Miscellaneous desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 10

Verification of snopes.com opinions

A recent research of social security issues on snopes.com showed that a claim that congress had voted to grant social security benefits to illegal immigrants was false. A friend who I referenced this query to send me the following:

"For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email.

But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint." My question: Is this fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.63.170 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to soap-box. David and Barbara have never hidden the fact that they run the site themselves; if you pay extra-close attention, you'd note that they sign the bottom of the articles they write and that only one of two names are ever present. They are as prone to having biases and making mistakes as anyone else, but personally I think they do a better job investigating things than 90% of news services. Matt Deres (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, duh. Internet sites are run by people. The Mikkelsons both sign all of their pages quite explicitly and explain exactly where they are getting their information from. They make their reasoning transparent. Still disagree with it? Feel free! It's just another site on the internet. It happens to be a pretty good one. Don't believe everything you read—but places that make their reasoning and sources transparent allow you, the reader, to verify it for yourself. Your friend doesn't seem to have done that—alluding vaguely to things he/she knows that you don't, and that you should trust him/her on—so if it were up to me, I'd trust the Mikkelsons. The people asking the questions about the site have as much as a selfish motivation as anyone else. Just demand they make their logic and information transparent and straightforward, and the truth will come out. The Mikkelsons do this—which is one of the reasons their site is considered so authoritative. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here and here for the Mikkelsons' warnings against relying on the authority of Snopes. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh snap. Plasticup ^T/C 16:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing Snopes does that some may take issue with is that they often conclude some Internet rumor is false simply because they can't find any evidence that it's true. This is poor logic. However, I see what they're trying to do. If someone who hates somebody else makes up an unverifiable rumor about them, like that Dick Cheney likes to torture babies for fun, it's unreasonable to believe such an extraordinary claim without extraordinary proof. However, their shorthand statement that the rumor is false seems likely to upset those who would prefer a more formal application of logic. I would like to see them add a category of "unreasonable to believe such an extraordinary claim without extraordinary proof" and change many of their "false" results to that. "False" should only be used when proof can be found that the rumor is, indeed, false. StuRat (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They also qualify rumors as "undetermined" or if it's particularly complicated or sticky, it can be called "multiple, see details below". - Mgm|^(talk) 19:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And like the others said: They are human and people can make mistakes. They were transparent about their sources so anyone can check their information. I've also seen them update entries with new information if they found out they were incomplete or wrong. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nice thing about Snopes is that, unlike the authors of internet rumors, they cite their sources. Users should double-check the sources they provide to verify that they do prove or disprove any given story. Most of what they do doesn't require the skills of a professional researcher; any well-trained high school student can use reliable sources to verify whether or not Barack Obama took his oath of office on a Koran, or whether any cases of kidney theft have been verified by medical officials or law enforcement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From our experience here on the WP:RD, it's clear that a very small number of people with a very VERY large Internet behind them can do an amazing amount of research in a short time. People ask the most difficult questions and between the dozen or so "regulars" here - we find the answer most of the time. So two full-timers who have become particularly expert at doing this could easily cover the handful of new items that pop up on Snopes each week - especially with the help of tens of thousands of readers who - I'm sure - send them a lot of leads. As for labelling something as "false" because there is no evidence - that's a little 'iffy' - but since it's almost impossible to prove a negative, it would be almost impossible to label anything as definitely false. In the case of urban legends, if you can't find a source after a long and diligent search - the odds are very high indeed that it's bogus. SteveBaker (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The laws of irony are strictly enforced when you choose this of all places to ask such a question! --Sean/76.182.94.172 (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes grades rumors or urban legends on a 5 point scale:"True, false, multiple truth values, undetermined, and unclassifiable veracity." If it is simply a case of "no sources found to prove or disprove" the could use "undetermined." Wikipedia should evaluate a source such as Snopes on the basis of whether other sources judged reliable in turn give Snopes credit as a reliable source, or if they judge Snopes to be partisan or careless. In fact, Snopes gets very high marks for accuracy, per a Google News Archive search:[1]. "The Internet's Snopes.com site is indispensable to those questioning the veracity of information. It isn't perfect, but it works very hard at verifying or debunking urban legends, misinformation, and separating the true from the false. When it is unable to do so, it says so. It also cites its sources and explains its reasoning." per Times & Transcript . It is "The invaluable myth debunking website" per The American Spectator . Sites of unknown reliability, which like to believe unfounded swiftboating of Obama, do not like Snopes [2]. Another site [3] notes that Barbara Mikelson is Canadian and not a Democrat at all, that Snopes did confirm that an exhausted Obama once claimed to have visited 57 states, and that Snopes debunked a hoax quote from Palin about God creating dinosaurs so when they became petroleum we would have vehicle fuel. The Modesto Bee recommends Snopes to check out the truth of political smears which arrive in your email inbox, along with www.factcheck.org , www.opensecrets.org , www.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker , and www.PolitiFact.com . To this list I would add Wikipedia, particularly the talk pages for the relevant article. Edison (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll just point out... nobody's perfect. The WashPost fact checker had a major error after the VP debate (see this blog post) which they silently removed after it became clear that it was simply factually wrong. Snopes, unlike the Post, at least has the gallantry to make its updates and corrections known. Never trust a site that claims it is always correct—trust those that give you transparency of sources, reasoning, and corrections. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give an example of where Snopes concluded a rumor was false because they couldn't find proof that it was true:

Claim: Illinois senator Barack Obama is a "radical Muslim" who "will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance."

Status: False. [4]

Reason given: "...no evidence supports a claim that Obama is currently, or ever has been, a Muslim (radical or otherwise)."

This is one of those cases which should have a status of multiple or undetermined, but they stated that the entire claim was false. I fully understand, again, that they mean that no reasonable person would believe such an extraordinary claim without any proof, but that's not what they said, they just outright said it was entirely false. StuRat (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

old glass factory sites on pacific coast of california and old dump sites

Where can I find references or maps or addresses of old glass factory sites alone the coast of california, I am also looking for old dump sites along the california coast. time frame 1900-1975 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.145.172 (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check sources in Long Beach, California and vicinity, such as current local manufacturers or reference staff in the public library there. A Web search brings up info like "Long Beach Glass Company, Long Beach, CA (1920-1933)" so you can continue along those lines. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a work a "mood piece"?

In art, what qualities make a work a "mood piece"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.9.57 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In visual art I suppose it's to do with evoking feeling through techniques that can range from effects of mystery and softness or depth that makes a work subtle, slowly entered, moving. Mood also comes from chiaroscuro or high contrast (see Caravaggio the painter) where the artist initiated using light and dark for dramatic effect. Chiaroscuro can be found in two and three-dimensional works including photography, cinematography (film noir eg), sculpture. You could say a wall of remembrance using curved surfaces and dark granite is a mood piece – like the ethereal looking Vietnam Wall. In music there's Albinoni's Adagio where adagio means a piece is meant to be played slowly, evoking deeper feelings. Jeff Buckley's treatment of the song Hallelujah is maybe, a mood piece. There are many other, different examples. Just my pov, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with a work performed by cattle,which is of course a "mooed piece" Lemon martini (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song title

What is the song that starts playing at 2:20 in this video? Thanks. Nadando (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but would like to get the name of the music in the beginning of the video.Lova Falk (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an iPhone, you can use Shazam to identify it. Wonder if there is a similar Windows app? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Prelude in E minor, Op. 28, No. 4, by Frédéric Chopin. It was one of the pieces played at his funeral. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Driving as mandatory for a job offer

Looking for jobs, and a lot of them say that I need a driving license, which I don't have. Obviously, these are not driving jobs, like freight or anything, but jobs in which I might be required to drive.

After getting a bit frustrated at the amount of jobs where this was mandatory on the person specification, I was wondering why this isn't classed as discrimination of some sort? Maybe I'm not allowed to drive because of epilepsy or some other medical condition.

Moreover, in modern times where driving is becoming more of a choice than a necessity ^{(original research?)}, what with carbon footprints, the environment, war on oil, etc, then will this practice be allowed to continue?

Thanks a lot. Fenton Bailey (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously going to depend upon the laws in the country you are in. However many jobs require staff to be able to visit a customer, perhaps carrying tools or equipment and arrive within a short period of time. This means that public transport isn't viable. Should the company hire a chauffeur? I work in the UK and recently visited a customer in Germany with a large box of equipment - I flew to Germany and hired a car to drive the 2 hours to the customer. How else could this be done in a timely fashion? -- SGBailey (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm in the UK, and the jobs I was looking at were not service jobs like plumbing or delivery, they were office jobs that perhaps needed the employee to drive to see clients, etc. Driving was not the point of the role is my point. 90% of my time would be in the office, so can they demand that I need to be able to drive? Fenton Bailey (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to be able to reach clients then you need to be able to reach clients, it doesn't matter how often it comes up. I don't know of any laws against requiring certain qualifications for a job that only rarely uses them (unless, possibly, that requirement indirected discriminated against a protected group - say, it was a qualification that ethnic minorities are unlikely to have for some reason). --Tango (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(i'm not a lawyer etc.) The guidelines for companies to follow is something like 'employer fails to make reasonable adjustments'. It could potentially be argued that this portion of the role could be taken-up by a more suitably able colleague which is considered a resasonable adjustment. Similarly it could be argued that the role of driving to see clients is vital and so it would be unreasonable to not be able to to drive to clients (regardless of % of working week spent doing that task). The difficult part is...what is a 'reasonable' adjustment? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could take this to a ridiculous extreme by saying that a certain job would require the employee to eat a handful of peanuts on a fortnightly basis. Most people would have no problem with that, but the remaining few people who had a nut allergy would take umbrage for sure. It’s not that they don’t want to eat peanuts; it’s that they actually can’t. So by the employer saying that it is a requirement of the job, they are discriminating against people with nut allergies. It’s not that they don’t want to drive; it’s that they actually can’t. So by the employer saying that it is a requirement of the job, they are discriminating against people who can’t drive. That’s how I’m seeing this situation anyway. Obviously I’m not comparing a big sign saying “No Blacks” on the application form to saying you need to be able to drive, but there must be some similar elements?Fenton Bailey (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that there almost certainly isn't actually a need for the employee to eat peanuts, there is a need for the employee to drive. If you lost both your hands in a car accident, you're not going to be able to get a job as a surgeon, it is discrimination, but it isn't unfair discrimination. The same applies even for explicitly protected characteristics - a women's refuge looking for a counsellor is perfectly within their rights to discriminate against male applicants since there is a legitimate reason for preferring a female counsellor. --Tango (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Good talk. Fenton Bailey (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was vital to my business that one of my employees eat a pile of peanuts every two weeks, I think it'd be pretty unreasonable to expect me to hire someone allergic to peanuts. APL (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you have simply not yet learned to drive (ie. you are not barred from driving through either a medical condition or by a legal ban), why not apply for the jobs and explain at the interview that you intend to learn to drive within the first few months of your employment. Astronaut (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "can drive" and "actually does drive". Sure, you may decide not to actually drive because of global warming, etc - but that doesn't really prevent you from learning. The amount of fuel you use while learning is pretty tiny and it's a useful skill from an employer's perspective. As for discrimination - your employer is allowed to pick employees on the basis of their skills - even if he does not require to you to actually use them. If he demands that you be able to speak Japanese - then that's OK - even if (as it happens) you are never called upon to use that skill. So it's certainly not illegal to require that you are able to drive. However, he's only allowed to discriminate against disabilities when the disabled person cannot perform the task required. So if you were unable to drive (eg because you have periodic epilepsy) - he cannot discriminate on the grounds of epilepsy - but if the job actually requires driving skills, he can. SteveBaker (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In business we call these "bona fide job requirements". Useight (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suck it, Brittanica!: Bona fide occupational qualifications. --76.182.94.172 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should an employer be able to make it mandatory for the prospective employee to consume alcohol, pork and beef, neglecting those whose religious requirements would be violated, and thereby excluding the observant of those denominations?? If it wre a restaurant he could call it "menu familiarization." Edison (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the consumption of those foods was an essential part of their job (a Maître d' or Chef), then yes. If they're just washing the dishes, then no. FiggyBee (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some dubious comments here. Disability laws (at least in the uk) are set so that it is about whether or not accomodating the limitations of a disabled candidate is reasonable. The fact that a job 'requires' X doesn't make exclusion of disabled people unable to perform X legally acceptable. If reasonable adjustments could be made to the role that would allow a disabled candidate to be able to perform their duties they must be considered on an equal standing with those who wouldn't require the adjustments. I'll try dig out the relevant information/links to post. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Canada there have certainly been court cases about whether something was a bona fide job requirement. I remember one where people wanting to work for a major railway were required to be able to lift and carry a certain weight unassisted -- I think it was 80 pounds (35 kg) -- on the grounds that they might be asked to move a coupler. It was argued that carrying a coupler around by hand was a task that hardly ever came up, and if it did, the employee could find someone else to help; and that what this was really about was the railway trying not to hire women. The court agreed. There have also been similar cases involving firefighting, where the arguments are less clear-cut but the courts have also sided with the women trying to be hired. Of course, I am not saying that any of this is relevant to the original poster's question, and this is certainly not legal advice. --Anonymous, 20:12 UTC, November 11, 2008.

million/crore value

how many crore is a million?.amillion has how many digits(eg 1000000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.124.242 (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about you check out crore and million and tell us? Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Full Bottle

I have a bottle of Old Forester that was my fathers and I know it is 30 years old or more and has never been opened. Is it worth anything ? Thank you for your time.Brungard (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whisk(e)y, unlike wine, does not age after it's been bottled. An unopened 30-year-old bottle of whiskey is not going to taste much different from one that was bottled yesterday, and nor is it going to be worth much more, unless there's something particularly collectable about it. FiggyBee (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it was kept in reasonable conditions - no direct sunlight, no massive temperature changes. Bad conditions could well cause the whisky to deteriorate over 30 years. --Tango (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unanswered question

Where are all the blue foods? There are foods the color of all the primary colors...except blue.Where are the blue foods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coquett20 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise looking over the article Blue and also Blueberry. Whilst blueberries aren't blue in the children's view of primary colours sense, they seem to get called indigo which is considered blue. Interesting Blue and green in language is worth a look (if i've got the title of that article correct). It is interesting how there are lots and lots of red and green fruits but less 'blue'. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Fruit Roll-Ups, Skittles, Curaçao liqueur, and Brilliant Blue FCF. 'tis the bounty of the artificial world! Plasticup ^T/C 16:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random related thought: In Australia there are birds called Satin Bowerbirds that build fairly elaborate mating displays (see example) out of blue objects. It must have been very hard once upon a time to find blue shells, flowers, feathers, etc., but now they build these bowers largely out of blue plastic trash. It's quite amusing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blueberries just look purple to me! I knew they were called blueberries for a reason but I just wonder why there are so many fruits the other colors and blueberries are the only ones thats blue! Where are all the blue foods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coquett20 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IFAIK, there are no naturally occurring blue foods (I couldn't call blueberries, "blue"). Some foods, like those mentioned above (plus blue Smarties) have been coloured by the addition of a blue food colouring. Astronaut (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OP knows that, the question was "why?". --Tango (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guy may have the answer, and he published the results of his study. Here is a transcript of the lecture he gave on the matter. I hope that clears things up... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Purpleberry" doesn't have the right feel for a fruit, or for anything really. Has anyone mentioned blue cheese? (OK, I have now). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but are you all nuts? OF COURSE blueberries are blue! They come in different hues, but does this look frickin' purple?! No, it's BLUE! Belisarius (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Other ideas: Bilberry, Lactarius indigo (edible blue mushroom), blue potatoes (and Terra Chips), and blue corn. No idea why blue foods are less common. Pure speculation: maybe making blue pigments is energetically costly compared to other pigments. Or maybe it's an accident of evolution - other colors were popular pigments first, then animals' sensory systems evolved to be attracted to those colors because they indicated good sources of food, and then blue fruits/berries/etc. were bad evolutionary strategies because animals weren't predisposed to eat them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, blue flowers are uncommon because bees don't like them. I couldn't tell you why, though. Steewi (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own personal theory: all the prehistoric blue foods got depressed and lost the will to live. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of blue flowers here[5] to cheer up the blue foods. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schott's Miscellany claimed some parrot-flesh was blue. Yum! jnestorius^(talk) 23:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borage has very blue and edible tasty flowers. When I grew it I would also eat the leaves in a salad. -84user (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect that the reason for a lack of blue foods is that for most people blue food is the same as spoilt food. Take a slice of bread and put it in a plastic bag for a few days past it's best by date. It will eventually turn blue with mold, Penicillium chrysogenum. While that particular mold has quite the taste, it is harmless to eat, as are the molds used in blue cheese. Other molds are not and most are seen as indications that the food has gone off. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Van Buren accent

Did Van Buren speak with a dutch accent? In my head he does, but I guess it's quite likely he spoke English just like any other New Yorker... TastyCakes (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, given the fact that his family had been in North America for generations... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure if that convinces me, keeping in mind the Quebecois ;). Was Kinderhook a Dutch enclave at all, or was his Dutch speaking family an anomaly? Incidentally, do the Amish speak English with an accent? TastyCakes (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic enclaves sometimes retain their languages. Not ethat our article on Martin Van Buren says in the lead: "he is also the only president not to have spoken English as a first language, having grown up speaking Dutch". Rmhermen (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one goes back 50 or 100 years to old phonograph recordings of average Americans, the acents are distinctively different from what is common today (and not just because of the limited fidelity of the recordings. Speech of people in Van Buren's era doubtless would sound strangely accented today. If the folks of Kinderhook still spoke Dutch at home during Van Buren's childhood, there would likely have been traces of it in the English spoken in the town, even though Van Buren's ancestor of the same last name had immigrated 151 years before the birth of the future president. Edison (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a book that says(p214) Van Buren spoke with a slight Dutch accent.This book [http://books.google.com/books?id=fywlrT6VI3oC&pg=PA623&dq=accent+%22kinderhook+new+york%22+date:1730-2008&lr=&as_brr=0 says his wife "never lost her Dutch accent." OK(Old Kinderhook)? Edison (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. One could have gotten around New York on Dutch in 1800 at least as well as in Spanish today, maybe better. - Jmabel | Talk 00:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the Amish still speak German, specifically Pennsylvania German or Alemannic German. Their accent in English is considered distinctive - see their potrayal in films like Witness (1985 film). But note that such portrayals are often exagerated (like the accent in the movie Fargo). Rmhermen (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or like the accent of a politician from Alaska? You betcha! Edison (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neat, thanks guys TastyCakes (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self cleaning ovens

I did not get a manual for the GE kitchen stove when we bought the house. Can anyone tell me how to clean the oven using the self-cleaning feature? There is a lock lever above the door and a "Clean" setting on the control panel, but how long should I run it? Do I need to do any prep work to the oven? RTRtqueen (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My GE self-cleaning oven has a timer and a thermostat that prevents the oven from being opened during the cleaning cycle. Basically, once the oven reaches the cleaning temperature, the lock remains "locked" until the cycle has completed and the temperature has cooled off. You could always call GE or look on their website at http://www.ge.com for information on requesting a new manual. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.geappliances.com/service_and_support/ . The first link is titled "Use and Care manuals". I would bet you could find what you are looking for there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to do prep work but if you have standing puddles of grease or anything like that it's a good idea to clean them up (or else they'll catch fire—which isn't a huge problem but it can make smoke and stink). Don't use chemical cleaners for this, just wipe up anything liquid or easy. Usually you run it for like 4 hours or something like that—it takes a long time to really clean it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep a thermometer in your oven, be sure to remove it before cleaning. (BT,DT.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]