Miscellaneous desk
< October 22	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 24 >

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.

October 23

The M1 helmet still un use in 1986?

If the M1 helmet was replaced by the PASGT in 1985, why in the Aliens movie (1986) do the marines still use the M1 helmet, even though they are in the future? thanks and regards176.83.55.167 (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens was released in 1986, but filming (in Pinewood Studios, UK) began in September 1985. Firstly, the props department may not at that point have been aware of PAGST or, if was, able to obtain PAGST helmets (which themselves began to be replaced from 2003) or replicas.

More importantly, however, the film is set in "the far future". It is wildly improbable that spacefaring military personnel will then still be using late 20th/early 21st-century US equipment, so any portrayed equipment is purely conjectural, and since the film is not primarily focussed on such details, Production probably did not think it necessary to expend effort on designing "futuristic" equipment. Maybe the far-future helmets are not really M1's, they just happen to look like them because it's a good general design. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.157.244 (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. According to the Aliens Colonial Marines Technical Manual, the head protection of the Colonial Marines is provided by an "M10 pattern ballistic helmet".^[1] While having a retro-look closely resembling the antique M1 helmet, it comes equipped with wearable technology that was unavailable in the 20th century, incorporating a tactical camera, audio microphone, IFF transmitter, a PRC 489/4 receiver/transmitter system and a passive infrared sight that flips down over the right eye and projects images from the thermal imaging facility built into the camera. --Lambiam 09:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone is missing the most important detail here. Aliens is a work of fiction. Fiction is a word that means "a story that someone just made up". That applies to every part of the story, including the clothing people are wearing. As to why the characters in the movie are wearing a certain piece of clothing, the answer is "Because someone in the costume department, likely in consultation with the director, decided to have them wear that." Directors and costumers will make artistic decisions that may or may not have any connection to historical accuracy. --Jayron 32 15:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I should think each of the earlier replies clearly implies the contributors are well aware that the helmets of the Colonial Marines in the Aliens universe are helmets in a fictional universe. --Lambiam 19:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. For all question of artistic portrayal, the trivial answer is always "because the artist/director/whoever decided to" (or sometimes "because it didn't matter and that was the first thing on the shelf"). The interest lies in why the auteur (or a collaborator) made that choice: sometimes the choice is artistically significant to the work, and knowing its reason adds to one's appreciation of the work, or of the auteur's ouvre. "Why does the Mexican in Blazing Saddles say "Mongo! Santa Maria!" when he sees Mongo riding into Rock Ridge on a Brahman bull? Trivial answer – because Mel Brooks wrote it in the script. Obvious answer – because it advances the narrative appropriately. Interesting answer – because in keeping with all the other anachronistic jokes and references, it's an allusion to the Cuban bandleader Mongo Santamaria. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2301.95} 90.212.157.244 (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The replies did not highlight the fictional nature of the story, and its implications for providing a reliable, factual answer for the OP. The OP seems to be under the misconception that fiction is bound to a consistency with the real world; which it is not. Fiction means things are made up; and sometimes the person or people making up the story try for a certain level of vérité in their story, and sometimes they don't. The expectation that a work of fiction should be expected to slavishly mirror any aspect of reality is the misconception I was trying to correct for the OP. The answers before mine were not lacking in their own way, except that they don't explicitly address the most important part of any answer for a question phrased this way: correcting the misconception that fiction is bound by rules. --Jayron 32 20:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the OP is under the misconception that science fiction set in a future world is bound to be consistent with future reality? --Lambiam 06:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OP expressed confusion as to why a fictional element (the helmet worn by characters in a movie) was different than their expectations based on the real use of that model of helmet in the real world. I was trying to explain why that shouldn't have been an expectation in the first place. --Jayron 32 15:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need to check the data from the source

The article Old-age-security_hypothesis#Description says "The earliest mention of the inverse relationship between the birth rate and the level of the population's pension is found in Leibenstein in 1957.[2]" In source № 2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00172091?LI=true the only relevant reference is "Leibenstein H (1957) Economic backwardness and economic growth. Wiley, New York", but its text is not available online. Is it possible to check if this thesis is in this source? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to come near of a proof for "an earliest mention". Leibenstein confirms he was an "early contributor" [2] on the subject (human fertility). There is a review of 1960 confirming that: "Finally, he (H. Leibenstein) agrees that the behavior of the population in demographic matters is oriented in a direction favorable to sustainable growth, that is to say that the birth rate quickly marks a significant and definitive decline, at least in the densely populated countries." trad: Google Revue économique, article in French :[3] --Askedonty (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate (Indian Economic Journal, 1959)(IEJ: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/iej) "Leibenstein warns the reader at the outset that his book is a venture in the art of speculation", thus the "Old-age-security_hypothesis" article's "earliest mention" cannot not be reduced to a factual "mention of the relationship" in such an assertive way as presented - well, so it seems at least. --Askedonty (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally note that reference 4 in article, whereas claiming a strong affinity with Cigno (ref 2 author) is clearly dissociating Leibenstein (1957) from any focus regarding the question (ref 4, Introduction, p.4), thus excluding a definition so precise as stated in the quotation. I found a little bit more of the focus than according to ref 4 by exploring snippets from Google Books' "From inside the book" at https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=6XhEAAAAIAAJ, a 1960 edition of "Economic backwardness " identically titled, same editor, but not any clue however that the above assertion could be anything but an extrapolation. https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=6XhEAAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=security and https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=6XhEAAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=social+security both lead to extracts which the formulation will not be leaving place for a further expand focused on a "population's pension" obviously. For access to some tables, look for "Japan", "Germany" etc. --Askedonty (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but where exactly does Leibenstein write about pensions? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a book (by a different author) on economic growth and development I found this passage: "In sum, Leibenstein builds a theoretical case for an inverse relationship between per capita income and fertility based on the assumptions that (1) the cost of an additional, or marginal, child rises with income and the number of children, and (2) the benefits an additional child falls with income and the number of children."^[4] However, this refers to what the author calls "Leibenstein's model of the marginal child", expounded in a later article: Leibenstein, Harvey (1974). “An Interpretation of The Economic Theory of Fertility: Promising Path or Blind Alley?” Journal of Economic Literature, 12:457–479. Moreover, the discussion refers to a pension motive for having children. Apparently, the term "pension" is used in broader sense than those provided by the government-organized pension systems of the higher-income countries. --Lambiam 18:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but where exactly does Leibenstein write about pensions? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 1957 edition of Economic Backwardness and Economic Growth can be consulted here. A search for "pension" gave 0 results. If the alleged inverse relationship is mentioned there, its characterization as an inverse relationship between "the birth rate and the level of the population's pension" is a paraphrase. --Lambiam 12:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical acreage accuracy

Hello! I am trying to improve Busch Gardens Tampa Bay (BGT) to the best as I can, accurately. I am moving onto a section where the physical diameters of the park are to be addressed, with all sources reliable or not pointing to the figure 335-acre (136 ha) (Example 1, Example 2 Example 3). As much as I could slap that statistic on the article and call it a day, historical reporting's point to a different number which amount to around the same acreage the park currently exists upon (The Tampa Tribune). I found that via a county's property appraisal website a way to look up the park's parent company, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, property. Individually, the total acreage owned by the company amounts to be ~ 353.58 acres (143.09 ha), the BGT park itself being a healthy 249.53 acres (100.98 ha) (minus parking lots or additional property belonging to sister water park Adventure Island).

The problem: no reliable sources support BGT being anywhere near its approximate acreage, and relate the total properties of SeaWorld's Tampa properties to the park's size. Is there a way I can cite the appraisal's website supporting its recorded 249.53 acres (100.98 ha)? If possible, how could I go about citing the total property that Busch Gardens lays upon with its sister park and additional lots owned by the parent company? Since the calculated amount, 353.58 acres (143.09 ha), differs from decades of coverage citing 335-acre (136 ha). Am I just plain wrong and need a trout? Any and all help would be appreciated! (Note: I did ask this question at the Teahouse but realized this might be a more proper forum as I have been on the platform for a while). Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer, but assuming the park is the rectangle enclosed between on the north E Bougainville Ave, on the south E Busch Blvd, on the west N 30th St and on the east N 40th St, counting pixels on Google satellite view results in approximately 236 acres. This is an estimate, but given the assumption there is no way it can be off by as much as 30%, which it would be if 335 acres is correct. The press kit page of the park's website states: "offering 300 acres of fascinating attractions",^[5] but on several other pages they also use the 335 number. --Lambiam 08:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The owned acreage is a bit wonky, but correct assumption. The data encompasses most of the square for the "249.53 acres (100.98 ha)". This figure can be found when viewed in "Map View", with the total figure found through self calculating all properties owned by SeaWorld in Tampa. Hope this helps answer the question. Adog (Talk・Cont) 11:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Busch Gardens 249.53 ac
Adventure Island (water park) 50.9 ac
Parking Lot 35.28 ac (not including 4.6 ac acquired from the city in 2004)
Total: 335.71 ac

Those three parcels, the original and the two acquired around 1980, are most likely the origin of 335. fiveby(zero) 14:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby: Alright that settles that number, I greatly appreciate you taking a look and adding figures together. Thank you! Do you (or others) know how I am able to cite these stats accurately within the article, or if that is even possible with such a source? I would imagine that a footnote citing all these GIS data sets is the best way. Although, I am unsure if citing these altogether would stretch into the realm of WP:OR with a statement such as: Busch Gardens Tampa Bay is located ... northeast of downtown Tampa, Florida on approximately 250 acres (100 ha). The animal theme park is part of a 335 acre (136 ha) area that includes one other SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment property: Adventure Island. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basic arithmetic is not WP:OR. Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible.

@Jayron32: Thank you, I did not see that part of WP:OR, which makes me more comfortable with this finding. My final stupid question just to keep my sanity at bay for accuracy: 335 acres, or a total of around 353 acres. Which should be used? The one based on passing reliable sources mention, or actual total property the theme park is encompassed by, relatively speaking? Ya'll have been masterfully helpful! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Porque no los dos? "According to X, the land area is around 353 acres. By adding together the reported acreage from A, B, and C, reflecting the three different parts of the park, the land area is 335 acres". As long as X, A, B, and C are relative sources, feel free to attribute the source to the figure, and then you don't need to make a distinction. If there is a disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an inline citation. --Jayron 32 19:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Alrighty, thank you once again for the tremendous help! I did not think I would get an answer that quick or at all! Learning more new things a day. :D Adog (Talk・Cont) 01:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]