Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 June 11

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.

June 11

How do you report abused dogs in the United States?

I'm aware of a neighbour's dog being chained up outside daily during a heat-wave, with no access to shade, food, or water. I'd like to report it to the relevant authority, but I'm not really sure who that would be. SPCA don't seem to have the authority to either warn the owner, threaten to remove the dog, or to remove it. Animal Control just seems to deal with wildlife (snakes, possums, etc), not pets. So who should I call? 202.10.90.209 (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your IP traces to New South Wales, which I suppose is not impossible if you're in the US, because you could be logged in remotely to a university account or something, but it does seem a little unusual.

In any case, these things depend on what state and even city you're in, but my offhand thought is that you could try the police; if they don't have jurisdiction they should at least be able to tell you who does. --Trovatore (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, call the police. If they are breaking some animal cruelty law, then it's the police's job to enforce it. If they aren't breaking any laws, then there is nothing you can do (other than advice your neighbour that it's probably not good for the dog to be outside in the sun like that - it is generally good to talk to neighbours before reporting them to the police, since you have to live near these people and it's best not to make enemies of them, which reporting them to the police is very likely to do). --Tango (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S., whenever you suspect a crime is in progress, call 911. If you're not sure if it's a crime, call 911 anyway. It's the police's responsibility to determine the correct response. You won't get into trouble for abusing 911 if the situation is a judgment call. (In truth, abusing 911 is almost never prosecuted as a crime even in the most frivolous cases. The police don't want to discourage people from contacting them.) —D. Monack ^talk 07:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

911 is for emergency situations. A non-emergency number is generally available any given police department. --LarryMac | Talk 11:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

A crime in progress is an emergency situation. If an animal's life is being endangered, a timely response is necessary. Emergency response operators are trained to assess the situation and determine where resources should be allocated. They will not be shy about telling you that you need to call a different number. —D. Monack ^talk 19:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(... unlike in the UK where 999 is reserved for emergencies, and the RSPCA would be the contact point.) New South Wales has an RSPCA. California & Scotland have SPCAs but perhaps the OP is in Hong Kong or in Malaysia. Certainly the police would advise on the correct authority, but the emergency number might not be appropriate. If the dog is suffering, you could take it some water (with your neighbour's permission). Dbfirs 07:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in the United States, I would first try calling the local police station. I think the expectations for 911 may vary from place to place. (I've moved around a bit and have lived in different states.) When I've had a complaint that is not life-threatening, I've looked up the non-911 phone number of the local police station and called there first. Sometimes they will take the call. Other times they will direct you to phone 911. This way, you don't need to worry about burdening 911 with a call considered inappropriate in your jurisdiction. However, I will caution you that local police departments may not take this kind of animal abuse very seriously, especially if you are in a jurisdiction with a high rate of violent crime. A good next step would be to call the local branch of the ASPCA. Although they do not have any real power, they can advise you on the best strategies for relieving the dog's suffering, including perhaps how to motivate the police to respond. Marco polo (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In some places, the SPCA's in America do have legal authority: examples ASPCA Humane Law Enforcement Division, Houston Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Rmhermen (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is going to vary by locale. Check your county or city web site for animal control or contact the local SPCA. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Call the SPCA. They might not have authority to do anything themselves but they should be able to advise you about what to do next. Don't call 911. If this situation has been happening day after day, a few more minutes of figuring out the right agencies to call won't make it worse. But diverting a 911 operator for those few minutes might slow down the response to a burning building. More sensibly, why not say something directly to the dog owner? 75.57.243.88 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Question not answered

What do you do when your question was not answered?
I asked questions that get mocked, even though they are scientific, and people find fault with them or
give side track responses, and I would like to know what do I do when no serious attempt has been made to give an answer?
example here
24.78.176.110 (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe no-one who visits the page knows the answer? --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes people don't get the answers they think their question deserves. That's the risk of asking a bunch of amateurs on the internet. As VW suggests, no-one may know the answer, or no one can summon the energy to understand exactly where you're heading. Also, flaming the people you're asking for help, as you do in sentences such as "Why do you people always have to change the question so that you can lecture on what makes you feel important to express" tends to dissuade potential answers in a terminal sort of fashion. It's natural to talk around an issue. Chopping off discussion in such a brutal fashion may be an expression of frustration, but it is none the less harmful for that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps asking a science question on the science desk would be more fruitful. --LarryMac | Talk 11:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's also possible that people were dissuaded from answering because your question touched on original research. The WP:NOR policy applies to articles, not to refdesk questions, and you seem to have asked a perfectly valid (if specialist and somewhat speculative) question in a reasonably appropriate forum. However, people regularly come here hoping to use Wikipedia to validate and promote their new philosophy/religious belief/scientific theory, and helpers may unfortunately have judged your question as falling into that category and failed to look more closely at it. I see no evidence of mockery in the responses you did get, though - just answers that pointed out other factors that might affect what you were looking for, which you dismissed in a way that made it unlikely the respondent would bother trying to take the discussion any further. The answer to your question is that you have three choices:

• Do nothing
• Ask your question again, perhaps rephrasing it to attract more responses (or trying the Science refdesk instead of the maths one if that would be more appropriate)
• Find a specialist off-Wiki forum that might have experts in the field who could be of more help to you in your research than we can

- Karenjc 12:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I can sum it up pretty simply: Don't be a dick. The first person to respond tried to direct you to the correct desk (which is, absolutely, the Science desk), and the second person accurately pointed out that there are other factors besides solar heating. You responded rudely to each, even though both of their responses looked reasonable to me, and seemed to be good-faith attempts to help you in your efforts. Even if their responses were not exactly what you were looking for, your replies to them were over the top, and dissuade others (including, for example, PhD astrophysicists like myself) from having any desire whatsoever to interact with you. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I hit the nail on the (flat) head, if you can't make yourself feel like a God in importance with your tangent answer then you don't bother. I've got a Phd in detecting false profiles, I can see the question example is beyond you, but you still have to comment on it to make yourself feel needed/important. 24.78.167.139 (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of responding rudely when you don't like the answers. Human beings don't like to be treated rudely, even on the internet, so remember: a rude response is your way of signalling that you don't want to get any more useful answers. If you're still interested in answers, either respond politely or don't respond. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My personal experience here... Wikipedians have been very friendly whenever me or my husband have posted questions... My husband remembers user Karenjc specifically for being very helpful... he had forgotten a song and didnt know the words or the music... but she had suggested it could be Afro Celt Music System and he has since then been a fan of Wikipedia and its reference desk. He says he was torturing his head for years and finally he had an answer within hours of posting the question. Its unfortunate you didnt get replies earlier but trust me with several friendly Wikipedians around Im sure your questions are bound to be answered. Just a matter of time Fragrantforever 13:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragrantforever (talk • contribs)

You probably mean Afro Celt Sound System. We can be pedantic too! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember answering your husband's question, Fragrantforever - odd that his description immediately made me think of the very track he was searching for, but it is a haunting and distinctive track that has a special significance for me too. I'm so glad he's enjoying their other stuff, and delighted that I was able to help out :) Karenjc 17:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If your question wasn't answered the first time, ask it again. 82.43.89.11 (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning a huge stuffed toy

Do you guys know how to clean a huge teddy bear? My husband gifted a huggggggggeeeee teddy to me its almost lifesize. 5 foot plus in height and almost 20+ kilos heavy. It used to look so immaculate now it badly needs a wash. It wudnt fit my washing machine. Was just wondering, how do they clean huge toys like this is it done painstakingly by hand or do we have people who specialise in cleaning huge stuffed toys... Any first hand experiences/ info would be appreciated. Fragrantforever 13:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragrantforever (talk • contribs)

I somewhat doubt that there are people who specialize in this. The demand for this kind of service is probably limited. One possibility would be to give the thing a bath in a bathtub, but it's possible immersion would damage it. (It could cause the stuffing to compact in odd ways, leaving the thing misshapen, and/or the interior might take so long to dry out that it could grow mold.) I think your best bet might be to approach it as a special case of carpet cleaning. Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My Google search for cleaning stuffed toys found 373,000 results. --- Wavelength (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be inclined to take it to a commercial Dry Cleaning outlet. It's possible that some component (e.g. a plastic nose) might not tolerate the process, but it's likely that the outlet would know one way or the other. Alternatively, Marco polo's carpet cleaner suggestion might be a useful approach, as might the use of suede or furniture fabric cleaners. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We cleaned a large fur-fabric stuffed toy belonging to my daughter some years ago, using a gentle detergent solution that we frothed up into foam. We worked the foam lightly over the fur fabric, being careful not to overwet it and soak the stuffing, then sponged it with clean warm water to remove the foam, again avoiding overwetting, before surface-drying it with a hairdryer and leaving it outside in the garden for a few hours on a warm day to ensure it was thoroughly dry. I bet Marco polo's suggestion of carpet shampoo could be used the same way, although I'd use one intended for manual shampooing rather than for 3-in-1 machines, as the latter contains anti-foaming agent and you won't get any bubbles. Karenjc 18:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, your answers appreciated. I was actually fearing overwetting it and ruining the stuffing, I will try your advice and tomorrow will let you know the outcome, hopefully it should be alright. Thanks Karenjc and Marcopolo for the detailed responses. 78.100.226.87 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Be careful with the hairdryer. If the synthetic fur gets to hot it will change its texture. (This is why putting stuffed animals in a dryer sometimes make them feel all weird.) APL (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hand held steam cleaner might do it.--Artjo (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Another approach might be to remove the stuffing. Does it have a zipper on it like most couch pillows ? If so, you could remove the stuffing, wash the fabric, then replace the stuffing. If the stuffing itself is dirty/smelly/otherwise ruined, you could put in new stuffing. If there isn't any zipper, then you'd need to open and later resew one or more seam to remove and replace the stuffing, and this is obviously more work. Still, this approach is likely to give you the ability to thoroughly clean something disgustingly filthy (let's say a kid spilled a glass of milk on it, hid it, and then left it to rot). StuRat (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like what works to clean a couch would apply to teddy. Googlemeister (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

IQ test question makers

Do they have to be at the top of the range over which their test is valid (i.e., does a test that goes up to 160 have to be made by people with 160+ IQs)? If not, how would someone come up with a question with correct answer that they themselves couldn't solve if they were taking the test? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

They'd look the answer up on Wikipedia of course! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Great question, but actually the IQ questions are made to a formula. A computer could be programmed to generate them and their answers. In a question like "Raven's progressive matrices" there is a pattern to find. The tasks get more complex as the test goes on until it because difficult to find the pattern within the time limit. Given enough time, and with a pencil and paper, anyone who knows the principle of the question type should be able to find the answer. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good question. A person with an IQ of 100 and a lot of money could make a test that accurately samples people with an IQ of 160, by writing up a test and including questions that sound hard, and then — the important part — pay thousands of people to take the test and look for a bell curve distribution like the one at Intelligence quotient. With luck, the IQ 100 person will have written some questions that are only answered correctly by 1% of the population, some that are 2%, etc. With no luck, the results of the test won't look like a bell curve, so then the IQ 100 person would rewrite some questions to be harder (or easier) and then pay thousands of people to take the revised test ... repeat, until it looks like a bell curve and the IQ 100 person can claim that the test is meaningful. By the way, the whole concept of IQ is controversial; see Intelligence quotient#Criticism and views. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, most IQ tests have strict time limits. A person with a 160 IQ might take 30 secs to solve a problem that a 100 IQ person would need 5 minutes to solve. —D. Monack ^talk 19:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, given sufficient time practically anyone could answer every question correctly. It's the time that counts--178.167.179.162 (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not! Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How could you tell if the answer that only 1% of the testees get right is actually the right answer to the problem? For example if the question is "2+2=?" and 1% say that the answer is 5. Or where the problem has no reasonable answer, but 1% of the testees choose a particular answer due to random chance? Or where there are several possible correct answers due to the problem being ambiguous or not giving enough information? Or where the examiner is mistaken about the correct answer? 92.24.184.231 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Then it's a crappily made test.--178.167.179.162 (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The person writing the test has the advantage of being able to work backwards from the answer. That's a standard trick used by anyone writing tests - come up with the answer and then work out what the question needs to be to have that answer. It's usually a much easier problem than coming up with a question and then answering it (and you know the answer will be something nice). --Tango (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's all bunk anyway. It doesn't tell you anything about intelligence, just about your ability to take whichever test you took. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The question (which Tango just answered) still remains, though, doesn't it, even taking into account that IQ only measures ability at IQ tests? 81.131.25.169 (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

When I have done practice IQ tests/puzzles, the most difficult problems seem ambiguous, they could have several answers depending on which interpretation you choose. The explainations given for the correct answer seem arbitrary and unconvincing. 92.15.30.42 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem, especially with poor quality IQ tests (eg. the online ones). I've heard arguments that more intelligent people tend to do worse on some questions because they can see several possible interpretations and get confused, while less intelligent people only see the intended one and answer the question easily (of course, even less intelligent people struggle with the question, so the test gives vaguely valid results up to a point). This is the far bigger problem with the person setting the question not being an intelligent as the people taking the test. --Tango (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there usually huge variances at the high end anyway? As with AB I don't think much of IQ tests but I believe particularly at the high end they tend to fall over since you don't have any meaningful baseline to compare them too. [1] somewhat touches on these issues Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to calibrate an IQ test at the high end, yes. You need sufficient people that can achieve results at that end in order for sample error to be minimal. If you are using a standard deviation of 15 then there are only about 200,000 people in the world with IQs above 160. Being able to get more than a handful of those in your calibration test group is going to be next to impossible. You can try and extrapolate from the results of people with lower results, but not very reliably. --Tango (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Height is a measurable thing but IQ is inferred in a very roundabout fashion and is not a actual real thing. My feeling is that in fact IQ as measured is approximatly a power of 2 of what is there - a bit like measuring the area of your skin rather than your height and that using a standard deviation of about 7 rather than 15 would give a much better relative picture between people. So an IQ of 145 would reflect reality better compared to 100 if it was reported as about 121. Dmcq (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

you need to keep in mind the difference between reliable and valid scales. IQ is a very reliable measure (meaning that people will consistently test the same across different times and settings) and a reliable test clearly measures something. however, the validity of IQ is problematic, since no one is quite sure what it is that IQ is measuring. It's not measuring anything like the lay-person's conception of intelligence, nor is it measuring academic skills (though there's a loose correlation), nor is it clear whether it measures an innate or learned ability.

I always think of IQ tests as scientific 'mood rings'. just like a mood ring, the only thing you know for sure is that different people produce different outcomes, with reasonable consistency. Anything else you say about it is speculative. --Ludwigs2 14:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. The choice of mean and variance are entirely arbitrary and it makes absolutely no difference what you choose. --Tango (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noted that low IQ people have a lot of scorn for IQ tests. I have noted low IQ people struggling to pass college courses, or to basically "get it" when complicated philosophical or technical topics are presented, while high IQ test scorers pick up difficult material quickly. Edison (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

How fascinating. You have, of course, a reference for this claim that looks at a statistically significant number of people chosen from a variety of backgrounds and training? Since it conflicts with my own experience. I've noticed almost the opposite: relatively low IQ people putting a lot of store by IQ tests, and proudly telling people what they got because they assume this is a good score, which I suppose it is, relatively speaking. And people who think they have high IQs doing badly at University level and higher, because they don't think they need to do any work, have never needed to before, and thus don't know how to even when they realise they need to. Generally, the smartest, highest achieving people I know, have not set much store by IQ tests, and only know roughly what their IQ is if someone administered a test when they were children. They understand that it's a dodgy measure, and useless by itself. I have also known swathes of people who set huge store by their IQ, and generally got quite cross when I pointed out flaws in their philosophical or technical discussion, often demonstrating that they had no depth of knowledge or ability to think outside what they had read. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty ornery and cussed but I don't go around telling people how silly they are to put store by something they put store by. Dmcq (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pshh, it's not like that's what I do. I'm just saying that the people I've met who set great store by their IQ are also the same people who make ridiculous arguments, and then react badly to people pointing out the holes in them. People I'd think of as truly smart tend to absorb such points. Perhaps partly because when someone has made a big thing about how very smart they are compared to other people, I then tend to be less gentle about holes in their arguments. Someone with a little more humility, I'm more likely to lead them to discover the hole for themself, or ignore it if it doesn't matter that much. And I don't actually think it's harmless to set great store by IQ, since it encourages the view that there is nothing you can do to control your own achievements, which is not only wrong but also correlated with lower achievement and lower happiness. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)