Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 June 6
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 5 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 7 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 6
[edit]Eating bad salt
[edit]Approximately two thousand years ago, what would happen to you if you had consumed salt that "had gone bad"? What would it taste like? If you can't use it for the soil or for the manure pile, then what can you use it for besides discarding it? Sneazy (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- It was probably just sand or clay. So pretty tastless but no good for your teeth! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Is this a reference to something Biblical? Salt doesn't go bad. That's why we can mine it from places where it's been sitting for millions of years and use it safely with almost no processing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- HiLo: I think Sneazy is making a reference to Matthew 5:13:
- You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot.
- I think we can all agree, Christian or not, that this quotation does not in and of itself imply that salt can "go bad", or that Jesus thought it could. I recall vague speculation that what people of the time used for "salt" was some impure version that could lose its saltiness (say, by having all the actual salt leach out of it, though how this would happen in practice is obscure to me), but be that as it may, the saying does not imply any such thing; it works just fine even if salt cannot, in reality, lose its taste. --Trovatore (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- HiLo: I think Sneazy is making a reference to Matthew 5:13:
- Well, I just read that ancient salt was not pure sodium chloride, so the other material in the salt could go bad and cause the salt to be no good. I am wondering what is the so-called "other material". [Taken from The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha (ecumenical study bible, third augmented edition.)] Sneazy (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Modern salt isn't pure sodium chloride either. (Ancient salt was often sea salt, rather than rock salt. But they are all simple chemical salts, none of which 'go bad'. The statement is an interesting proof Jesus is not a modern hoax. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I thought you were going to say "iodised salt" for modern salt. Table salt is iodised to reduce instances of goitres. What do you mean by "modern hoax"? Sneazy (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- And adding to Medeis' comment - even though modern salt isn't pure sodium chloride, most of it is, and it's a very good preservative in its own right, so going bad just doesn't seem likely. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sneazy, I am an atheist. But I am certain of the historical reality of Jesus, while many (often militant) anti-theists bring his actual reality into question. See Historicity of Jesus. One of the best proofs of his actual existence is that the gospels quote him as saying things that are just plain false or which put him in a bad light (getting angry at the money changers, doubting on the cross) according to Christian teaching. This is called evidence against interest. His not knowing that, chemically, his saying was nonsense, is evidence he existed as a man of his age. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I do recall watching a film titled Passion of the Christ (2004), directed by Mel Gibson. The actor who plays Jesus begins to doubt on the cross. So, the director would have allowed that to be filmed. Plus, Mel Gibson, according to the Wiki article is raised a "Traditionalist Catholic". Apparently, a traditionalist catholic has no problems with doubting on the cross. Sneazy (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- That actor, Jim Caviezel ironically reports to a different sort of "god" now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Our article describes Caviezel as a Catholic. I'm not at all sure what you're alluding to here. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- "The Machine" in Person of Interest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Our article describes Caviezel as a Catholic. I'm not at all sure what you're alluding to here. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- That actor, Jim Caviezel ironically reports to a different sort of "god" now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I do recall watching a film titled Passion of the Christ (2004), directed by Mel Gibson. The actor who plays Jesus begins to doubt on the cross. So, the director would have allowed that to be filmed. Plus, Mel Gibson, according to the Wiki article is raised a "Traditionalist Catholic". Apparently, a traditionalist catholic has no problems with doubting on the cross. Sneazy (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sneazy, I am an atheist. But I am certain of the historical reality of Jesus, while many (often militant) anti-theists bring his actual reality into question. See Historicity of Jesus. One of the best proofs of his actual existence is that the gospels quote him as saying things that are just plain false or which put him in a bad light (getting angry at the money changers, doubting on the cross) according to Christian teaching. This is called evidence against interest. His not knowing that, chemically, his saying was nonsense, is evidence he existed as a man of his age. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Modern salt isn't pure sodium chloride either. (Ancient salt was often sea salt, rather than rock salt. But they are all simple chemical salts, none of which 'go bad'. The statement is an interesting proof Jesus is not a modern hoax. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Is this a reference to something Biblical? Salt doesn't go bad. That's why we can mine it from places where it's been sitting for millions of years and use it safely with almost no processing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- In biblical scholarship specifically, the principle you're talking about is called the criterion of embarrassment, although the application there is slightly different — it's one technique used to distinguish genuine sayings or events from ones that might have been made up later. But as I say above, I don't really agree with the applicability in this particular case, because the saying is still quite comprehensible without any need to posit salt that can de-saltify itself. It's just saying, suppose you went to your pantry and found that your salt had no taste. What good would it be? What would you do with it? And what good would you be, if you lost your metaphorical saltness, whatever exactly that is? --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, you mentioned that criterion before, but I couldn't remember the phrase. My point was, since no omniscient god would use such an example (given he would know it was unscientific) we can actually credit the statement to a real person. But you are right it doesn't embarrass Jesus particularly--others of his age might have said it. μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I dispute the claim that it would be embarrassing to anyone, in any age. It's a counterfactual. Suppose salt lost its saltness — what good would it be? It's a perfectly good question, whether there's any way for salt to lose its saltness or not. --Trovatore (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're misunderstanding my point, which is not all that vital anyway. The statement itself appears to be a gnostic metaphor, with salt standing for wisdom. The "embarrassment" would be that any educated person would know salt is a pure substance, and that you can't add some factor to pure salt to get it to taste saltier. So, if someone were creating a hoax Jesus, rather than reporting actual teachings, it's unlikely these are words they would craft for him to supposedly have said. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding my point. It doesn't matter whether salt can lose its saltiness or not (who mentioned making it taste saltier? That's not in there at all; only losing the salty taste is discussed.). In fact, it almost works better if it's understood that this is something that can never happen, because paradoxes get people's attention and make them think more deeply about what is being said. As to whether a hoaxer would invent it, I suppose it depends on whether he's clever enough to go for that paradox on his own initiative. --Trovatore (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- To put it simply, no. Let's end this here. You can ask on my talk page if you have any questions about what I have been trying to explain. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding my point. It doesn't matter whether salt can lose its saltiness or not (who mentioned making it taste saltier? That's not in there at all; only losing the salty taste is discussed.). In fact, it almost works better if it's understood that this is something that can never happen, because paradoxes get people's attention and make them think more deeply about what is being said. As to whether a hoaxer would invent it, I suppose it depends on whether he's clever enough to go for that paradox on his own initiative. --Trovatore (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're misunderstanding my point, which is not all that vital anyway. The statement itself appears to be a gnostic metaphor, with salt standing for wisdom. The "embarrassment" would be that any educated person would know salt is a pure substance, and that you can't add some factor to pure salt to get it to taste saltier. So, if someone were creating a hoax Jesus, rather than reporting actual teachings, it's unlikely these are words they would craft for him to supposedly have said. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I dispute the claim that it would be embarrassing to anyone, in any age. It's a counterfactual. Suppose salt lost its saltness — what good would it be? It's a perfectly good question, whether there's any way for salt to lose its saltness or not. --Trovatore (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, you mentioned that criterion before, but I couldn't remember the phrase. My point was, since no omniscient god would use such an example (given he would know it was unscientific) we can actually credit the statement to a real person. But you are right it doesn't embarrass Jesus particularly--others of his age might have said it. μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- In biblical scholarship specifically, the principle you're talking about is called the criterion of embarrassment, although the application there is slightly different — it's one technique used to distinguish genuine sayings or events from ones that might have been made up later. But as I say above, I don't really agree with the applicability in this particular case, because the saying is still quite comprehensible without any need to posit salt that can de-saltify itself. It's just saying, suppose you went to your pantry and found that your salt had no taste. What good would it be? What would you do with it? And what good would you be, if you lost your metaphorical saltness, whatever exactly that is? --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I always wonder about translations and interpretations at times like this. That Biblical quote from Trovatore doesn't mention salt going bad, rather salt losing its taste and being no longer good for anything. So our OP's words don't seem entirely accurate, but maybe there were multiple possible meanings of the original words anyway. Do the serious scholars have much to say on this? HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is possible for salt to go bad, not in the sense of becoming dangerous, but in the sense of becoming nasty. If it isn't kept in a good container it can absorb water from the air, and then if it is exposed to unpleasant odors, they can be absorbed into the water. The result can be salt that smells or tastes foul -- moldy, for example. Looie496 (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- The expression is actually taken from Luke 14:34-35 in this English form in the specific bible version that I mentioned: "Salt is good; but if salt has lost its taste, how can saltiness be restored? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; they throw it away. Let anyone with ears to hear listen!" Below the text are the annotations. The editors note that the mentions about salt are also on Matthew 5:13 and Mark 9:49-50. They explain that the saying warns against lackadaisical discipleship, and that ancient salt was not pure sodium chloride, so the other material in the salt could go bad and cause the salt to be no good. I think Looie496 is onto something. Sneazy (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Salt in the Bible#Salt in the New Testament suggests that the salt becomes mixed with another mineral. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- In response to the two posts above, it's already been pointed out several times in this thread that modern "domestic" salt isn't pure sodium chloride either. I don't think we have an explanation yet. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think I may have it, but would like the translation checked against the Greek. The salt may have been used to cure meat. Perhaps on repeated occasions, with the brine dried out each time, which can be repeated but not indefinitely. If that was the major bulk use of salt in the eastern Med, as it would have been in C19 rural France for instance, then the idea of salt losing its savour would have been familiar enough to make sense as a metaphor. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Think some people are on the right track but miss the the ancient practices in salt commerce. Dead Sea salt straight out of the evaporation ponds is of very low quality. It has other minerals (like magnesium and calcium) . To improve the quality it is dissolved again and the first crystals to come out of the solute is sodium chloride. Top grade table salt. The remainder is still a valuable commodity and still has much sodium chloride and potassium chloride in it. So it is useful for curing meats etc. Therefore, it would have been transported for sale in markets hundreds of miles away. Should this dross or grunge left over from the Dead Sea salt's first separation, be further processed in these new locations to remove much of the remaining sodium/potassium chloride (to produce table salt) then the salt left behind has lost is saviour. The dross is no longer any good for curing or if spread on the land it inhibits the roots of plants from taking up moister – it is of no use. All the goodness (sodium/potassium)has been taken out of it and there is nothing one can do to redeem it. Yet, as it came out of a salt pan, the ancients still considered it to be salt by definition alone.--Aspro (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Think I'd better explain that further. In ancient Geek, AΛΣ is: the sea, and 'a lump of salt'. The Gweeks did not have any concept of the periodic table back then, not sodium chloride nor potassium chloride nor magnesium... etc., so the whole of the precipitate from the water was considered AΛΣ or salt. By processing, the original precipitate lost its most valued quality and in the days when everything was recycled – the dross had no use. Even if incorporated into mud brick the hygroscopic nature would course recrystallisation and make the brick friable. The only earthy use I can think for this dross, is to serve as an example for some theological analogy. However, in the modern age the point is lost as it no longer resonates with the hoi polio's every day experiances. --Aspro (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if there really is no other use for this "salt", then it must be a very good theological analogy! Sometimes, analogies are not perfect, because due to the nature of the object that one is turning into a metaphor, there are exceptions. Sneazy (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems that neither the analogy nor the translation is perfect. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if there really is no other use for this "salt", then it must be a very good theological analogy! Sometimes, analogies are not perfect, because due to the nature of the object that one is turning into a metaphor, there are exceptions. Sneazy (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Think I'd better explain that further. In ancient Geek, AΛΣ is: the sea, and 'a lump of salt'. The Gweeks did not have any concept of the periodic table back then, not sodium chloride nor potassium chloride nor magnesium... etc., so the whole of the precipitate from the water was considered AΛΣ or salt. By processing, the original precipitate lost its most valued quality and in the days when everything was recycled – the dross had no use. Even if incorporated into mud brick the hygroscopic nature would course recrystallisation and make the brick friable. The only earthy use I can think for this dross, is to serve as an example for some theological analogy. However, in the modern age the point is lost as it no longer resonates with the hoi polio's every day experiances. --Aspro (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Distance calculation
[edit]What point would be equidistant from Birmingham, London and Cardiff? I presume it would be in England. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- As a first approximation, using simple geometry on Google maps, it is somewhere close to Ashbury in Oxfordshire. The exact location will depend on where exactly you locate the centres of Birmingham, London and Cardiff, and whether you treat the Earth as a true sphere or allow for it's non-spherical distortions (I'm assuming you mean 'nearest point on the surface' - the actual nearest point will probably be below ground level). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Using Google Earth's measurement tool (which gives the great circle distance) and its idea of the centre of each city and some ruler geometry, I get a point roughly 10 miles SW of Ashbury, near Chiseldon in Wiltshire, for the circumcentre (almost exactly bisecting the Cardiff/London path). That point should be 65 miles from each. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! The reason for my question was: The ICC Champions Trophy is taking place in England, at venues in Cardiff, Birmingham and London. For someone wanting to go to all the games, where would be the most sensible location to base oneself? I'd ruled out basing in one of the cities and travelling to the other cities, as it occurred to me that the three cities formed a triangle. In that case it should have been easy to triangulate a point, as you have both done. (I'd have done it myself but I wasn't in reach of my paper map, and I tried on Google Maps, but the nearest I got was Swindon/Milton Keynes. I was sure that wasn't right.) --TammyMoet (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Swindon is close to the circumcentre - Milton Keynes is roughly equidistant between Birmingham and London, but a long way from Cardiff. Is distance really the issue, though, or travelling time? And how are you proposing to travel? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly I should say that this is a thought exercise only, I'm only proposing to follow the tournament on radio! However, in considering this (it arose from considering the problems faced by the commentators - where do they stay?) I discounted train travel because there are day/night matches scheduled which may finish after the last train leaves, and therefore would choose to hire a car. You would have to be able to arrive at the ground around 9.30 am and, on a d/n match, would have to leave the ground after 11.30 pm. I therefore concluded that it would be best to stay equidistant from each ground, as road links are roughly the same for each city. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of equality of travelling time (by car), Google maps gives Abingdon to Birmingham a journey time of 1:23 {A44 and M40) and Abingdon to Cardiff a time of 1:51 (A44 and M4), both with straightforward routes. Abingdon to London is quoted as 1:26, although of course. it depends where in London you're going. The evening journey may well match those times, but trying to enter London or Birmingham for 9:30 may add an extra hour or two to your journey and be rather stressful, despite the polite driving manners of us Londoners. I'd recommend getting a train from Didcot Parkway station to London Paddington station, which takes "between 45 minutes and an hour"[1]. You thus avoid the London Congestion Charge of £10 plus whatever ludicrous amount you are charged for parking, if indeed you can find somewhere. Alansplodge (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is another equidistant point somewhere southeast of New Zealand, but since you're interested in optimizing travel time I doubt you'll be heading to that point. :-) 209.131.76.183 (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly I should say that this is a thought exercise only, I'm only proposing to follow the tournament on radio! However, in considering this (it arose from considering the problems faced by the commentators - where do they stay?) I discounted train travel because there are day/night matches scheduled which may finish after the last train leaves, and therefore would choose to hire a car. You would have to be able to arrive at the ground around 9.30 am and, on a d/n match, would have to leave the ground after 11.30 pm. I therefore concluded that it would be best to stay equidistant from each ground, as road links are roughly the same for each city. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- PS: This is about cricket. [2] I admit that I had to look it up. Alansplodge (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Article feedback on WP and a question on video
[edit]I added a section for this question. A recent question here [3] also had a problem with WP article feedback not working. Original question follows: SemanticMantis (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
hi i saw this article called Comparison_of_H.264_and_VC-1 and couldnt see some info i was looking for and noticed a leave feedback area on the bottom of the page:
"Help improve this page Did you find what you were looking for?"
i clicked "no" and tried to leave the following feedback:
" hi is there a sample video (or simple text table) showing the original filesizes of a sample file, with the same quality audio/video, but showing the resulting filesizes of each compressed output, along with baseline compression times taken using same software/hardware?
for example: Sample 1 (click here) achieved 90% compression using VC1, and 85% compression using h264 (or viceversa)
as long as all the other variables are similar as possible, eg audio bitrate and width/height/resolutions for the video, so that we can easily see practical examples and better judge for ourselves as much as possible which is more efficient. (assuming all processing is "post processing" and not live realtime)
thanks "
BUT: then when i click to submit it, a message pops back instead saying this: "article feedback not enabled for this page"
very contradictory :)
please can you help by trying to see if theres a general issue with the feedback module on the website? and maybe you could update the page with some more tabular information (even if based on some examples would help)
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.181.132 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Article feedback is for commenting about the article itself, not its subject. Not all articles provide this feedback. For general questions about the article's subject, you should use the article's talk page or this very Reference Desk page you just wrote to. JIP | Talk 18:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's untrue. You are not supposed to handle general questions about an article's subject in the article's talk page. Many talk pages (eg Talk:Computer) have the {{talkheader}} which says exactly that: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the (whatever) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.". Our WP:TALK guideline says the very same thing " Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article.".
- This is a critical point.
- Many people bend that rule - but even then, there is no place in which a question about the intersection of several article subjects may be discussed. Aside from the Ref Desk, there is hardly anywhere within Wikipedia where you can discuss the subject of an article with a general audience. This is a bad thing - if a child comes to Wikipedia to get a feel for how far the sun is from the earth by figuring out how long it would take you to walk that distance - then we are of no help whatever. The information you need to answer that is all here. Walking says how fast people walk, Earth and Sun tells you how far away the sun is - but figuring out that time=distance/speed is much harder...even if by chance the child finds Equations of motion - they'll instantly hit a bunch of calculus and symbols with dots and double dots over the top. They can't ask the question (within WP:TALK guidelines on any of those article talk pages - the help desk isn't going to be much help.
- The Ref Desk provides that connectivity between articles and a place to ask questions that require some degree of "connect the dots" thinking.
- SteveBaker (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that, and I have felt the same issue too. This Reference Desk is pretty much the only place on Wikipedia where I can ask questions related to actual topics, not to Wikipedia itself. I have usually found it fairly easy to get an answer here. On the other hand, questions on article talk pages generally go unnoticed for months, if not years.
- This brings to mind a different question: Why does "Article feedback" even exist if both it and the article's talk page, which is provided by default through MediaWiki, are about the same thing - the article itself, not its subject? JIP | Talk 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's a good question. Many people (well, me, but I think in my own mind I count for "many") question the wisdom of the effort spent on the article feedback system, since it essentially duplicates the purpose of the talk pages exactly, but buries comments that should appear on the talk page to be easy to find, and instead puts them somewhere that most people won't ever see them, so concerns expressed there stand less of a chance of being fixed. --Jayron32 19:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree - but the fact remains. There really is no place in Wikipedia to make general comments about the content of articles. Even here on the Ref Desk, we frown on topics that are not questions - or which are questions phrased in such a manner as to create a debate rather than to inform the OP. SteveBaker (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's because there shouldn't be. The article on say, Barack Obama and its talk page and its article feedback page, and really ANYWHERE on Wikipedia, is NOT the place to discuss how you feel about Barack Obama. This is by design. Wikipedia has a specific, narrowly defined purpose, and "talk about whatever I feel like" is not necessarily one of them. There actually is a place where that kind of open discussion is encouraged. It's called the rest of the Internet. Wikipedia has no mechanism for this because its not an activity that fits with Wikipedia's raison d'etre. --Jayron32 00:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yep - mostly, I agree with you. The problem is that the example you choose is one of the clearest. It gets harder when (for example) I wanted to point out that the Harvard Mk I computer was indeed "Turing Complete" despite the article *AND* some of it's references saying otherwise. (Talk:History_of_computing_hardware#Was_the_Harvard_Mark_I_.22Turing_Complete.22.3F_--_Revisited) - this is a tricky matter because I can't put my (highly cogent, I thought) argument into the article because it's WP:OR - yet (I believe) I can clearly demonstrate that my argument is self-evident. I'd really like to be able to discuss this "proof" with our resident experts - but there isn't a place to do that. In the end, I used the "in case of doubt, you need a reference - here is a cause for doubt" as grounds to discuss it. SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think the Village Pump is supposed to meet that need. I personally don't watch it because it is too random for me, but, well, whatever. Looie496 (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yep - mostly, I agree with you. The problem is that the example you choose is one of the clearest. It gets harder when (for example) I wanted to point out that the Harvard Mk I computer was indeed "Turing Complete" despite the article *AND* some of it's references saying otherwise. (Talk:History_of_computing_hardware#Was_the_Harvard_Mark_I_.22Turing_Complete.22.3F_--_Revisited) - this is a tricky matter because I can't put my (highly cogent, I thought) argument into the article because it's WP:OR - yet (I believe) I can clearly demonstrate that my argument is self-evident. I'd really like to be able to discuss this "proof" with our resident experts - but there isn't a place to do that. In the end, I used the "in case of doubt, you need a reference - here is a cause for doubt" as grounds to discuss it. SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's because there shouldn't be. The article on say, Barack Obama and its talk page and its article feedback page, and really ANYWHERE on Wikipedia, is NOT the place to discuss how you feel about Barack Obama. This is by design. Wikipedia has a specific, narrowly defined purpose, and "talk about whatever I feel like" is not necessarily one of them. There actually is a place where that kind of open discussion is encouraged. It's called the rest of the Internet. Wikipedia has no mechanism for this because its not an activity that fits with Wikipedia's raison d'etre. --Jayron32 00:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree - but the fact remains. There really is no place in Wikipedia to make general comments about the content of articles. Even here on the Ref Desk, we frown on topics that are not questions - or which are questions phrased in such a manner as to create a debate rather than to inform the OP. SteveBaker (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's a good question. Many people (well, me, but I think in my own mind I count for "many") question the wisdom of the effort spent on the article feedback system, since it essentially duplicates the purpose of the talk pages exactly, but buries comments that should appear on the talk page to be easy to find, and instead puts them somewhere that most people won't ever see them, so concerns expressed there stand less of a chance of being fixed. --Jayron32 19:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- SteveBaker (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Alcohol laws in Germany vs. Finland
[edit]I was in Munich, Germany, two weeks ago, and when I went to a pub near Theresienwiese, I noticed that the staff drank alcoholic beverages themselves while on duty. Curious about this, I asked about this from the staff at my local pub here in Finland, and the bartender said that such a thing in Finland is absolutely forbidden. Merely possessing alcoholic beverages, even if not consuming them, while on duty is enough for bar staff in Finland to be instantly sacked. What is the law about this in Germany? JIP | Talk 20:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Is it a legal issue or just company policy? Hot Stop 22:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, in Bavaria, beer is typically not considered "an alcoholic beverage", but part of the normal diet. For a long time, even police officers on duty were allowed a beer. I have a vague recollection that that has changed in recent years, but I'm not quite sure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- It wasn't until the advent of cheep gin in the 1600's that abolition became a serious movement in Western Europe. Before that weak beer in the north and diluted wine in the south had been consumed for millennia as more hygienic than running water. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- A bit later than that - the sale of alcohol to under-18s was banned in 1923 in the UK. The legislation was promoted by Lady Astor, an American. Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- The temperance movement began early, by the 1700's. It just didn't effect large scale political damage until the 1800 and 1900's. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- In the UK it's traditional (though by no means obligatory) to tell the barman/maid to "have one [i.e. a drink] yourself" when buying a round. The usual response these days is to say "thanks, I'll have one later" (usually meaning that they will keep the money as a tip); however it's not unknown for staff, and especially the landlord, to have a drink behind the bar. Individual pubs, or the breweries or other organisations that own them, may have policies to ban this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- A bit later than that - the sale of alcohol to under-18s was banned in 1923 in the UK. The legislation was promoted by Lady Astor, an American. Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- In the U.S. it's generally discouraged for employees to drink on the job, although some bars do have their staff do shots or whatever with customers, and I'm sure a bartender sneaking a drink on the job is not a blue-moon occurrence. It varies by state; it's actually illegal in some states. Those laws vary wildly depending on the state. Shadowjams (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)