Miscellaneous desk
< December 29	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 31 >

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

Sydney 2000 closing ceremony

hello! is there a way to get a list of all performers appearing at 2000 Summer Olympics closing ceremony? thanks in advance :) West Brom 4ever (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logically thinking, yes, there probably is a way of doing that. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This means there may be a way to make such a list! --Captain-Obvious! 09:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean, in the strictest sense, that the question was answered? I suppose the OP was waiting for a positive answer so I'd say yes. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the OP was using an indirect and polite way to ask somebody to find such a list. SaundersW (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. But suppose we're uncomplicated, cold-calculating, logically and straight-thinking beings that do not read between the lines? --Ouro (blah blah) 14:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please take the oh-so-clever answers somewhere else and make an effort to tell the OP what he/she obviously wants to know? SteveBaker (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Obvious clearly has good humor --n1yaNt(~Cpt. Obvious~) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be tough to do - there were hundreds of dancers and all sorts of other performers. It's remotely possible that a letter to the organising committee might get you a list - but they might well refuse on the grounds that these were schoolkids or something - and it's quite likely that even they do not have a complete list anymore. I seriously doubt that it's possible to get such a complete list. SteveBaker (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the searches I have been able to find, the Sydney Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) donated all of its work product to the reference department at the State Library of New South Wales. There is a search and an "ask the librarian" section on the library's own website. — Michael J 22:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second SteveBaker's doubts though - these are surnames/personal data, they might not be so eager to submit them to any random person that asks (although you could have good grounds to ask for it, I don't know). You're welcome to try your best, probably, though. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lot. cheers West Brom 4ever (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia background header image

What does this background header image depict? 71.100.6.70 (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the edge of an open book, close-up on the spine, with the pages showing. --Masamage ♫ 02:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question... is the original photographic image available for viewing online and what is the name of the book? 71.100.6.70 (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is probably a dictionary of some sort judging by the black tabs on the edges of the pages. Hence its use as a banner online at Wiktionary. There, you can use the Wiktionary which is an "online" (i.e. non-paper or bound) dictionary. But I suspect you already know this ;) Saudade7 15:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction Based New Religions

How many fiction based new religious movements (e.g. Jediism) are there? 66.211.228.156 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many would say that all religions are "fiction based". If you mean merely religions where the book came first, at least as far as those other than the author(s) are concerned, one that comes to mind is Lafayette's creation in a book I would prefer not to give any more publicity than is essential. Bielle (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on where you draw the line. Dyanetics (a religion started as result of a bet between L. Ron Hubbard and some other science fiction writers at a drunken convention meeting that went wildly wrong when the author of the fiction started to believe in it himself) has reached the status where you'd pretty much have to say it was a religion - but I doubt that any strong beliefs truly arise from Jediism or Matrixism or whatever. Those may suggest attitudes to the world - but they don't really imply any new beliefs in the way the universe works or whether there is a god or not. Most Christians would probably agree that much of the material in the old testament of the Bible is fiction. Only the most extreme believe in the literal truth of stories like Noah's Ark. So on those grounds, the Bible is for the most part a work of fiction. But whether something is fact or fiction is a matter of belief in the first place. Those who do believe in the literal truth of the bible would not describe it as a work of fiction where those of us who have actually read the darned thing find it hard to believe that it is anything other than fiction. So how do you count? I might justifiably argue that from an Atheist position, absolutely 100% of religions are based on works of fiction - because if they were grounded in truth, then one would have to believe in them. However, even if you are a religious believer, you've pretty much gotta say that all of the religions EXCEPT YOURS are based on works of fiction. I don't think we can come up with a clear answer to this.

If you are asking about RECENT religions (Jediism, Matrixism - and some of the more fanatical Klingon enthusiasts) - then it's hard to imagine that anyone really believes in them because they know, deep down, that the author of their "holy scripture" is a well known personality - who may well still be alive to assert that his writings are not meant to be taken seriously.

SteveBaker (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your points about Christianity are technically correct. Christians made the Bible, not the other way 'round; whether it's fiction or not is irrelevant to the question so far as I can see. Jediism, on the other hand, is directly based on a couple of movies, so it clearly falls into the category the questioner is inquiring about. I'm not a student of religious studies, but my gut tells me that most religions are based in something the same way - the belief comes first, then the holy text gets written down to both explain it and solidify it. When things are the other way around (Jediism and Matrixism) we get something that's not a religion in any real sense. As you mention, Scientology is the tough case - it is based on fiction, but has become religion in its own right.

Folks who've decided to worship Thor again (for instance) are, I think, closer to the fiction-based group than the "true" religion group, but there's obviously a judgment call there. How many fiction based 'religions' are there? I have no idea, but I think most recognized religions wouldn't qualify anyway as the fiction came later. Matt Deres (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, dear 66.211, if we were to tackle the question from the other end, i.e. What religions are based solely on fact? I guess many will find a suitable answer to this. What is left over, must be fictional by definition... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. Buddha's teachings, for example, do not contain a great deal of what we'd traditionally call 'fact' or 'fiction', but is rather closer to a philosophy of ethics. I'd hesitate to call his Noble Eightfold Path a fact, per se, but it's certainly not fiction either. The idea that a religion is supposed to have a bunch of fairy tales and wild stories taken as "fact" is a very Western idea. I suppose that is why so many Western scientists are atheists - they're taught to question baseless assertions and Christianity has a pile of them. So far as I know, the trend to atheism in scientists is much less pronounced in the East; perhaps that's because those religions are taught as what they are: symbological constructs designed to teach a lesson, not fantasy stories masquerading as history. Matt Deres (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure whether it's that simple. Is there any evidence for example for such a trend towards atheism among scientists in Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, or most of the Middle East (i.e. parts of the world with a large Muslim population)? I'm aware of course that this is difficult to gauge since public expressions of atheism and rejection of Islam can sometimes be a problem yet even considering that I'm somewhat doubtful that most of them are 'closet' atheists. Yet Islam is an Abrahamic religion and I think in some ways the way it is taught is closer to the fairy tales and wild stories. The difference is perhaps Islam is also taught of as a way of life more so then Christianity and people do accept Islam and themselves as Muslims even if they don't necessarily accept the claims as literally true. Furthermore Islam has a arguably far less tenous relationship with science then Christianity in particular seems to have (see Islamic science) for whatever reason (I won't bother to discuss my opinions here). Definitely other then Adnan Oktar I'm not really aware of any strong Muslim creationist proponents. Even in the cases of Adnan, although I'm aware that acceptance of evolution in Turkey is apparently lower then in the US, it's not clear to me how much of an issue it actually is in Turkey. (On a related note History of evolutionary thought mentions that some early Islamic scholars in fact had their on evolutionary like ideas although founded in Islam). Perhaps it also helps that Islam tends to IMHO be less hierichal then many Christian denominations. Catholicism is obviously one of the prime examples but many Christian denominations remain some level of hierachy. While you do have ulama and other such people in Islam, these are more considered scholars and although they may be involved in Sharia law and command a great deal of respect they don't necessarily IMHO have the commanding influence people like Bishops have in Catholicism. Perhaps Shi'a Grand Ayatollahs do have the influence that people like the Pope have over their followers (although there's a lot more of them especially when you consider Shi'a are a clear minority) and they don't seemingly care so much about areas that really effect science and scientific belief so even their followers may not necessarily have a problem reconciling their science with their religious beliefs. All in all, I don't think it's just an issue of whether a religion seemingly makes claims that are unbelievable. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related articles: New religious movement, List of new religious movements, Jedi census phenomenon, Matrixism, Church of the SubGenius, Flying Spaghetti Monster and more. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful - not all of those are true religions. Church of the SubGenius, Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bbhhh) are all parodies of religions. None of their 'followers' are believers - to the contrary, they are almost entirely atheists. SteveBaker (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey, you are forgetting Discordianism! Giorgian (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oshi

I just bought this board game called "Oshi". I had a good time playing it, and decided to check what Wikipedia has to say about it. However, seems like we don't have an article about Oshi yet. I was surprised, because the instructions sheet tells that this is actually an ancient Japanese game - as I quote:

When Goddess Amaterasu gifted the first emperor of Japan with the sanshu no jungi, or Imperial Regalia, she also passed along a piece of her wisdom in the form of a game called Oshi, or Push. Oshi taught the emperor and his court that influence was power, but to use caution, because choosing unwisely can defeat even the most powerful.

So, if this is an ancient game, we should definitely have an article about it. But I just can't confirm the veracity of these claims, as all sources seem to be websites selling or reviewing this game I bought. Could someone help me discover whether Oshi is really that special/ancient or just a modern creation? Thanks. Hús ö nd 03:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fair to say the claims are not accurate, since I think we would be aware if there was verifiable existence of a Goddess gifting anything to anyone. I guess the question is whether or not the game is a verifiable part of Japanese mythology. I can't find any source suggesting it is. Rockpocket 03:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This means this game isn't really ancient! --Captain-Obvious! 09:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Board Game Geek says that Oshi was "inspired by" the story of the goddess Amaterasu giving a game to the Emperor Jimmu around 700 BC- not that this is the actual game that was given. In other words, in order to give the game some kind of image of being ancient and mystical, the developers probably picked a Japanese-sounding name out of the air (Oshi means "Push") and then looked for an instance of an ancient lost game legend that they could tack on to it to give it some credibility. However, the game itself (minus possibly bogus history) would make an interesting article - and I encourage you to write it. SteveBaker (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will write a stub about this game anyway then. Chances are that it'll become popular, ancient or not. Hús ö nd 15:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudsbygd

Edvald Boasson Hagen gives Rudsbygd as the place of birth of this Norwegian cyclist. But this "city" has no article either here or in nn. and no. wikis, and "Rudsbygd" only appears in the cyclist's article. So I'm guessing the article is wrong or that the name of the town has been mistyped. Does anyone know the true spelling of the name? -- Danilot (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They and they give Rudsbygd too. From my Googling I'd say that the name of the place is okay, but I don't know Norwegian well enough to tell you how small or insignificant it is that it doesn't have its own page. Hope this helps. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 14:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a village in Fåberg just north of Lillehammer, see this pdf for how big it is. 81.77.136.231 (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Danilot (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for pictures of a M14

Ive been searching forever for a public domain photo of a M14 rifle for use in the m14 article. Ive searched all of the US militarys websites for a decent one. Can anyone tell me were to get a good photo of one. BonesBrigade 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://images.google.com/images?&q=M14+rifle+site%3A.mil —Nricardo (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The OP is asking for PUBLIC DOMAIN photos - the ones you find on Google Images are probably not.) But the photo currently attached to our M14 article is in the public domain: Image:M1A NM.jpg - what's the problem with that? There are a bunch more M14's in WikiCommons: [1] SteveBaker (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Google image search that Nricardo provided only returns images hosted on servers in the .mil top-level domain: the United States military. Since the U.S. Department of Defense is a government agency, their images are public domain. (One must be cautious of non-DOD images being hosted on DOD servers, but as a first approximation restricting the search to .mil domains is likely to return a sample highly enriched in public domain material.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TenOfAllTrades, for defending my good name against copyright paranoia. —Nricardo (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Steve, the main photo is of a M1A, a civilian version of a m14. I was looking for a actual military versian m14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BonesBrigade (talk • contribs) 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BonesBrigade 00:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 metres dash - sports question

I remember hearing about a 50 metre sprint event at a high level of competition but now I wonder if I was hearing things. The topic of the reference was that the athlete would only take a breath or two before finishing the race. Does anyone know if this event exists and at what level? Thanks in advance. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's always been 55 [2] --n1yaNt(~Cpt. Obvious~) 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Driving with wet shoes

When driving a car with a traditional manual transmission with wet shoes, the left foot squeaks every time it goes to depress the clutch pedal. Is there any driving technique one can use to reduce the amount of squeaking? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there usually a mat on the floor of every car. Rub your shoes on that mat, it will significantly dry out your sole. Now there will be significantly less sqeaking --n1yaNt(~Cpt. Obvious~) 00:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the mats do not do a good enough job of absorbing water and I, for example, have rubber mats on top of my normal carpet mats. As well, the wet shoes will transfer water onto the pedals. So regardless of having a dry shoe, the pedals will still squeak. Acceptable (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get a girlfriend. Make her drive. Problem solved. --n1yaNt(~Cpt. Obvious~) 05:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is a driving technique. Cover the pedal in something ... glue a bit of carpet or fabric to it. Come on, Acceptable. Wet rubber pedal pad versus wet sole of shoe ... how much help do you really need to come up with a solution to that problem? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use a dry overshoe (or an old heavy duty sock) on your left foot.--TreeSmiler (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drive barefeet! It's surprisingly comfortable. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

or in your socks... Think outside the box 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware! It's illegal to drive without shoes in some US states. (I happen to know it's legal in Texas - but not in some other states). It's really rather dangerous to drive when your clutch-foot might slip. The way most people stop at junctions, if your foot should happen to slip off of the clutch, you'll probably wind up jumping out into traffic coming from the sides and that can kill you. (Of course you SHOULD have the car in neutral with the handbrake set - but not many people get that right). I strongly recommend vigorously rubbing your foot on the floor mat to get it reasonably dry before setting off. SteveBaker (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back in '94 someone researched the legality-of-barefoot-driving question for alt.folklore.urban and was unable to find a single US state where it was unambiguously illegal to drive a car barefoot. There was at least one where it was illegal to drive a motorcycle barefoot, and at least one other where it was suggested that a police officer might have discretion to cite you if he personally thought it was unsafe, but none oops, I should be careful here -- none that this person found; there were a few states he couldn't get an answer from where the explicit language of statute banned barefoot driving of an automobile. See here. I would be interested to know whether this has changed.

My personal non-warrantied opinion is that, provided you don't have anything pointy rolling around where your pedals are, barefoot driving is probably safer than shod driving, because you have better sensation of the pedals. --Trovatore (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you people ever walk around barefeet? I don't really see how barefeet is more prone to slippage to damp shoes when your feet are sufficiently roughened up, providing plenty of friction. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne's got a point. Antilived, however, also - walking barefoot is not only pleasurable, but also quite healthy. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of gondola trip

Approximately how much would it cost for a ride in a gondola in Venice? Obviously one can assume that the cost is partially dependent on the duration of the trip, so please assume a median length trip. Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venice sets official rates for its Gondola rides. [4] --n1yaNt(~Cpt. Obvious~) 00:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]