Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 September 30

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.

September 30

North Pole

What is the time on the North Pole? 82.32.51.147 (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The same as on the south pole. Edison (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In some reference frames, at least. —Tamfang (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously question of the week. See here for some more answers. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's crunch time! There's less than 90 days until Christmas and those toys aren't going to make themselves!! --LarryMac | Talk 12:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

@Edison: I don't believe that the time in both poles is the same. I would rather say they have 12 hours difference. Mr.K. (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the time when you are standing next to either pole, just walk around the pole and select any time of day you want within a 24 hour range. The time next to the pole can be any time, depending on the longitude you select. The time directly on top of the pole is undefined. "Undefined" at the North Pole is like "Undefined" at the South Pole, not 12 hours different. Two points 180 degrees apart in longitude and at any latitude from pole to equator would be 12 hours apart. Edison (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See North Pole#Time and South Pole#Time. jnestorius^(talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Another job interview question

Thanks for all the helpful replies to my question on job interviews. I had the interview yesterday, they didn't ask me that question in the end but they did ask me another one which knocked me sideways a bit: "Describe a situation in your working life where you have had to overcome your stereotyped views of women" (I'm male). Now I'm not going to tell you what I said, but in general (allowing of course for the fact that everyone's experiences are different) what would you say was the correct approach to take with that question? --Bluegrouper (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That would have thrown me too. It sounds like they're working on the assumption that every male automatically has stereotyped views of women. I'd have been very tempted to say "I don't believe I've ever had such stereotypes", but I guess I would have bitten my tongue first. There's no one correct answer to this, but I probably would have explained how I've always treated women with dignity, respect and equality, and helped others overcome their stereotypes by giving them an example to follow. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a wild question, for sure. I guess I personally would describe how I was able to overcome the fact that my sisters are architect, doctor, and doctor, and realize that all the rest of the women are dirty sluts. Or possibly comment that if you've already decided that I have stereotyped views, maybe I'm not the best candidate for the position, since I obviously don't fit your expectations. A long time ago, I got the question "what makes you better than all the other candidates?" and I just wanted to say "Isn't it your job to figure that out? I haven't talked to the other candidates, maybe one of them is perfect".

Do tell what your response was (and eventually whether you got the job). I would take great offense to that question. Small wonder I'm self-employed. :) Franamax (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you were subject to the dreaded behavioral interview technique. I say "dreaded" for personal historical reasons, but actually I think if I were in a position to hire somebody I'd prefer to use something like that than the stereotypical "where do you see yourself in five years?" The important thing to know about that type of question is that it should give the candidate some idea of what situations might come up in the job. And remember that you're interviewing them, too! I might have tried to come up with something like "I think that my parents raised me to recognize that gender makes no difference in a person's abilities. Is such stereotyping something that I'd likely run into at this company?" --LarryMac | Talk 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly be pretty offended by that question. That's like "When did you stop beating your wife?" - merely answering the question is an admission that you are a terrible person. Many interviewers forget that an interview is a two-way street. It's just as easy for them to screw up and put off an otherwise promising candidate as it is for the candidate to screw up and not get the job. My response would probably have been "I'm sorry - I think I must have misheard the question"! I guess an honest answer is the only way forwards - so either describe such a thing if it ever happened to you - or tell them that you don't have a stereotypical view. SteveBaker (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how much you need the job. Unless I was truly desperate for work (and that's with the assumption that this won't be a good job since you'll be working with the kind of people that ask questions like that), I would make very clear that I was offended by the implication and would refuse to answer the question. --Tango (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was trained to do "structured interviews" with job applicants. If a job involved, say, dealing with angry customers, the applicant might be asked if he has had job experience dealing with angry customers, what methods he used to handle it, and how successful the result was. This could be numerically scored to allow comparison of different applicants. Other issues might be supervising union personnel, disciplinary issues, working with people of other ethnicity, responding to unethical or dishonest behavior by coworkers, or working alongside grumpy coworkers. If the applicant claimed such a situation never came up, they got a low score for the interview. Saying that the situation in question had come up (with details) that they came up with a strategy to deal with it (again with details) and that their efforts were successful (based on their account at least) got them a high score and indicated a good fir fot he particular job. Again, the question set differed depending on the analysis of the particular job. Edison (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the week I first started working for a computer game company. My desk was right next to the entrance to a conference room - where job interviews were sometimes carried out. One day that week, I was told that interviews were going on in there that day and that we were not to discuss confidential company business within earshot of the door. So I'm sitting quietly, working hard - a guy in a suit & tie (must be an interviewee) and one of our management types (shorts, T-shirt and sandals) disappear into the room - I can distantly hear some of the usual interview questions and answers - and I kinda zone out and concentrate on my work. After maybe half an hour - I hear the interviewee start shouting: "YOU BASTARD - HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY THINK I'D DO THIS...THIS IS F**KING WRONG! SO F**KING WRONG!!" and all sorts of other rants and obscenities. He's AMAZINGLY angry...I mean, he's totally lost it. A few minutes later - the interview is over and the candidate and the manager leave the conference room and disappear towards the front door. I think little more of it until later in the day, pretty much the exact same thing happens with a different candidate. I'm wondering just how hard this interviewer is on these poor guys to push them that far over the edge! My interview a few weeks earlier had gone fairly normally - but I had a different guy interviewing me. Was this some kind of bizarre "stress test" to make the candidates "snap" and see what happened? It was only on the third occasion that I realised they were interviewing people to do recordings for the in-game audio and they were in fact rehearsing from a script that was given to them in the interview! <sigh> SteveBaker (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable people with accounts on wikipedia

Are there any famous people who have an account here on Wikipedia? I know one - Arthur Rubin - but are there any others? February 15, 2009 (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by famous but the answer is probably a lot. See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles which is very likely incomplete Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd think most famous people would probably not want to tell the world who they are online to avoid stalkers and such. JessicaThunderbolt 11:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few I've run across have accounts but aren't active. Their talk pages fill with fancruft fairly quickly. SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also Category:Notable Wikipedians, although if you're anything like me you may struggle with that definition of "notable" as it applies to most of the people in that category. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Since notability is the criteria for having and article about the person, those two lists ought to be basically identical. SteveBaker (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time someone asked this, the only person I recognised was User talk:RichardDawkins. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

He's pretty typical though - you look at his Talk: page and there are lots of fans there saying how nice his books are - and a couple of people asking reasonable questions and being answered by other people who are NOT Richard Dawkins. Not one post from the man himself. If we examine his "User contributions" tag we see:

• Five edits in October'07 to the article about himself (It's dubious to change the article about yourself - WP:COI, etc.)
• One edit to List of human evolution fossils to change a single word 'España' to 'Spain'.
• One edit (just a few days ago) to Mermaid where (unsurprisingly) he deleted the sentence "Although considered to be fictional there have been several sightings proved to be accurate which has led many to believe that mermaids are in fact real."

That's IT - seven edits over two years with an account. Not exactly an active Wikipedian! SteveBaker (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I missed the bit where the OP asked for an "active wikipedian" - sincere apologies. Btw, he did edit his talk page (to defend the edits to the article on him). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Back in June I wrote an article on the conductor Myer Fredman, and I noticed there was a user of that name so I checked and it was the same person. As a courtesy, I left him a message on his talk page to let him know he now existed. He's never responded to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And we have a user named GOD, although he goes to the trouble of explaining he's not actually the omniponent deity of the same name. His talk page seems exclusively devoted to fruitless attempts to have him change his username. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And he only edited for less than a month over three years ago. I think these days he might well be blocked as an offensive username... --Tango (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Because I recognise quite a few. E.g. John Romero, Phil Zimmermann, Joi Ito, Diana Zuckerman, Nigel Short, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, III (okay maybe I don't recognise him specifically but he does have a famous grandfather), Jeff V. Merkey, Mitch Kapor, Xeni Jardin, Charles Ingram, Patrick M. Byrne... And more I probably missed. Admitedly some of these I probably know largely from wikipedia and most of them are probably not active, some may not even be real but as Zaid pointed out, the OP just asked for famous people with an account, not famous active wikipedians Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Adrian Lamo = User:Adrian Lamo -- assuming the User is telling the truth about his identity. Youth in Asia (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Kittybrewster is a baronet; does that count as famous? —Tamfang (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does Loren Coleman count? He is a Bigfoot researcher. See his Talk page. It shows a account that he has on here. Powerzilla (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the best example of active notable Wikipedian is: Jimbo Wales, userpage: Jimmy.Mr.K. (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We should never "out" the real life identities of Wikipedia editors who seek anonymity. If they select a username stating their real and notable name and "out" themselves intentionally, it seems fair to note the fact. Per the talk page Talk:Rachel Marsden Rachel Marsden , political columnist and television commentator, has edited Wikipedia as User:RachelMarsden. Bev Harris is well known for publicizing the security weaknesses of Black Box Voting, and we have User:Bev Harris who may be that person per her statement at User talk:64.202.138.2. Michael Klonsky was national secretary of the Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s and is now a Professor of education, and reportedly edits Wikipedia as User:Granpamike per an OTRS posting discussed at Talk:Michael Klonsky. Many users are not really the famous persons their usernames might suggest. Edison (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I ran across a user page for Derek Charke a while ago. At least I assume so since his username contains the name, and he edited the page. . . . Not exactly a household name, but he’s somewhat notable in academic modern music circles. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Company

Remember that company Gametraders that I talked about a while back? [1] Well, their description on the Nintendo 64 ([2]) is poorly written, which is most apparent from the last sentence of the main description. It looks like it was written by someone whose favourite games are those games. None of those five games are even in the true top 5 most popular N64 games! Do you think I should ask them to change that? February 15, 2009 (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No - you shouldn't ask them to change it. You should just change it yourself (see WP:SOFIXIT)...UNLESS: (a) You have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI) or (b) you can't back up your claims with proper references (see WP:REF). But this question really belongs on the Wikipedia Help Desk. SteveBaker (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they mean should they ask Gametraders to change the Nintendo description on their own site. In which case, sure, drop them an email and tell them what you would like to see changed (maybe even write a description yourself) and why. I don't know whether they will respond, but you can always try. Fribbler (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Coffee at work in the US

Living in Sweden, Europe, I watch numerous american movies and TV series. Every now and again, employees go to some coffeehouse and return with paper mugs with coffee. I just wonder, is it uncommon in the US to have a pentry at work, with a coffee machine, a fridge and a microwave oven, so people can make their own coffee exactly to their taste? --Lova Falk (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's very common in the U.S. to have coffee available in offices, almost always for free for employees. It tends to be of low quality, or at least perceived to be of low quality. Darkspots (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You might find this article about the standard of living in Norway compared with the U.S. to be interesting, in terms of American takeout coffee habits. Darkspots (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well - firstly, beware of movies & TV. Product placement is a very big deal these days - so behavior on-screen does not have to represent what real people do. If your favorite TV star goes out for coffee at Starbucks - then that's better than a 30 second advert for Starbucks. Even if it's not specifically Starbucks, (perhaps because they need to set a scene in the coffee shop or something) they may still be paying the TV company to push the concept of leaving work to grab a coffee.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, it's very variable. In the last two places I've worked, we have had a fully equipped kitchen. Where I am now, we have an Italian coffee maker that looks like something you'd find under the hood of a Lamborghini...and is nearly as scary to 'drive' - and probably more expensive to service! We also have microwaves (2), a toaster oven, a dish washer, and a large commercial refigerator/freezer. There are usually three or four flavors of coffee to choose between and they switch those around periodically for variety. There are also lots of tall jars filled with snacks and candy. There is a coke machine too. Some people would be surprised to find that they stock the fridge with beer - and we have "Happy Hour" a couple of times a week. Sometimes we order Pizza for lunch. It's all 100% free. This is not that unusual in my line of business (I make video game software) where employees are occasionally expected to work long hours without overtime pay. Also, we're not "on the clock" and if we were to go out for coffee for half an hour - that would cost the company a lot more than the cost of stocking the kitchen.

However, in the place before last, we had a break room with sink and microwave. There was a minimally functional filter coffee machine and really nasty coffee to go into it. The coke machine charged 70 cents for a 16oz can...which is a total ripoff. Several people did indeed get together to take it in turns to make a run to Starbucks twice a day.

What I've never seen in the US is a coffee vending machine - that was fairly common in the UK. When I last worked there, most of my co-workers brought their own filter-coffee machines to work and set them up in their offices. That would probably violate fire safety laws here in Texas.

So "it depends" is about the most that can be said.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The coke machine charged 70 cents for a 16oz can... Is it really true that everything's bigger in Texas? You can only get coke in a 12oz can in my part of the world. 16oz aluminum cans are for Bud and maybe Coors Lite beer, but never soda. Darkspots (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised at the 16 oz. can as well. But back to the original question. A couple jobs ago, the place I worked had a sort of common area amongst the cubicles where one of the engineers had set up a coffee maker. The company supplied the coffee (name brand, Folger's I think) and this engineer would make it every morning. It was free. In the little kitchenette that we had, there was a microwave, sink, and a refrigerator. There were also two vending machines for soda and snacks. The break room out on the factory floor had a coffee vending machine along with your usual assortment of snack and soda machines. Dismas|^(talk) 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers! Good to know you can get coffee at work. Very interesting article also even though I would also like to see a comparison between those who have the lowest incomes in US and in Norway, or Sweden. My guess is that poor people in the US live in much worse conditions than poor people over here. And then there is the wise but impossible remark: "beware of movies & TV". My estimate is that in average one hour every single day I watch a US movie or TV. How could my perception of the US not be influenced?? --Lova Falk (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to the OP -- my friends here in the U.S. tire of hearing me talk about my week in Paris, and one of the things that struck me: I was not in a particularly touristy area, and wandered a lot around the neighborhood. In the entire week, I never saw a person with a take-out cup of coffee (like the ubiquitous Starbuck's cup, or the Greek-key-bordered cup that seems mandatory in New York cop shows). How you get coffee in this country varies widely. There are any number of coffee services that supply no-name packs of coffee (along with sugar and usually that crumbled wallboard compound labeled "creamer") meant for use in an office's commercial drip coffee maker. It's a running gag in many offices whether there's enough coffee (or sludge) left in the bottom of the pot so you don't have to make a fresh one. I have seen the machines that dispense one cardboard cup of coffee, with various buttons for powdered "cream," sugar, and so on -- more often in factories than in offices, but in either case generally undrinkable. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC), whose coffee is getting cold.

I have never ever in my life walked on the street with a take-out cup of coffee. --Lova Falk (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a difference, not a virtue -- much like the amusement I felt when reading that Mercedes-Benz engineers couldn't believe that some Americans considered the number of cupholders in a car. I've gotten coffee to go many times; I was interested to see first-hand that nobody did, at least in the 5th arrondissement. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't lived, Lova Falk.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(I don't drink coffee.) I read "the Greek-key-bordered [coffee] cup that seems mandatory in New York cop shows" as something they brought from the station and filled from a Thermos bottle. —Tamfang (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just cop shows. Agent Gibbs (Mark Harmon) on NCIS seems to drink about 5 super-size coffees every episode (OK, he's a sort of cop). It might explain his super-demanding nature. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Greek-key cup is a fixture at the hundreds of little delis in Manhattan. I'm sure that in real life, lots of people have their own ceramic cup that they fill from the office coffee maker (Brun, Mr. Coffee, whatever), but these iconic paper cups are as ubiquitous as loud people on cell phones. (The link, the first hit I found for "new york deli coffee," is for a ceramic replica of the cup that the blogger claims has more than 180 million paper replicas per year... kind of like the ceramic Starbuck's grande mug I have myself.) As for consumption, my S.O. used to work with a guy who began his day with two Starbuck's ventes -- in other words, 40 ounces of coffee. --- OtherDave (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, the Greek-key paper cup in my mental image is mostly brown. —Tamfang (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Credit Crunch/Toxic Debt/Financial Black Holes - Solution?

This may sound naive coming from one who knows nothing about high-finance (hey, does that qualify me to become a master-of-the universe?). But, seriously, I seem to recall that whenever some 3rd World country is unable to service (pay back) it's international loans, and begins to default on the interest accruing on them, the International Monetary Fund or The World Bank always come running to the rescue and always manage to eradicate the original debt in order to allow the defaulting country to continue to exist in the international trading environment without slipping into the control of some gun totin' despot. So that being the case for a 3rd world economy, why can't the same rules apply for the rest of the world (USA, UK, France, Germany, Iceland etc., etc.) when times get tough - like now ???92.21.71.121 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, becuase the United States funded most of it, and is now such a large debtor nation it would be impractical for others to forgive the debt without the whole global economic system crashing down. Although, if one takes the extreme view of some who posit a totally cashless society, that could be the final solution - just wipe out everyone's debt and start over with a totally global system. Although that could lead to what Christians term the Mark of the Beast, wherein allegiance must be made to a global ruler (which is really [[ruled by satan, with nobody allowed to buy or sel without it. (Edit - can't believe there's no article on cashless society - I'd start one, but the idea has been out there for so longthere must be a reason - vandalism or something - that there must be a reason why there isn't.) 209.244.30.221 (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can tell that article name has no history attached to it at all. Nothing has ever been there. Probably you should do some searching around with alternate names to make sure there's isn't indeed an article that's just called something else--but otherwise, as long as you've got some good sources to put together, you should feel free to start one. --Masamage ♫ 20:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There will be plenty of child articles of cashless society, but I too would encourage you to put a start together, if you're so inclined. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried, nbut when i submitted, the screen went blank - it was so little I think I'll just let someone else - though I had a couple decent cites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.221 (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's when the government can't pay its debts - at the moment I don't believe any government is in serious financial difficulties, it's private banks with the problems. If the government of a major economy starts defaulting on its debts then a) we're all in big trouble (a lot of the maths that governs the financial world is based on the assumption that US Treasury Bonds and similar from other major nations are "risk free" - if that assumption proves incorrect, everything would break down and we could well end up with a barter economy) and b) the WMF or World Bank may well step in if they can afford to do so - the numbers involved may well be out of their reach, though. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reasons to Dislike the USA

What are some of the popular European (or nations) reasons why they do not like the USA? I am looking anything specific or broad or blatantly prejudiced.... thanks! --Anilmanohar (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

RefDesk is not a forum, please stop adding to this thread

We all have guns and are eager to use them. --Masamage ♫ 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Years of ugly ugly ugly US foreign policy - Chile, Vietnam, Iraq & many many other countries. Given your foreign policy, the degree of arrogance on the part of your leaders & ignorance on the part of your population. Stuff like that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally all of the high values of the USA that Europeans might actually agree with or value go out the window when it's not in US interest. Democracy? Not if you are interested in being Communist. Self-determination? Not if it is in our interest that you are ruled by another. Free trade? Not if it hurts our farmers. International law? Not if the US feels threatened. And so on. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use the reference desk to post diatribes or start arguments. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you secifically mean the USA, it's people, or both? 92.21.71.121 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Both. --Anilmanohar (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When abroad and working with European-looking colleagues, the incessant ranting about Baseball/American Football/US Politics/US TV shows, as if we knew anything about them. How would you lot like it if we went on incessantly about Football/Rugby/Gordon Brown/Eastenders?!? It doesn't happen, does it? We Brits have the common decency to try to find some common ground when we work together with you lot abroad.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lack of geographic knowledge. It's partly a stereotype and partly true. Earlier this year I had the great privilege of meeting a large number of Americans, and while most of them weren't nearly as dim or arrogant as the media often makes Americans out to be--in fact, most of them were very smart, polite, and culturally aware (then again, it was a high-end academic university event, so I don't know how representative of the general American population it was), in many cases, their knowledge of basic Canadian geography was woeful--and the event took place IN Canada, and had to do with international politics. And I do mean BASIC geography--one girl not only didn't know where Alberta was, she'd never even heard of it. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Canadian who doesn't know what you're talking about if you say, for instance, "Ohio."

Again, I think this perception of Americans may be more of a stereotype than truth, propagated largely by the media (such as Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans) and the fact that nobody ever comes back from the US saying "I met this normal, intelligent American," but we always bring back the stories about the hilariously clueless ones, but you asked why the US is disliked, not why they're dislikeable. And that's a big one, at least in Canada. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As an ugly American, I find this "Lack of geographic knowledge" embarrassingly true sometimes, but also a distortion of the truth due to others' fascination with the U.S. Here's a test for Canadians: can you locate the state of Guerrero on a map? Do you even know what country it is in? So, the fact you can locate Ohio may reflect your fascination with the U.S., whereas some (most?) Americans' inability to locate Alberta may be an egalitarian inability to memorize the states of all the countries in N. America, much less the world. --Scray (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I'd say that off the top of my head I could locate about half a third of the Mexican states. I wonder how many Canadians could do as well? Very randomly, once, as a tourist in British Columbia, I helped an immigrant answer geography questions for a Canadian-citizenship review test. I knew the three Maritime Provinces, IIRC. I can't imagine she had any idea I was an American. Darkspots (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC) correction added after I glanced at a map of Mexico.

Keep in mind, the US border Mexico, Canada doesn't. A person would generally be expected to know more about countries that border theirs than countries that don't. --Tango (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can't name any of the states in Greenland. :-D --Scray (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To add to that, I (American) can only name one or two Mexican states but would not be able to point them out on a map. Although, I know a bit more about Canadian geography. This comes, I feel, from the fact that I live so close to Canada. So by saying that as an American I should know just as much about Canada as I do about Mexico, just because the U.S. borders both countries, is not a good rule of thumb. It also depends on where within the States that the particular American lives. Dismas|^(talk) 06:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not buying it, Tango. There are only three countries on the continent! Canada and Mexico are important trading partners, and because of NAFTA, goods can ship between the two countries by rail or truck without transshipment. I'd hazard a guess that the average Canadian knows as much about Mexican geography as the average resident of a U.S. state that doesn't border Mexico, that is to say basically zero. Canadians know a lot about the geography of the U.S. because America is extremely culturally and economically important to them. What Canadians are angry about is that Americans have the same order of magnitude of knowledge about Canada that Canadians do about Mexico, and that's because Canada is roughly as important to America as Mexico is to Canada, if you follow me. The anger is understandable but not rational. Darkspots (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said that. I said an an American should, on average, know more about Mexico than a Canadian knows about Mexico. I never said anything about knowing the same amount about different bordering countries. --Tango (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's this "should" business that I don't buy. What I'm saying is, borrowing Scray's argument, is that Canadians should know a fair amount about Mexico, quite a bit more than they do, in general. And Americans should know more about Canada than they do. I hazard a guess that there are also people who think British people should know more about France, as much as, say, the Belgians do. What all this ignores is that most people don't seek out knowledge about things that aren't in their direct interest to learn. Belgians need to know more about France than British people do, let's just say; I bet they watch a lot of French TV, whereas British people produce a lot of really watchable TV on their own. This "should" about what Americans know ignores reality, and I argue that the anger that comes from it kinda ignores reality, too. Darkspots (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, speaking as a Brit, I have my own theories as to why America can be disliked. Now, in general, I'd say that we like America, but there are certain things we dislike. First off, I think we see in you what we really don't want to become - a nation built on corruption and lies. Your politicians are almost without exception crooked, and there is so much sleaze it's unbelievable. You appear obsessed with inconsequential details about your politicians that you neglect to mention their policies. You are overly-patriotic - do you really need a flag every 100 yards to remind you what country you're in? - and also very blinkered in the view that america is number one which means that the bad things about america will never change.

But still, we do like America in a way, and maybe it's not that we don't like america or americans, it's just that we see what's bad while you don't. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a few reasons - some valid, some not so; a coupla main ones i can think of are...
- dodgy foreign policy (as mentioned previously and pretty self-explanatary)
- jealousy - we like to do it to our own in New Zealand a bit - its called Tall poppy syndrome - knock-down whomever is on top
- barbara streisand
Boomshanka (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be hatred based on guilt for the imbalance of large number of Americans killed fighting for the liberation of France and Europe and defense of UK in WW1 and WW2, versus small number of European deaths fighting to liberate America from some foreign occupation (By the way thanks, France for assistance in the American Revolution). Edison (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Geographical ignorance is often cited. But I wonder if one slip necessarily means utter ignorance of all things. The US did get to the Moon, after all, and no other country has, so they're hardly a race of dumb-arses. We Australians are amused when we're confused with Austria, complimented on how well we speak English for a non-English speaking people, or asked about kangaroos hopping down the main streets of our capital cities (Canberra excepted; it's true, I've seen them, although it's not an every-day occurrence). The tendency is to think "Yeah, well he's an American, what would he know". But ask an Australian where their own territories Christmas Island or the Cocos Islands are, and they'll probably point northish, whereas they're north-west of most places in Australia, and due west from Darwin. I myself am constantly surprised to find the Philippines to the north of Western Australia on maps. I got it into my head at a young age that they're to the north-east of Queensland, and seemingly nothing will shake that core belief. We criticise American speech patterns, but ask most Australians to pronounce a word of more than 2 syllables and they just go to pieces, and also take an inordinate pride in such incapacity. A lot of Aussies say how much they hate American TV shows, products, cultural influences and manners, while chomping on their KFC or McDonalds, watching Ugly Beddy, and talking on their "cell" - yes, all at the same time. I think a part of the syndrome is Americans' openness about the things they don't know, which makes them appear to be more ignorant than other people. Other people will often pretend to have knowledge they don't have or obfuscate to avoid or change the question - but they still don't know. And you've only got to watch "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" to see how profoundly, embarrassingly, shockingly ignorant some Australians are (but, shamefully, they get handsomely rewarded for this). Watch "The Einstein Factor" and you'll got the completely opposite picture, but the people who criticise American ignorance have probably never even heard of this program because they refuse to watch the ABC on principle; the principle that "it's boring". -- JackofOz (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah... Edison has reminded me of what it is that annoys me about Americans... their belief that they single handedly defeated Germany and Japan in WWII at great cost to themselves, when in fact the number of american casualties was a small proportion of the total allied casualities. Astronaut (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Try to actually read what I wrote, and not what you expected. I noted the imbalance between Americans who died to liberate Europe when the Germans twice marched in and took over in the 20th century, and the small number of Europeans who died liberating America when some foreign power occupied our cities and abused our citizens. Maybe we have just been lucky not to need much help in that way. Or maybe it was the ineptitude of European politicians and armed forces. (And by the way , thanks to Pulaski, Von Steuben, deGrasse , Lafayette, and Kosciusko for their assistance in the American Revolution. Many persons, institutions, streets and towns were named after them). Edison (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We named our highest mountain after Kosciuszko, but misspelled it for over 150 years. Ask an average Aussie who this Kosciuszko guy was, and you'll get a blank stare. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The world wars are ancient history to most people now and I don't suppose many people know or care how many died from whatever country. Personally I'd give the Russians most of the credit for defeating Hitler - I'm not too keen on the Russian state but I really don't think that is due to any guilt trip. I'm not too keen on the US as a government either but at least it's better than Russia or China. And from all three as from anywhere else there are jerks and rednecks and there are people who are fun and there are people who are very nice. Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While Astronaut may have misinterpreted what Edison wrote I think Astronaut and Dmcq make good points. I think a lot of Europeans don't agree with the idea that seems common in America that the US saved Europe in one or both world wars nor that they should be forever grateful for it and not criticise America or it's foreign policy when they disagree with it. I think many would agree that the US was a big help, but many would also feel that, for example in WW2, Germany screwed itself when it decided to fight the war on two fronts and couldn't take the UK and that it's definitely not certain Europe would have fallen were it not for the US as seems to be common in the US. And regardless of how important the US's contribution was, many would feel that it doesn't mean Europe should be a good little boy and just go along with everything and anything America says. While I'm sure many Americans don't have this view, definitely you hear it a lot whenever anyone criticised the US someone comes along and talks about the US saving Europe and/or the world and you really hear an American challeging this view so it overides whatever anyone else in America believes. Plus there is the little stuff like the stupid Freedom Fries nonsense. This is the sort of stuff people expect from Asian, African and Islamic countries who are still growing up in the world and establishing their place and have a population and politicians that can be somewhat immature at times not from a vibrant developed democracy which is the only superpower in the world. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Who would have won if X had been different is a game played mainly by alternate-history SF types. Yes, U.S. casualties were proportionately lower than some other combatants -- as a percentage of population, more Canadians died in World War II. (Many Americans have no idea Canade entered the war two years before the U.S.) On the other hand, as a vast nation virtually unscathed by direct attack, other than the sucker punch of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. truly was, as Roosevelt said, the arsenal of democracy. At one point, even though the tonnage of ships sunk by Germany was still on the rise, the tonnage of ships launched was rising even faster -- meaning the Kriegsmarine couldn't keep up. One joke in Britain was that the only thing keeping the island from sinking under the weight of all the materiel were the barrage balloons.

Wars don't get won only by arsenals, though -- and Americans in particular forget the impact that the Soviet Union had on the war (or the impact that hundreds of thousands of Dodge trucks had on the Red Army).

The isolationist strain in U.S. history makes it easy for Americans to think of the World Wars as other people's problems -- those outmoded Europeans and their nationalism, so different from America's being the shining city on the hill. Occasionally, we in the States realize that we're not the only people around, and not even the smartest. Usually, though, we get over that. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I live in the US (I'm British) - and I like almost every individual American I meet - you are truly nice, friendly people living in an amazing chunk of the planet. But in large quantities, somehow it all falls apart. Between religion and politics, Americans make some of the worst decisions I've seen anywhere in the world. From the perspective of someone living here in Texas, meeting well intentioned individuals, it's easy to see the good side - but from the perspective of people who only see the actions of an entire nation - there is precious little good to say.

The argument that X defeated Y in support of Z and therefore there should be undying, eternal gratitude to X on behalf of Z and lingering animosity for Y on behalf of both X and Z is anachronistic. After a couple of generations - it's history. My parents were pretty grateful to the Americans for helping out against Germany - but it's not an important point to me anymore, I'm 54 years old and I have a default position of tending to give America the benefit of the doubt and a lingering concern about the rise of Germany and Japan - I don't hate Japanese and Germans at all - but I feel like I have to be somehow careful about discussing the war with them ("Don't mention the war! I mentioned it once - but I think I got away with it!"). My son finds that whole thing somewhere between puzzling and laughable. Sooner or later this ancient stuff has to be forgotten. Black people in America have to stop fretting about slavery because the evil bastards who did that to their ancestors are LONG dead. The Brits have pretty much forgiven the French for that whole Napoleon thing - and the Zulu tribesmen of Africa have pretty much forgiven the Brits for their rampant imperialism. But it cuts both ways just as evil in the past must be forgotten - good things that happened also fade from memory. Americans have to stop relying on the exploits of previous generations to maintain respect in the world and they must make new reasons for the world to like them.

If you are an American between (say) 20 and 40 years old - ask yourself what YOUR generation has done to make Europeans like you? Things like the land-mine treaty and the Kyoto accord, not paying your dues to the United Nations, torturing people in Guantanmo, imprisoning such an insanely large proportion of your population, maintaining the barbarous death penalty, attempting to build a new "Berlin wall" between Mexico and the US rather than solving the illegal immigration problem at it's heart, allowing christian religious fundamentalists to rise up and dominate in so many areas of American culture, breaking the ABM treaty with Russia, failing to take a stand in Georgia, attacking Iraq, failing to work with Pakistan effectively, failing to deal with N.Korea's nuclear weapons research before it was too late and probably doing the same for Iran - failing to do anything about Global Warming (except to disbelieve it) - and now screwing up the financial markets and failing to pass a bill to fix it because someone insulted someone else in a speech at the last moment! (Oh - and making a really terrible knock-off of "The Office" - that's probably the most serious thing...except maybe rap music...oh - and the two sequels to "The Matrix" and the odd numbered "StarTrek" movies.)

It's really quite hard to come up with things that ARE worthy of respect that the US has done within the living memory of most people around the world. There is precious little for the modern world to thank America for - I assure you.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a point - I mean, most scifi comes from Canada now. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Europe is populous and prosperous, with modern industries. It should be able to defend itself against forseeable threats as well as the US could defend it. They doubtless learned from the events in the summer of 1940 that either good diplomacy or good military preparedness are needed. In WW2 British soldiers complained that US soldiers in the UK were "overpaid, oversexed, and worst of all over here""The Strand, 1944]. But List of United States military bases shows the US forces are still stationed, presumably paid for by U.S. taxpayers, at four bases in the UK, and numerous bases in other European countries. If they are there to defend Europe, perhaps they should come home and let Europe defend itself. If they are there to support US operations in the Middle East, perhaps that should be handled by the European former colonial rulers of those countries, or European countries who are at least several thousand miles closer to the problem. But then Europeans might hate Americans for being isolationist. Edison (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Large swathes of the populations of the countries which allow the US to set up military bases in them would agree with you, but who wants to piss the US (collective, not individuals) off militarily? 130.88.52.36 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Typical US thing going on about how everyone else should also spend insane amounts of money on the means to kill people. I guess its 'When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail'. Dmcq (talk)

My comment was actually directed toward the U.S spending less to defend Europe.Europe should make its own decisions about military preparedness. Lower defense spending in Europe as a percentage of GDP allows money for health care, education, rail transportation, and industrial modernization that the U.S. lags behind in. In the 1920's and 1930's the UK, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway and other European countries not allied with the Germans similarly deferred military expenditures, with predictable results. The failing U.S. economy and domestic needs may result in cuts in the U.S. military budget, depending on the results of the fall election. Base closings in the U.S. are unpopular in the states affected. Closing of U.S. bases in Europe and other countries would be quite popular with the U.S. taxpayers, apart from the geopolitical wisdom of such retrenchment from the "Project for the New American Century." Edison (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Baker has really hit the nail on the head. Generally the individuals are fine generous people, but en-masse a pain in the butt.--Artjo (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Overall this "slam fest" [3] is worthy of any catty U.S. junior high school clique. Edison (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You have already made manifest your opinion that America is far superior to the rest of the world. It is an opinion to which I take great exception.

Such statements as "If they are there to support US operations in the Middle East, perhaps that should be handled by the European former colonial rulers of those countries, or European countries who are at least several thousand miles closer to the problem" pretty much answer the OP's question in a nutshell.

Furthermore, talking about "some foreign power [that] occupied [y]our cities and abused [y]our citizens" is disingenuous in the extreme, if you are referring to the American War of Independence. Unless you are Cherokee, Sioux etc, you, as an American citizen, are descended from colonists and/or immigrants. The United States has, to the best of my knowledge, never been "occupied" by "a foreign power". It is a former colony that seceded - a quite different state of affairs. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points: I have freely criticized many misguided U.S. policies at the Ref Desk. Nowhere did I claim the U.S. "is far superior to the rest of the world." Straw man, much? I agree that the U.S. has only been occupied in limited areas for short periods since the Revolution. Quite a bit of U.S. territory was occupied by British forces during the War of 1812. Large parts of Maine were occupied from September 1814 to April 1815. Fort Mackinac, in Michigan, captured by the British in 1812, was held for three years [4] , and Fort Bowyer captured by the British in 1815 at Mobile, Alabama and held for 1 day. I agree that my Native American ancestors were badly treated. I believe that the European powers should provide for their own defense, and should be wary of extending NATO membership, as some European politicians want, to former Soviet block nations so remote that no effective opposition could be presented to Russian incursions in those countries short of threats of nuclear strikes. Edison (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is one helluva conversation, and I'd like to throw another facet into the discussion. (I'm in Minnesota, where "many are cold but few are frozen", btw.) Let's focus just on the ignorance question, and narrow it to geography.

I'd bet that most high-school kids in California couldn't put the east-coast states (or the original 13 colonies, for that matter) into the correct north-to-south order if their lives depended on it. Why? It's a damn big country, Los Angeles to New York is a five-hour-plus flight, and lots of stuff happens.

On the other hand, Germany for instance is about the size of one of our medium-sized states -- Oregon, when I was learning it, probably larger now. Britian is even smaller. I'm sure tracking what's going on in all of England isn't much more difficult than tracking what's going on in Iowa.

There's darn few places in Europe from which you can travel in a (hypothetical) straight line for, say 500mi/800km, and still be in the same country. Alternatively, if you're interested in everything that's happening within a 400-mile radius of yourself, that going to cover parts of multiple countries on the continent, and an equivalent number of states here, depending on where you are east-west. Board a plane in Paris and fly five hours in a straight line, where are you? Nowhere near France, that's for sure.

Both my and my wife's companies have international offices, and when "they" visit "here" for the first time, one of the first reactions is always "Wow, it's so big." Same reaction from our European branches of the family: we took a one-week driving trip with our Danish cousins a couple of years back. Showed them the route on a map when we got back: "is that -all- we saw?"

Now, all of this doesn't justify any of our behaviours, but it might explain part of why some of them exist, and give us another branch for the discussion! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While the UK may have a very small land area, it's population is over 20 times that of Iowa. The US is very big, but large swaths of it are pretty empty. --Tango (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your point, DaHorsesMouth, how does it gel with the fact that Canadians and Australians, whose countries are comparable in size to the US, know far more about both their own countries and about the rest of the world, than Americans seem to on both scores? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a deplorable ignorance history and geography in many countries,[5] , [6] [7] , not just the U.S.[8]. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (Santayana, 1905). Edison (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

@Jack: My hypothesis is just that, a thought that crossed my mind about three hours ago. I think it's a factor, that when added to others exacerbates the situation. I still think that the general concept of an "interest horizon" probably has some underlying truth to it; but do I have refdesk-quality facts to back it up? Uhh, no... --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The wreckless mouths of the Democrat Party would likely make anybody hate us. Indeed, they're always creating disaster. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The RefDesks are not a discussion forum. I've collapsed this thread. Please don't add more to it. Franamax (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Index update for Category:Lists of neighborhoods in U.S. cities

Friends,

This is more in the way of a suggestion/request. The Wikipedia index page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_neighborhoods_in_U.S._cities is very useful, so far as it goes. However, along with it needing to be cleaned up itself ("Neighborhoods in San Francisco," for example, is alphabetized under "N"), literally dozens of cities with Wikipedia pages listing neighborhoods in their cities are not cited in this overall index page - including some fairly major ones (Atlanta and Pittsburgh come to mind).

If anyone could take the time to make this page more comprehensive - or even suggest how I could do it (though someone who knows what they're doing would be a lot faster), I'd be most grateful. There's no interpretation or factual research or adjucation needed here - it's a simple, mechanical index with links.

Geov Parrish, Seattle (email address removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.191.122 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, firstly, this is the reference desk - we answer difficult questions about life, the universe and everything - we don't deal with requests or comments about Wikipedia articles. May I suggest the Talk: page for that article - or perhaps the "Village Pump" discussion area. Secondly, this is Wikipedia - and almost all requests for changes are answered with WP:SOFIXIT - in other words, if you don't like it, change it! That's how this place works - you can just dive in and make the changes yourself! Thirdly: Category's are *NOT* intended to be anything other than an alphabetized list of article titles. If all of the other articles are things like "New York Neighborhoods" - but this one is "Neighborhoods of San Francisco" - then you should probably rename the article itself to match all of the others...you do that by going to the page in question and clicking on the "move" tab - although I vaguely recall that you might have to be logged in with a proper account name to do that. If, on the other hand, the article is named appropriately - but just happens to alphabetize unfortunately - then you can add something to the [[Category:XXXXX]] text (which is probably at the top or bottom of that article) to make it read [[Category:XXXX|YYYY]] that causes the article to appear in category XXXX with it's normal name - but alphabetized as if it was named YYYY. Hence, you could change [[Category:Lists_of_neighborhoods_in_U.S._cities]] to read: [[Category:Lists_of_neighborhoods_in_U.S._cities|San Francisco]] - so it'll appear under 'S' instead of 'N'. SteveBaker (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(after e/c) Hey, that anyone could be you - feel free to take a shot at it! You can see here how I fixed the sorting for San Francisco, and that line shows you exactly how to add an article into a category. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here, or maybe a better place would be on my talk page (so we don't clutter up this page). Franamax (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And here's an example where I did it for Atlanta. The rest are up to you buddy... :) Franamax (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You can give a man a fish...or...

SteveBaker (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

give a fish a bike? just asking --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

hide the fish inside the upholstery of his car? Or inside a wall of his house? Among the nastier of tricks to play... Franamax (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Nastia was a trick. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)