Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 December 30

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.

December 30

need help locating a name of "syndrome"

This question was already asked at the science desk. As there, it has been removed because Wikipedia does not provide medical advice. --Jayron32 00:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality & Christianity

After reading the article on this topic, I'm at a loss at understanding exactly what cause there is for Christians to be against homosexuality. What guidelines exist that allow for, say, the violations of woolsey-linsey (Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 22:11), shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12) and the mixing of milk and meat (Exodus 23:19, 34:26 + Deuteronomy 14:21) to be suspended, yet the ban on homosexuality to be maintained? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, not all Christians are particularly opposed to homosexuality (count me as one who is not). For those that are, there are New Testament passages that are used to justify it; Hebrews 13:4 is one, 1 Corinthians 7 is another, though the ringer is 1 Corinthians 6:9. For me, I tend to live by the words of Jesus at Matthew 22:36-40 and at Luke 6:37-38, which governs how I treat all other people. --Jayron32 00:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite the question the OP asked, Jayron32. (Though if I didn't know DRosenbach's track record as well as I do, I might suspect he was engaged in a bit of mischievous holiday trolling.) He wasn't asking which parts of the Bible specifically forbade homosexuality (however much or little interpretation or reinterpretation or translation might be required to reach that conclusion)—he was asking why so many of the Bible's other proscriptions against certain behaviors could be so regularly and casually flouted, seemingly without any hint of concern or censure by Christian clergy. In other words, why do so many Christian denominations stick so firmly to their guns on homosexuality, while universally neglecting other rules that seem to get a similar amount of attention in their scripture? (Regretfully, what we're going to get is a bunch of religion bashing – however well-justified – like Baseball Bugs has just offered below, without following up with any actual references like we're supposed to be providing here.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

While I wouldn't leap to disagree with the proposition that Bugs sometimes responds inappropriately, TOAT, I feel moved to say that his comments below, though admittedly not referenced, do not seem to me to be "religion bashing." Rather they make the entirely valid point that some religious activists interpret their texts in a way favourable towards their own prejudices, an observation I would have thought uncontroversial and apposite. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.116 (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, TOAT, and yes, you've refined my question quite nicely. I suppose, with all I see above and below, that there is no easy answer to this question of mine. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If the question is simply "Why do Christians not follow Old Testament commandments", the answers can be found in several places in the New Testament. That's actually a central theme of Christianity, which is the freedom from the letter of the laws of the Old Testament; the death of Jesus produces a "new covenant", whereby the Christian seeks to keep the spirit of God's Law (see Matthew 22:36-40 cited above) while being freed from the requirement to keep the various commandments of the old testament. Especially germain as to why Christians are not bound to keep the specific laws and sacrifices and whatnot of Mosaic law is Romans Chapters 2-7. The relationship between a Christian and Mosaic law is complex; the Christian is freed from the letter of the Mosaic law by keeping the spirit of the Mosaic law, to whit "Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." Romans 3:27-31 and later "So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Romans 7:4-6. Christians are released from the pattern of listed violations and sacrifices of God's law in the Old Testament because the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus on the cross acts to undo all of those sins; and all sins not listed in the law as well. In other words, the Christian keeps God's law because of faith in Jesus, and the Christian is thus exempt from the requirements of the old Mosaic law. That answers the other part of DRosenbach's question. --Jayron32 01:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the question (asked from a Jewish perspective) is why conservative Christians get so hung up about homosexuality if they don't think the laws of Moses, with its prohibition on sex between men, applies to them? A similar question is why many Christians get all worked up about the Ten Commandments (demanding that they be displayed at courthouses, etc.) if, again, they don't follow the laws of Moses. From a Jewish religious perspective, the Ten Commandments are no more or less important than the law against getting a tattoo (Lev. 19:28). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition to what Jayron says, there is also the point that two of the laws you bring up are dietary restrictions. There is a specific textual basis for the claim that all dietary restrictions were abolished by Jesus — see Mark 7:19. Now, to me, it kind of seemed like the gospel writer had missed the point of what Jesus said, but the writer did say it, and if you take the view that the writers were all inspired then you can take that as authoritative. (Then you have to figure out what to do with the passage in Acts that bans eating blood and food offered to idols; I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Had I known more about Christianity than I do, I would have chosen other negative OT precepts -- I merely chose them as they were at the top of my head. Feel free to exchange them for the prohibitions of shaving the corners of one's beard with a straight razor (Leviticus 19:27) and muzzling one's ox while plowing (Deuteronomy 25:4). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul specifically addresses that, in passages I note below. Read Romans 14. --Jayron32 05:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be fair, that was answered above, per 1 Corinthians 6:9. At least, that passage would provide justification for people who wish to cherry pick quotes from the New Testament while missing the whole point of it. The Christians aren't necessarily cherry picking Mosaic commandments, they are cherry picking New Testament statements. --Jayron32 03:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's true. The Ten Commandments are special, and basic. Jesus was asked which is the greatest Commandment, and He said the greatest Commandment was to love God; and the second was to love thy neighbor as thyself. It can easily be seen that violating any one of the specific Ten Commandments also violates one or both of those greatest (or "generic", if you will) Commandments. As to why right-wingers of various faiths (not just Christianity) are so adamantly opposed to same-sex, there are endless discussions about it, everywhere. But it boils down to the idea that sexual relations have to do with being fruitful and multiplying. By definition, same-sex can't do that. It's strictly "recreational". Hence it's "sinful". If someone really doesn't get it, and wants references for the real reasons, spend a few hours with google. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

To comment on Bugs's point specifically, as well as any number of points generally, it starts to get really hard to provide references which could in an unqualified way speak for all Christians. To be sure, there are many people who call themselves Christians who do feel justified in persecuting homosexuals (not this person who calls himself a Christian, but those people do exist), and as such, it is at least worthwhile to look at the textual clues, however misread someone like me feels they may be. Such divisions have existed within Christianity since the very first century, see Paul's pronouncements at Romans chapter 14. The entire discussion there is that Christians are going to disagree over what Paul calls "Disputable matters", and how Christians are supposed to deal with such disagreements. One passage which is quite useful to this discussion, Romans 14:22 "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves." --Jayron32 03:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone forgot to tell these supposed Baptists that God loves everyone

The Bible, the Quran, et al., are often used by individuals to justify/reinforce their own prejudices about any number of things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Amen to that. Some Christians have the unfortunate tendancy to use quotes from the Bible in this manner while openly ignoring the central message of Jesus, which was that maybe we should all love one another and treat people with respect even if we do not agree with them. At no time did Jesus suggest that people should be forced to do things the Christian way, the whole point is that you are supposed to choose to follow it. How many people fail to grasp this fairly simple point is simply the sad fact of organized mass religions, and is certainly not unique to Christianity. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There are Christians who observe the dietary laws set out in the Old Testament to some extent, for example the Seventh-Day Adventists. 92.80.51.98 (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As yet another Christian who, like Jayron, doesn't hold prejudices against homosexuals, I may not be ideal for answering your question, DRosenbach, but I think a portion of your answer is present (though hard to suss out) in our article Christian views on the old covenant. Basically, a wide swath of conservative Christians believe that there are meaningful distinctions between the Old Testament's "moral laws" and its "ritual/ceremonial laws". Other terminology is sometimes used, but the two categories are basically always the same. This is designed to address the statement Mwalcoff made above -- essentially, these Christians argue that the Ten Commandments are "moral laws" designed to be obeyed by everybody everywhere everywhen, but the prohibition on (for example) tattoos is a "ritual law" that God only intended for the Jewish people to observe in the time before the "new covenant" was made via the incarnation of Jesus. Peter's vision in Acts 10, whereby God releases him and other Christians from following the kosher dietary laws (this is, of course, only one interpretation of Acts 10, though I think it's fair to say it's a very popular interpretation among Christians), is usually used as evidence that God considers some of the Mosaic laws to be superseded by the Christian covenant. Some of Jesus' comments to the Pharisees and other religious leaders I think are usually taken in the same vein (releasing his disciples from observing certain Sabbath rituals, etc.). I personally think this approach is a dicey one--it still leaves us uncertain as to why the prohibitions against homosexuals from Leviticus are classified as "moral" and not "ritual" (though I think the New Testament passages mentioned above are usually seen as evidence in favor of a "moral" classification). And as Mwalcoff and others have noted, this distinction about Mosaic laws is not something acknowledged by Jewish scholars of the law (not in my experience, at least). But if you're wondering why someone can ignore the wool/linen law but accept the anti-gay law, I think the answer for most American conservative Christians, at least, can be boiled down to "wool/linen stuff is a ritual law that Christians are set free from, but the anti-gay law is a moral guide for all people everywhere". Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

tennis match catfights and more petticoat catfights of the 1950s

I would like to know 'why "catfight 20" that shwoed ladies fighting and pulling hair in skirts and petticoats was removed from dailymotion and cna it be out back on? When can you show a tennis catfight with two woemn dressed in tennis outfits pulling hair and slugging it out after a match and have two teams of yound ladies fighting and rolling on the floor as bank tellers wearing skirts and slips and heels,pulling hair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.244.234 (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.8 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Jayron32 03:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You will have to ask Dailymotion about the specific video in question. However, it was probably found to breach the company's prohibited content guidelines or terms of use. Astronaut (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As for where can you finds similar material, I imagine searching for "catfight" would bring up many sites that will cater for that particular fetish. Astronaut (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Teenage object blindness or normal behavoir?

Is it usual for otherwise normal teenagers to be unaware of things happening around them? For example, my teenaged neice accidentally dragged a large handbag off a 4ft high shelf while getting someting else lying on top of the bag. The bag fell with a noticable thud, hitting the floor close to her feet. I suggested she pick it up (because in my experience she would have just walk away and left it for someone else to pick up), but she just stared at the ground and said "What?" After several long seconds of staring, she picked up the bag and said "You mean this? That could have been there before." It wasn't that she had accidentally dragged the bag off the shelf that surprised me, but that she didn't seem to even notice doing it or that it nearly hit her feet. I have seen similar things happen many times before over the years, but now she is pretty much an adult and is definitely old enough to be responsible for her actions. I suspect the explanation might just be 'being a teenager', but do other people experience similar things? Astronaut (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know no one can diagnose your daughter here, but to answer your question, this definitely does not appear to be an age-related thing. You said yourself she did the same things earlier in her life. Again, without speculating on what might be "wrong" with your daughter, remember that the human brain is a very strange thing and lots of people have different mental quirks. I've been known to walk to a room only to forget what I was planning to do there when I got there. If you're concerned about it, you can talk to a doctor. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I call that disease "obliviousness". It's widespread among the human populace in all ages. Even I suffer from it from time to time. 0:) The question would be whether it's severe enough to be a "disability", i.e. to significantly interfer with functioning in the world. If that's a big 10-4, then take Mwalcoff's advice and call a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Forgive this old timer for rambling on, but kids today always seem distracted and oblivious to me. They pay attention to text messages instead of the real world and don't seem to recognize the distinction between entertainment and reality. Back in my day we had a thing called "go outside and play" that we didn't really need to be encouraged to do most of the time because it was fun. As a matter of fact, I spent most of today inside on the interweb, and I intend to make up for it by going snowshoeing tommorow. Even though kids are on Christmas break still, I doubt I will see any of them on the trail. Ok, the old man will shut up now. Return to your text messages and bluetooth borg implants. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a problem snipers sometimes get called "tunnel vision" (not to be confused with the visual problem), where they are so focused on their target they lose sight of everything else, sometimes to a shocking degree. An enemy soldier could walk right up and shoot them, for example. This sounds similar. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Or more precisely Target fixation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd wager it's deliberate. I have a boatload of siblings (a small boat, but still :P), and every once in a while one of them (usually one of my sisters) will do this. By turning the situation humorous you can usually get them to admit that they did notice it, they just chose to pretend it didn't happen to avoid the responsibility. Supposedly because they're too busy worrying about something else more "important".-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing how old the OP is. Something I noticed over the years, is that amongst friends that married both early and started a family early (in line with human evolution) they never felt nonplussed by the behaviour of their children. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it was because they where both there in that place only yesterday – an thus they took interest in seeing their children in the same place, that seemly, only just yesterday they found themselves. It was like the experience gave 'themselves' the second opportunity to 'replay' their own past and to explore different options which first time around they had not considered or known about. Those, on the other hand, that had delayed starting a family by just seven years. Appeared to have lost the instant gut memory of how it 'felt' when they were that age. Instead they just pigeon holed it – without being aware anymore of the context in which actions of youth happen. Perhaps, as someone grows older, there are so many life experiences that they can draw upon, and due to that, their ability to make that 'instant' connection with youth fades and they try to work things out with their brains instead.. The OP may be asking because he has petrified into just an' other old fossil ;-) --Aspro (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Shooting at playing cards

In the 19th century it was apparently common practice to use playing cards for shooting practice. "As Willich was a crack shot who could hit the ace of hearts at twenty paces...[1] "Even if one is protected by a pistol, and the proud consciousness of being able to hit the ace of hearts at fifteen paces..." [2] "I used to hit the ace of diamonds at twelve paces, nine shots out of ten..." [3] There's one thing that I can't seem to find by googling: does this refer to hitting the card itself, or the suit symbol in the center of the card? --Itinerant1 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how good of a shot the shooter was. I've seen marksmen who could reliably hit a playing card edgewise from some distance. Annie Oakley was noted for that trick some 130 years ago. It's a very skilled, but standard element of Exhibition shooting. --Jayron32 03:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

With a modern handgun and ammunition, yes. But I'm not sure if it was possible to achieve that kind of accuracy with a 19th century smoothbore front-loader pistol that used lead balls as projectiles. --Itinerant1 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Annie Oakley used a .22 Long Rifle. It was rifled (obviously), but I don't know how "modern" you would define it. Smoothbore firearms, aside from shotguns and things like that, were pretty much replaced by rifled barrels by the end of the U.S. Civil War, and certainly well obsolete by the 1880s. Firearms changed alot during the 19th century. --Jayron32 04:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. She would also use factory-made cartridges and her gun had a factory-made, precision drilled barrel. I'm interested in handmade pistols in use during American Revolutionary War. And I'm also wondering if those quotes refer to shooting a stationary card or a card that is thrown in the air. --Itinerant1 (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that changes things. You said 19th century. The American Revolutionary War happened during the 18th century. Had you said that, it would have changed the answers. --Jayron32 04:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant early 19th century, before the Industrial Revolution (the technology should've been roughly in the same place in 1780 and in 1840), but, just to be perfectly clear, I'm asking about late 18th century now.--Itinerant1 (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

And, on top of that, all these quotes refer to distances measured in paces. What exactly is "a pace"? I was sure that one pace is the same as one step (somewhere between 2 and 3 feet), but I just saw one discussion where it was claimed that a pace was really two steps, or 5 feet.--Itinerant1 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A pace is usually standardized as two steps, approx. 5-6 feet. See Pace (unit), though it can mean one step, or about 3 feet. It is quite hard to say which context is used in the above quote. --Jayron32 04:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Knickerbocker baseball rules of ca.1845 specified home-to-second and first-to-third as "42 paces, equidistant". In other words, 126 feet, resulting in 90 feet between home and first, first and second, etc. So at least in that context, a pace was considered to be 3 feet or 1 yard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Parent and child in national legislature

I just read that Ron Paul's son Rand Paul "is the first United States Senator in history to serve alongside a parent in the United States House of Representatives". What about other simultaneous parent-child constellations in the US House and Senate (parent in Senate, child in House / both in the same house, ...)? And does anyone know any memorable examples in other countries, where parent and child were making laws on a national level at the same time? Thank you in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 06:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I know of 2 cases in the UK, both involving former Prime Ministers and their children:

• From 1922-24, David Lloyd George and his son Gwilym were simultaneously members of the House of Commons. From 1929-45, Lloyd George had both Gwilym and his daughter Megan as parliamentary colleagues.
• Margaret Jay was appointed a life peeress in 1992, joining her father James Callaghan in the House of Lords; he had been "kicked upstairs" shortly after retiring from the House of Commons in 1987. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You may have overlooked Stanley Baldwin, who sat alongside his son Oliver in the 1929-1931 Parliament. Stanley Baldwin was the Leader of the Conservative Party while Oliver was a Labour MP. There are many, many other cases of parents and children sitting in the House of Commons at the same time; the most recent was in 2001-05 when Ann Cryer and her son John Cryer were together. There are also several within the House of Lords. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I said the above two were the cases I was aware of. I never claimed they were the only such cases. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In Australia, former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and his son Tony Whitlam were both members of parliament between 1975 and 1977. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

On a tangential note:

• Waldorf Astor inherited his father’s viscountcy in 1919, although he had already been an elected member of the lower house since 1910. He tried to disclaim his title but there no provision to do so in those days. His elevation to the Lords created a vacancy in his Commons seat, which his wife Nancy Astor won at a by-election. She remained in the House of Commons until she retired in 1945. Waldorf remained in the Lords till his death in 1952.
• Apart from Nancy Astor being the first woman elected to the House of Commons who took up her seat, what’s interesting about this couple is that they were both born on the same day, 19 May 1879. And they were both born Americans. in the USA, he to British parents, she to American parents. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Waldorf Astor had American parents. His father became a naturalized UK citizen when Waldorf was 20. Rmhermen (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Tony Benn and his son Hilary Benn were both MPs in the later stages of Tony Blair's first government. Austen Chamberlain and his father Joseph Chamberlain were MPs together for a whole 22 years from 1892 to 1914. --Antiquary (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Albert Gore, Sr. and Albert Gore, Jr. missed serving at the same time by about 6 years. --Jayron32 00:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy served in the Senate while his son Patrick J. Kennedy served in the House. --Jayron32 00:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd do well to have a long hard look at List of political families and all the links to articles on political families of particular countries. There's a huge amount of information to be gone through if you want a comprehensive list of all family members who've served at the same time. But be warned: it may not include all countries. I just restored the Australia link, which some bright spark commented out back in May. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A writ in/of acceleration was a method of summoning the eldest son and heir of a hereditary peer to the English/British House of Lords in one of his father's titles. By definition, his father was still alive and a member of the House of Lords himself. You'll find a list (which the article asserts is complete) of such peers at writ of acceleration. There are also numerous examples of the sons of peers (both eldest and younger) being created peers themselves, often whilst their fathers were still alive (I haven't gone through them, but you're bound to find examples if you look through Category:Younger sons of dukes, Category:Younger sons of marquesses, etc.). A (relatively) modern example notable for the son being the senior peer is the 1st Baron Runciman and his son the 1st Viscount Runciman of Doxford. The House of Lords is of course far more fertile ground for such pairings because (with the exception of the bishops) its members generally remain members for life, and so active statesmen added to its ranks are far more likely to have fathers who are members despite the fact that their age may make them unlikely to take part in proceedings. Proteus (Talk) 23:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(Original poster typing here) Thanks a lot! I didn't expect that many famous examples in the UK. Jack, a comprehensive list would certainly be nice, but probably couldn't be turned into a sustainable WP list-article, though who knows. It was mere idle curiosity that brought up the question. Happy New Year, everyone! (And feel free to add more, I'll still be following this thread). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Very poor ability to learn a new language

Have there been studies of people who are terrible at learning a language as adults? Suomedyi (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really, because "terrible" is too ill-defined and subjective to be an appropriate starting point. Does language acquisition or language education help?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone who's been poor at learning something thus far does not necessarily lack the ability to improve. It may be all about the way they've been taught, or maybe because they've never been "taught" in any real sense at all. For example, someone who migrates to a new country with a hostile linguistic environment but never has any instruction in the language of his new country might try to muddle through as best he can by watching TV and engaging in conversations with friends etc. He might eventually pick up enough that way to say he's "learnt" the language to a reasonable degree. Or he might not, preferring to mix with expatriates from his home country and only using the new language when he absolutely has to. Observers might comment that he's shown a "poor ability" to learn the new language given the length of time he's been immersed in it. But if he'd had proper instruction at an early stage, and ongoing instruction, he would probably have done much better. So, it's not about his ability per se.

But it's true that everyone's ability to learn new languages is different, and some are naturally better than others, all other factors being equal. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It is rather similar to dyscalculia. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Quarantine

does anyone know if the USA has any plans in place for a pandemic or epidemic? (or a more specific place i could ask this?) thanks, Jake1993811 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As our pandemic page points out, this is handled on a global scale by the World Health Organization (WHO). The Global Alert Response page on their website is possibly a place to start looking for further information. Individual countries may then have specific responses depending on their particular circumstances based on the WHO information, the expected impact on them, their financial capacities, etc. --jjron (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal Emergency Management Agency no doubt have lots of plans in place. I would check on their websites. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

thank you. Jake1993811 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about template

how to fix The template (Portal box) is being considered for merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrtaher (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your question is not very clear (and I've added a heading). Please indicate what article you are referring to, and what you want to know. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(Now answered at help desk.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Doing research for a stock market game

Hi ho! I have recently taken an interest in learning how the stock market works, so upon the suggestion of my wife, I started an online fantasy stock market game among my friends. Each player gets $10,000 in fantasy $$'s and 8 months to buy/sell/trade in real time with the stock market. The players are ranked by the value of their portfolio. Now I realize the flaw here is that the game duration is only 8 months, and that would affect one's strategy, but my goal is not to win the game. (The game is just a fun way to learn). My goals are to 1. Learn the basics of buying/selling/trading stocks AND 2. Make a profit (even if a small one). So my question is: in a broad sense, what are ways to go about prospecting for potential stock purchases, especially outside of the mainstream media (i.e. newspaper & cable news- I'm already following both of those)? I am interested in researching "up-and-coming" companies that would have potential for growth. Any suggestions for resources/strategies? (Note-I am not asking for specific suggestions of which stocks to buy.) Thanks, 71.195.156.105 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean that you'll spend 8 real months (in the future) following the real stock market - so the only difference between this and actual market speculation is that you're not spending any real money? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk

Yes, that's right (sorry that was me as the OP by the way). No real money. The game starts on Jan 02-Aug 31. It is purely a learning experience. (As I understand it, a lot of people played similar fantasy games in high school and college to learn how the stock market works). But again, to be clear, there is no real money involved. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 19:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Real investors, and particularly the analysts that advise institutional investors, know the market segment they work in very very well - they've got years, or decades, of experience in that segment (say semiconductors or automotive or fast food). They read every player's annual report, every regulatory filing, follow the progress of every major project or product, track the careers of major executives, and know ahead of time the effect that legislation, regulation, and trade agreements will have. They read economic projections that try to predict raw material supply and customer demand. They go to tradeshows, talk with executives, participate in analysts conference calls with executives. And they read every trade magazine, wire report, and mainstream newspaper article remotely related to their field that they can. And with all this, they're really not all that good at making actual predictions. All that sounds like a heck of a lot of work, and not really that much fun if you're not doing it for real money. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. But I could say the same things about writing for an online encyclopedia :) Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 19:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

True. I'd stick to the narrowest deepest segment of real industry that you already know as much about, and burrow down as much as you can. The upside, and the downside, of small companies is that they often sink or swim on the success of one or a handful of products. Whether SuperMediScan succeeds is down to whether their new scanner gets finished on time, works well, and sells; that can be greatly influenced by a single court case, or government ruling, or a hurricane in the country that makes an important component, or if their top engineer quits or is hit by a truck. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Here in the Uk there's a number of stock market magazines with tips and news - stocks to watch etc (e.g. Investors Chronicle. Regular reading of the business pages of any decent newspaper will help you get an idea of what the commentators on the markets are thinking/what's happening with big companies (e.g. Guardian.co.uk/business). I think Warren Buffet is credited with saying is that he never invests in a company he doesn't understand. I.e. if you can't understand how the business works/makes money then don't risk your (virtual) money on it. Finally I would say - hope it goes well. I did a similar thing a few years ago - found it very enjoyable and informative, hope yours turns out the same. ny156uk (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with trying to "beat the market" is the Efficient-market hypothesis. This is the idea that if there is a reason for a stock to do well or poorly, it is already priced into the stock. There are plenty of analysts, strategists and fund managers whose job it is to pick winners, but their records are mixed, to say the least, and a stock-picker's past performance does not guarantee future results. In your case, the keys are that you're playing with pretend money and that you've got a short time horizon. In this case, the best thing to do, probably, is to buy the riskiest, most-volatile stocks that you can find. You may finish in last place, but you also may win, which is probably more than you can say about pretend-investing a "safe" stock like Johnson & Johnson. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

peter slipper listing

Good morning. When I edit my changes are reversed very quickly. For example I know Peter Slipper did not attend Pimlico High School even though I read in a paper that he had. Does this mean that an inaccuracy in one paper is to be perpetuated on wikipedia. I do not understand why my changes to Slippers listing are quickly reversed. Much of what is included in any listing is just opinion. Mountair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountair (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A newspaper account is considered more reliable than "some guy on the Internet". You will need to provide links to prove that you are correct. For everyone else's info, Peter Slipper is the article in question. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that finding evidence of the years he was at Ipswich Grammar would be the solution. If they cover all his high school years, then it rules Pimlico out. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the newspaper company in question? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Facebook

Is there a way to force the "see more" tab on a shorter comment? CTJF83 21:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely. FB is pretty tight with allowing user control over much at all. If you really want to do so I'd say fake it, e.g., by entering a number of carriage returns (enters) after your comment. If it autoposts your reply when you hit enter, off the top of my head the way around that is to use <ctrl><enter> instead. --jjron (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried that, with like 10 spaces, and it closed the gap to one....oh well, thanks, CTJF83 12:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe put a period/full stop on each line just so that there's at least one character there? Dismas|^(talk) 19:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I use either a full stop or a middle dot, which are tiny enough to be almost unnoticeable. Also, a non-breaking space will accomplish the same effect. — Michael J 19:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The period works, thanks! BTW, where is a middle dot on the keyboard? CTJF83 19:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

PDF file

Could someone find the correct PDF file with the text "Cyclone Joy caused a rock slide that partially blocked the road and scoured some culverts"? Google is currently giving me this though it does not contain the text. HurricaneFan25 — 21:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Search doesn't find it in that PDF for some reason, but it's there. Last paragraph on page 2. Mikenorton (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason is that Google uses a far better optical character recognition system than Adobe Acrobat Reader uses. For example, Adobe yields garbage like "&RPPLWWHH�6HFUHWDU\" for the "Committee Secretary" in the heading. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with bad OCR, it's the actual text! This is a PDF obfuscation trick, in which the file contains "&RPPLWWHH" and a font in which the "&" character looks like a "C", the "R" character looks like an "o", the "P" character looks like an "m", and so on... so that it looks like the word "Committee". We've seen an example of this on the refdesk before. People who are afraid of the future do stupid stuff like this to try to hold us back, making computer documents almost as hard to use as dead tree documents. 68.60.252.82 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding an academic reference to Cycle of Abuse

Smullens, SaraKay,"The Codification and Treatment of Emotional Abuse in Structured Group Therapy," International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 60(1)2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.120.237 (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You should put this info on the talk page for Cycle of abuse, not here. Also, is there a specific part of the article supported by this ref ? StuRat (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Railway Lockers (in films at least)

Many films (for example Bourne Supremecy) involve someone staching something in a locker. In some cases (for example Once upon a time in America) this seems to be 'their' locker for years. What is the arrangement? Are the lockers there for all and sundry, for whatever length of time? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.154.34 (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called a Left luggage locker. You leave a cash deposit or a coin-in-a-slot that is returned when you pick up your bags again. We stopped using them in the UK in the 1970s when Irish terrorists started leaving bombs in them - they rarely came back for them. Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The last ones I saw had something about a time limit (maybe 24 hours?) after which they would be emptied. Astronaut (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

24 hours seems rather short. Don't people often leave things there intending to pick them up when they return from their trip ? With that in mind, I'd think a month would be more reasonable. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It was the August 1980 Bologna bombing in Italy that led the British to remove automatic lockers, concerned that the IRA might copy the tactic. As far as I can remember no such incident ever happened. Luggage lockers are still common enough elsewhere in Europe and visitors are surprised not to find them in major stations in e.g. London. The main use is for people visiting a city for a single day. to allow them to deposit their luggage and visit the place unencumbered - so 24 hours is reasonable. Sussexonian (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right, I stand corrected. However (trying to recover some self-esteem), IRA bombs exploded in the left luggage offices at Tottenham Court Road and Leicester Square Underground Stations in 1939[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

24 hours would only be reasonable if that's the ONLY use. I don't see any reason why such a short period improves security, as presumably any terrorist leaving a bomb could have it timed to go off as soon as he is out of range. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's likely not just for security. A 24 hour turn around time means a high turnover, which means more lockers for other people as well. If I were running a train station I wouldn't see much benefit in letting people leave things for long amounts of time; it seems like it would run into a lot of potential difficulties. If the terms are clear (24 hours), people can make other arrangements if they need to store stuff for a month. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't you want to make money off those customers, too ? Just like they have short-term and long-term parking, you could have short-term and long-term lockers, at different rates. StuRat (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But does anywhere really have lockers with keys that you can use for an arbitrary period of time? Or is this something from the 1970s that's been replaced by modern computerised systems? Based on my travels in North America and Europe, airports, railroad stations, etc now require you to pay before you open the locker, which would be less dramatic in a film (three years at $2 per day, woah!). The sort where you remove a key seems only to be found in places like museums which expect you to only use the locker during your visit, and they presumably check the lockers from time to time. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Take this for what it's worth. My dad worked as an internal auditor for the Santa Fe Railroad back in the 60's. He remembers the key lockers being quite common. According to him, arrangments varied, but for the most part a person could rent a locker, cash in advance, for any duration he/she wanted. They were then given a key and a receipt. There was only one key. The station master did not keep a spare copy. If the person lost the key, they could still claim the locker with their receipt, but forfeited the deposit and had to pay an additional fee for re-keying the locker. Anyway, if the rental term expired, the station master would break the lock. Any items inside found inside were logged, and kept for a period of time. Otherwise, after 90 days or so, valuables would be sold to an auction house, and other items were simply discarded. For the most part, lockers opened by the station master contained nothing...but it was also apparently common to find pistols (go figure). Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 16:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to gainsay Quinn1's dad's experience, but when I was a station supervisor for Amtrak in the early 1970s, we did have baggage lockers for passenger use. As station supervisor I did have a master key for those lockers. It would have been far too expensive and time-consuming to drill open a locker whose key had been lost. The lockers were rented a limited time--it may have been a week, I don't recall. A baggageman would note the lockers in use. After seven days, he could remove the contents and leave a note that the keyholder could claim them at the baggage room on payment of a fee. For the most part, though, the locker-using clientele were local street people who apparently felt their goods were safer in Amtrak's locker. (At many larger stations, even at that time, lockers were removed; passengers wishing to have baggage stored for a few hours could check it at the baggage room.) --- 108.28.72.88 (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)