So it is possible that he was a fictional figure. That said, there is no proof that Jesus did not exist, either. So he may have walked this Earth. Marco polo 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism is good, I try to apply it myself in daily life. On the other hand, it's important to understand the implications of radical skepticism. The evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus is, as I understand it, not bad as such things are usually judged. It seems substantially better than the evidence for the existence of Edwin of Deira or Harald Fairhair, for example. Bede, hardly an unbiased source, wrote about a century after Edwin's supposed death, and an extreme skeptic would dismiss the supposed Chronicle of Ireland material without second thought. Written evidence for Harald is even further removed from his presumed floruit. Strange to say, I've never seen anyone denying the historicity of Edwin or Harald. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some identifiable history in the Gospels. The Roman occupation of Judea is well-known from other sources, as is the Roman practice of crucifixion. Josephus corroborates the existence of John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate and a number of king Herods, although his mentions of Jesus are, to say the least, suspicious - what, if anything, he originally said about him is unknown. The dating is inconsistent - Matthew places Jesus' birth in the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 BC), while Luke places it during Quirinius' governorship of Syria, which began in AD 6 - and the stories of Jesus' early life in these two gospels are contradictory. The Gospels certainly aren't reliable historical documents.

As a rejoinder to SteveBaker, I'm also an atheist, and I'd have to say the Old Testament is a lot more fun if you don't believe in it. --Nicknack009 12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use the Bible as a historical document for academic purposes, since it's not very supported by other verifiable documents, but I'm not so skeptical about the religion. God seems to act inconsistently between the Testaments, but he's God and he can do what he wants I suppose. Christianity's stories are no more bizarre than almost all other religions.. what's important though are the values and teachings of a religion. Jesus's teachings are widely regarded as the foundation for western morality --⁪froth^t 18:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question (microwaved chocolate and the speed of light)

Is it possible to measure the speed of light useing a bar of chocolate IN a microwave?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly; see our article on the speed of light. Naturally, other instrumentation is required as well. — Lomn 13:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also an experiment detailed here involving chocolate chips. — Lomn 13:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty clever. --24.147.86.187 14:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Put the microwave in orbit around Jupiter and time its occultations (see Ole Rømer). Eat the chocolate. Gandalf61 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the microwave, take the bar of chocolate to a physicist and say "I'll give you this bar of chocolate if you'll tell me the speed of light". :-) SteveBaker 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question is answered in the London TIMES part 2 today--88.109.183.227 20:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush in underwear

Recently there was a story about regional newspaper in Russia, which experienced pressure from regional authorities after publishing collage of Putin wearing a Nazi suit [4]. Obviously, such setback on speech freedom is impossible in the United States. Could you, please, recall any publication in an U.S. newspaper, painting G.W. Bush in a Nazi suit, or silk underwear for a change? It's no damned joke, I really need it. Thank you in advance, ellol 15:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a recent magazine cover of Bush dressed as Saddam Hussein. As for Bush as a Nazi, you could probably find some rather unflattering drawings of him in Rolling Stone, which is one of the few "mainstream" publications that doesn't shy away at all from drawing rather offensive images of the president and members of Congress... --24.147.86.187 16:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note, though, that "such a setback on speech freedom is impossible in the United States" is not completely true. I am not sure what you are defining as "pressure" here, but it is quite common in the U.S. for "regional authorities" to go apeshit whenever a publication does something that could be constrained as highly offensive, resulting in "pressure" being put to fire whomever was in charge, to withdraw advertising revenue, to issue public apologies, impromptu death threats, etc. While I would not equate such things immediately with Putin's suppression of free speech in Russia, I would point out that the U.S. is not a place where free speech is respected in a de facto way as much as it is respected in a strictly-legal way. We don't have a sedition act anymore but there are many ways to chill free speech other than throwing people into a gulag system.) --24.147.86.187 16:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But, well, the first your link leads to a Canadian maganize. I think it doesn't count, as it's easy to blame leader of a foreign state, especially not the top world's popular one.

There's not exactly Gulag, just the newspaper will be closed if it publishes anything of that kind once more. What's bad, that goes under federal anti-extremism legislature. What's good is the story was viewed in a federal newspaper "Kommersant", and those journalists hadn't yet given up... ellol 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly what you're looking for, but Prince Harry caused a bit of a furore by wearing a swastika armband to a fancy dress party. The photo was originally published by The Sun, I think. A story on his apology is here, and there's loads more about it on the BBC News site. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 16:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you settle for a picture of Jenna Bush exposing hers? (It's pretty widely available via Google.) They're a classy bunch, that gang from Crawford!

Atlant 19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to find Bush as Hitler in any reputable publication. Hitler stands for anti-Semitism in the USA, not Fascism. The symbol for megalomania is Napoleon. I looked through The Cartoonist Group up to page 67, and I found you a bunch of other cartoons of Bush in undignified garb or guise, but nothing as extreme as I think you want. Judge for yourself:

jester superhero drum major conquistador cowboy devil on shoulder of Hugo Chavez child wearing mouse ears king grease monkey octopus on Merkel dog ostrich superhero drum major plumber cowboy gauntlets dog Roman emperor --Milkbreath 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful. Both Prince Harry and Putin could dress as Nazis without being arrested (as they might be, for example, in Germany where public display of Nazi swastika's and such is illegal). This indicates that at least that much freedom of speech is present in both Russia and the UK. Remember - just because you have freedom to do something doesn't make you immune to criticism for doing it! For sure, if someone in a position of power in the USA went out in public dressed as a Nazi, they would get just as much criticism from the media as the others. In the case of Harry - I think that all the hoopla in the press was totally unjustified. He was going to a fancy dress party - people dress as all sorts of things at those events - the devil is pretty popular, so are Roman emperors, hookers...all are huge favorites - in no case is the person wearing the costume in espousing a position in favor of the character they are dressed as! I have no clue what Putin was up to - but I bet it was just as innocent. SteveBaker 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush, including, for instance, Doonesbury's Imperial Bush. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you all. All published links were republished in a Russian political blog with regard to the story in above (and thanks to you :-) ). ellol 05:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a little late, but I might chip in with how one Mr Alexander Downer allowing himself to be photographed wearing fishnet stockings. Caused a bit of damage to his reputation. Pics are probably all over the Internet. --203.208.110.207 09:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question put me in mind of this episode: Richard Hongisto#Return to San Francisco. —Tamfang 05:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walking to work

What state in the United States has the most people walking to work? I need this information for a health class and I cannot locate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.235.49 (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the table on page 9 of this Census document, New York had the greatest number of people walking to work as of the 2000 Census. Marco polo 19:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In percentage terms, the District of Columbia had the largest percentage of people walking to work, but it is not technically a state. Surprisingly, Alaska is the state with the largest percentage of people walking to work. Marco polo 19:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because their cars won't start. :-) SteveBaker 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny but I'd guess that it's got a lot to do with population densities withing cities and towns. Dismas|^(talk) 15:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1956 Ford F100 pickup truck "Custom Cab"

Can someone help me to find out what differences there were between a "regular" Ford pickup truck and a "Custom Cab" pickup truck? I've been unable to find anything at this point. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.189.73 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cahula (?) dog

On Animal Planet, last night, a show made mention of a breed of dog which I think they called a Cahoola or Cahula dog or hound, but I can't find anything with google with those spellings. Can anybody point me to a correct spelling? Corvus cornix 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catahoula Leopard Dog? We have a List of Dog Breeds. --LarryMac | Talk 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that's probably it. Thanks. Corvus cornix 19:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you are in university you should probably not cite Wikipedia or any other "tertiary" source (Britanica, other encyclopedias, etc.) Instead, (at least for Wikipedia) look at the references, read them, and cite them instead. Sadly, some instructors will take off points if you mention Wikipedia at all, even if you cite the sources you found via Wikipedia. Discuss ths with your instructor prior to submiting your paper. -Arch dude 00:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

how do i site wikipedia?76.185.166.209 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)sara[reply]

On normal article pages, you'll see a link at the bottom of the menu on the left of the screen "Cite this article" - click on that and you should have everything you need. SteveBaker 23:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Luis valley

I have a question. Do youo guys have any articles on compeition in the San Luis Valley? like, anlimal competition or plant compitition? just asking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.25.114 (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have abn article on the valley: San Luis Valley but not that level of detail. Rmhermen 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]