Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 February 15

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.

February 15

wild turkeys

How do wild turkeys withstand the weather? do they have the same oil as ducks do to help them withstand the weather ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.64.56 (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably some oil, yes, but not as much, as they don't go swimming like ducks. Their size is also an advantage, with larger birds benefiting both from an increased mass-to-surface-area ratio and thick layers of fat and feathers. Feathers, BTW, are excellent insulators, and the current theory is that dinos first grew feathers for this reason, not to assist in flight. StuRat (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Birds in general are pretty well insulated. The reason some bird species fly south doesn't have much directly to do with the cold weather, but rather with the consequent scarcity of food. Birds that can find food will tend to stick around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How to burp on command?

How do people burp on command? And is there a paraphilia for belching? (this is NOT vandalism) 91.219.238.71 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious to know, how you think the knowledge of the this technique will enrich your life? Or that of your friends and family -unless of course you want to be remembered for ever, as that: weird kid that kept burping.--Aspro (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's useful to irritate people in general and impress peers (as a teenager) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.105.3 (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is it doesn’t impresses peers, it just stick in their minds that the only thing this gook could do was 'burp' instead of adding anything useful to the conversation. Subliminally, it sends out a message – “you're interests give me indigestion, I can only cope with mono-syllable words about thin chicken soup”.--Aspro (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to the above comment about its usefulness... When did this, or any of the ref desks, require some sort of basis for enriching anyone's life? Dismas|^(talk) 03:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You swallow air instead of inhaling it. The air will then want to come back up, all on it's own. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And, though no one asked, it is also quite possible to do so from the other end. Click the link, and be amazed. --Jayron32 03:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fart on demand ? No, you must just be pulling my finger. StuRat (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Burping on command is not all that difficult. The real challenge is to burp on command with a mouthful of water. That really separates the men from the boys. Bus stop (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

At least, it seperated this man from the boys; interestingly this was just promoted to Featured Article status. All gross bodily functions have been used entertainingly for centuries, despite the fact that every 13-year old boy thinks he invented such stuff... --Jayron32 04:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you'll excuse an unreferenced answer to the original question: in my experience it's quite easy to learn and practice the technique by swallowing air as StuRat has already said. As to why it might be useful, I can think of two reasons off the top of my head.

One (ObPersonal) is that when one's stomach is already distended from ill-advised gas-producing ingestions (as for example when hung over), deliberately burping can make one feel better: I also recall Mark Vonnegut (son of Kurt) mentioning in his autobiography use of this technique as a form of self examination after he had eaten too much ice cream and thereby paralysed his digestion.

Another is that some people who have lost part of their windpipe and/or vocal cords from cancer-removal surgery and can no longer talk conventionally using lung-air, can instead learn to talk by burping air instead. The actor Jack Hawkins was one example.

As to a paraphilia for belching, the human psyche is sufficiently complex and inventive that a paraphilia for anything is likely possible: I don't recall coming across any mention of this one, but paraphiliae are not a particular interest of mine. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.161 (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See Rule 34. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Highest button of a shirt

When you button the highest button of shirt without a tie, you look like a retarded or crazy guy, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.105.3 (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I blame it on American Gothic --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because it's unfashionable. Try wearing your underpants outside your pants, and everyone will forget about the button incident. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Lou Diamond Phillips didn't look retarded or crazy when he wore his shirt this way during Stand and Deliver. Dismas|^(talk) 03:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, wearing a shirt with the top-button fastened is a semi-official uniform of certain latin-american street gangs and telling them they "look retarted" is likely to be bad on your health... --Jayron32 03:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just the way it is, 'yo. SteelStoneberg (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Gang members always look retarded, but yes, no need to tell them that. 188.76.228.174 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the wrong question is being asked here. Almost the only time we see this is on someone who's been dressed by someone else, because they can't do it for themselves for whatever reason. Those reasons include mental incapacity; there can be other reasons, but there's a strong tendency to assume that type of dress is indicative of some mental disorder. But other boxes have to be ticked as well. If someone as grounded and emotionally present as Barack Obama is were to do his top button up but in every other respect was as he usually is and behaved and spoke as he usually does, would anyone assume he'd gone crazy just because of the top button? If comedians use this as a device to evoke craziness, they have to also do things with their face and body to make it work.

The question is really more like: When adults are dressed by others, why do the dressers often do up their top button when they would only do that on themselves if they were wearing a tie? Does it have something to do with proneness to chills and wanting to keep them protected? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Three additional thoughts:

I associate that with Amish people, who probably do want to show as little skin as possible, for reasons of decency.

Movies like Forrest Gump make us associate it with some form of mental problem.

Not being able to folllow social norms makes you look weird, which could be a sign for some mental trouble. 188.76.228.174 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, fashion. I wonder when humans first began thinking that their appearance was more important than practicality? In cold weather, a top button done up would keep you warmer, but to the OP, and no doubt many others, what you think others will think of your appearance is more important than keeping warm. People not familiar with local cultural norms may break fashion rules. That doesn't mean they are retarded or crazy. To me, those who slavishly follow dumb and impractical fashion trends, like tattoos, piercings, wearing pants below bum level, wearing very high heels - they're the crazy ones. HiLo48 (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they are retarded or crazy, just that they look like that, or at least weird. However, in the case of Amish and Hasidic Jews, I must admit that they only look religious. 88.9.105.3 (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Fashion" is simply homogeneity of appearance within a group. Those who do not "fit in" are clearly "outsiders" or "aliens" to the group. Collect (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

...or "retarded or crazy"? What purpose does it serve? HiLo48 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It serves as a way to indicate membership of a group, both to other members of that group, and to outsiders. Actually a very useful social communication tool. Either you wear what everyone else is, and that communicates something about yourself to others, or you DON'T wear what everyone else is, and that communicates something about yourself to others. It's inescapable. --Jayron32 19:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed: it's also associated with the dress of Hasidic Jews,[1], [2], [3]. Technological advances play their part too - I think the open collar look first emerged in the 1920s and 30s when sewn-in collars became available; see Paris surrealists in 1930. Before that, you needed a tie and some studs to hold your collar on![4] Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Like all fashion it is ridiculus, as is wearing the tie knot half way down the chest.--85.211.223.119 (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your question is "because your experiences have led you to associate that mode of dress with that judgment". We make judgments about people all the time, based on their dress, their accent, how they stand, how they use a pen, how they address others, how they eat ... Many of the judgments are, like your example, associations which may be well grounded in our society, but looked at dispassionately are completely arbitrary (though we sometimes make up stories to rationalise them). --ColinFine (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Messages can be at odds with one another, forcing up to make choices. A message might be sent by buttoning to the top and a message might be sent by leaving the top button open, or the top two buttons open. We may like to send all three messages (or none of them) but the nature of the construction of the garment may force us to make difficult choices. Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In the school where I teach it's currently a rebellious fashion to wear a colourful non-uniform T-shirt under the plain blue school uniform shirt, with as many buttons undone as possible, so that your "fashionable" T-shirt is visible to the world. Naturally teachers are then seen as the conservative enemy for asking these kids to button up. Ah, fashion.... HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, then that's where the retards get the idea. The teachers tell me to button up and they button up all buttons, including the top one. Ib30 (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese character in the Wikipedia logo

Hi, in the new logo (circa 2011), the chinese character is changed from "Ju" to "Wei", which makes sense since most other character are W related. I wonder then why is the word "Ju" chosen in the first edition of the logo? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.144 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, some of the characters in the original "puzzle globe" were just chosen at random—see m:Errors in the Wikipedia logo#Some letters not representing "W". Not a very satisfying answer, I know. Deor (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ban on edged weapons in real-world martial orders?

There is a common trope in fantasy novels and gaming (e.g. Raymond Feist novels and D&D), wherein certain characters cannot wield edged weapons in battle. Usually, this is described as conforming to some code of conduct. For example, a warrior priest who has moral objections to using a sword to stab an enemy, but has no qualms with using a mace to kill a foe. The question-- is this pure fantasy, or is there some basis in real history? Has there ever been a group of fighters who abstained from using bladed weapons for ethical/moral reasons? SemanticMantis (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

For the origins of the trope, see Mace (club)#European Middle Ages.

It is popularly believed that maces were employed by the clergy in warfare to avoid shedding blood (sine effusione sanguinis). The evidence for this is sparse and appears to derive almost entirely from the depiction of Bishop Odo of Bayeux wielding a club-like mace at the Battle of Hastings in the Bayeux Tapestry, the idea being that he did so to avoid either shedding blood or bearing the arms of war. The fact that his brother Duke William carries a similar item suggests that, in this context, the mace may have been simply a symbol of authority. Certainly, other Bishops were depicted bearing the arms of a knight without comment, such as Archbishop Turpin who bears both a spear and a sword named "Almace" in The Song of Roland or Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy, who also appears to have fought as a knight during the First Crusade, an expedition that Odo joined and died during.

This belief definitely predates the fantasy trope and isn't a backformation from it; see, eg, this note in the NYT from 1894. Shimgray | talk | 20:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Another fictional example is The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever, where "the Bloodguard has no need of weapons". The only parallel that I can think of is in Meiji era Japan, when the carrying of swords was banned by law, the Haitōrei Edict of 1876; a number of accomplished swordsmen turned their attention to Jujutsu and styles of combat which didn't use edged weapons. From them developed some of the modern martial arts, which can be as much a philosophical and spiritual exercise as a fighting technique. If obeying the law is a moral imperative, then we may be getting close. Alansplodge (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Friar Tuck, monastic character from the 1400s who I thought battled with a staff; but our article discusses (without a citation) his being a swordsman and archer in some tales; so never mind. My Disney upbringing has led me wrong. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe, back in the Middle Ages, anything made of steel was expensive, so only the rich, and those working for the rich, would have swords. Robin Hood and friends weren't rich, so had to use less expensive weapons. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

At that time, common people used farming implements and similar tools as weapons. "Beating plowshares into swords" was not just a figurative idea. Farmers fought with pitchforks or reapers, woodsman would fight with axes, blacksmiths would carry their trusty hammer. Clubs with a few nails driven through them make for nasty weaponry as well. --Jayron32 02:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - the agricultural Billhook was a very popular choice. See Bill (weapon). Alansplodge (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all! Seems that a likely source of inspiration is known (Bishop Odo), though historicity of that source is slightly questionable (e.g. not all fighting bishops used maces, and many used maces for non-moral reasons). I was also concerned about "back formations", so the NYT clip helps on that front. The meiji period is also an interesting angle. At this point, it seems that there has never been a formal, organized group that explicitly ordered members to abstain from using edged weapons. Still interested in other ideas if anyone is still thinking about this :) SemanticMantis (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Sword hunt. Oda Mari (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)