Miscellaneous desk
< August 18	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 20 >

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.

August 19

Give me a comment on this

Referring to the following passage in the current version of the article:

Debicella was one of three State Senators to vote against requiring health care facilities to provide emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault. While defending this vote during the 2008 campaign, Debicella stated, "On the rape bill all I voted against was a bill allowing morning-after contraception to be issued to victims." This comment was heavily criticized by Democrats, including his opponent, Janice Andersen, who called it "insensitive to rape victims." Debicella defended his position by explaining that he supports access to emergency contraception but opposes forcing Catholic hospitals, who would have been affected by the bill, to go against their religious beliefs, and said Andersen was "using an emotional issue for political gain."

Should the quote "On the rape bill all I voted against was a bill allowing morning-after contraception to be issued to victims" be included and how should it be treated? Discussion has arrived at 4 possible ways forward:

Leave the passage as above.
Keep a passage similar to above, but explicitly clarify that the quote is not factually correct, since the vote was about requiring, not allowing, emergency contraception.
Keep a passage similar to above, but remove the quote and mention that Debicella's position and comments were contentious with a citation link to a source that reproduces the quote.
Shorten the entire passage to one or two sentences, without the quote.

Which is the most appropriate choice? 63.215.29.212 (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content issue and needs to be settled on the talk page of the article. The Ref Desk sometimes provides content that is used in articles, but the editors working on the articles decide how (and if) the content will be used. // BL \\ (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this belongs on the talk page of the article, which will not be as trafficked as the Refdesk; but the Refdesk otherwise would be full of Wikipedia content disputes, and there's a whole other process for that. Tempshill (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you do, make it clear that the "requiring"/"allowing" in both cases refer to different agents. Debicella is against requiring hospitals to provide contraception (on demand); the allowing refers to the victims being allowed to use it. That is very different than requiring the victim to use it, or allowing the hospital to provide it. As it is, your #2 is ambiguous (the bill did not require the victim to use emergency contraception, which could be inferred from it as written). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

horse--rope "caught tinder the tail"?

There's a passage from a book I don't understand. It has to do with a horse panicking when a rope got "caught tinder the tail". Is this some expression I am not familiar with? Could it be a typo (the passage was typed out from the book and has a few other minor typos). I could understand "caught under the tail", but to write "tinder" for "under" seems like quite a typo. Can anyone shed some light on this? Thanks. Here's the passage with a bit more context:

He was now leading a pack horse by a lead rope. The lead rope to the Pack horse was thrown around the horn, and the reins of Mr. Sylvester's horse were knotted over the neck of the horse. As the horses bunched up so that the group could talk better, the lead rope caught tinder the tail of Sylvester's horse. ... They were in trouble. Sylvester's horse went off the trail bucking. The lead rope would not come free because of its position on the horn and Mr. Sylvester was caught in the saddle, his leg being pinned down with the lead rope. Pfly (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just a typo - a "u" looks a bit like "ti". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a longer version of this, from 2008. [1] "Tinder" refers to a flammable substance, so I doubt this is anything but a typo. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the quick replies. I'm not familiar with horses and didn't know whether a rope getting under a tail would cause a horse to run off a what amounts to a cliff. Pfly (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"ti" instead of "u" looks more like an OCR scanning error than a typo. are teh other errors plausible typos, or are they more plausibly OCR scanning errors? -Arch dude (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what's on his chest?

A row of cylinders across the chest of his coat: what are they? —Tamfang (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Do you think perhaps it's another of these? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No No No. They are clearly the same brand of cigars that Bill enjoyed with Monica. 92.8.6.58 (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered about these, which seem a standard part of Cossack dress. I had thought they were decorative; "bandolier" hadn't occurred to me. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what their real name is, but I've seen them called "breast cartridges". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon's pic is on the mark; they're gaziri (plural) (or gazyri, depending on the transliteration). A gazir (газырь) was a cartridge originally used to carry gunpowder. The Russian wikipedia article indicates that these cartridge belts eventually took on a purely decorative function. --Pykk (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pykk! I've been wondering about these for years! 69.86.99.118 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Name Rithvi

Please provide me the meaning of Rithvi 192.165.213.18 (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What language? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search and a survey of the top 20 results reveals that Rithvi is, in fact, a surname. The origin of the name is currently unknown according to Ancestry.com and other genealogy websites.--WaltCip (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A surname in what language? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eating reindeer

Do Brits and Americans really have such a big problem with eating reindeer as I've been told? Do they equate reindeer with Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer and get all teary-eyed because they're eating such a cute faerytale animal? I've eaten reindeer hundreds of times, and haven't had any problem with it. For us southern Finns, the reindeer is little bit exotic, but not nearly as exotic as, for example, the kangaroo, which I've never seen live, but wouldn't have the slightest problem eating. JIP | Talk 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Brit. I've never eaten reindeer (not a lot of it about in the south of England) but I'd have no problem doing so. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have only had Caribou (The North American equivalent to reindeer) once. Lived in Alaska and they lived about 500 miles north of us. People would go hunt them once in a while. I will say that it was quite tasty and I had no qualms about eating it. Alaska folk are a bit odd though, kind of like Aussies of the North. Googlemeister (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you'll pay for that wisecrack. Don't think you won't pay. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now a vegetarian, but some time ago I ate reindeer. It was OK, though not to my mind as nice as regular venison. I think the British don't eat it simply because it's scarce here. The only time you're likely to see it on offer is in tiny chipolata/saveloy sized sausages in the Ikea food hall. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure part of it for many will be to do with 'cute rudolph', but you say that like it's some girly stupid reason and it isn't. Ultimately different cultures produce different ideas of what is and isn't 'food'. I'm sure there are 1000s of Brits that would eat Reindeer, probably less that that would eat Dog - but in some cultures that's reasonably normal. Ultimately the culture and society you are brought up in is likely to have an impact on whether you consider certain animals as 'food' or 'pets/too mean to eat'. That said many Brits will eat Deer meat (Venison) and I doubt they'd care whether it was a Roe Deer or a Reindeer or any other - provided it tasted good. ny156uk (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to make the distinction? I'd be overjoyed with a pet pig, and continue to happily eat pork. I've never understood people who have qualms about eating food beyond that of personal physical disgust. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be weird eating a ham sandwich in front of the pet pig. If it were me I'd tell him it was roast beef. APL (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after EC) Some do. Some don't. Did you want specifics? Numbers (percentage, possibly), reasons (logical or otherwise)? You didn't ask for either of them, and it would be a waste of time to research something you weren't after. Anecdotally, my mother would never eat elephant or horse, though she would eat reindeer. When I asked why she'd eat reindeer, she said "Well, it's just like...it's like a sheep. A sheep's a sheep, you know?" I couldn't get any sort of reasoned response to the counter-argument "A horse is a horse". It's possible people don't know why they wouldn't eat things. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also had Caribou, which is delicious, and I don't think I'd have any problem with Reindeer. But I also know plenty of people who would have trouble eating rabbit, which is really a pretty common food animal.

A friend of mine took his pre-teen daughter to a petting zoo, and when it came to the chickens said (as Daddies do) "Yum yum, they would be good on a plate with chips". "Don't be stupid, Daddy" she says "you can't eat chickens!" DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to my Uncle Donald's 1943 edition of The_Bluejacket's_Manual, all birds, mammals, and reptiles (except possibly venomous snakes which have bitten themselves) are edible. Some fish can kill you right dead, though. I have eaten farmed venison, and it's OK but expensive. Farmed bison is tasty, reasonably cheap, and about as sustainable as meat can get. PhGustaf (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is most Americans are only familiar with reindeer from the Rudolph story and never have thought of reindeer meat one way or the other. I don't think it's something that would repulse most Americans like dog meat or horse meat. Many Americans will eat white-tailed deer, although it's by no means a common dish among non-hunters. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it said here in the UK: "I couldn't eat Rudolf". However, I suspect it is a lot more to do with availability. I have visited both Finland and Australia and while reindeer meat seemed readily available in Finland and kangaroo meat seemed readily available in Australia, both are very rare things to find here in the UK. Astronaut (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reindeer is pretty rare in most US states. (I hear you can get in in Alaska, but I wouldn' tknow.) I think there's a natural aversion to eating any animal you haven't before.

I've also met people who assume that if a meat isn't a stereotypical farm animal like a cow or a chicken, they assume it must have been killed in the wild, which makes people squeamish. Some people really don't realize that you can actually put other animals on farms. APL (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These things tend not to be very logical. There is a move afoot in the U.S. to make horse slaughtering illegal (it's done occasionally for export, there being no real U.S. market for horse meat for humans), and it's often reported on positively, with no explanation of why it's worse to kill and eat horses than, say, cows. I've had reindeer meat (in Finland), and if it were available here I would eat it all the time. John M Baker (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a French market a couple of years ago, our local paper ran a front-page item about a couple huffing and puffing in outrage because the sausages on sale included some made from donkey meat. I could have understood an objection on the grounds that the donkeys are almost certain to have had a pretty grim life before slaughter, but these people were just appalled that you could sell sausages made of donkey, and wanted them banned. (They didn't object to any of the other varieties on the same stall, which included wild boar and venison.) I guess it really is just down to what you think of as food. Ka renjc 19:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of sausages of any kind as food is a dubious proposition. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venison in the USA

Speaking of venison: Our venison article claims that the reason that USA supermarkets do not generally carry deer meat is that the USDA inspects meat, combined with the claim that "There are very few abattoirs which process deer in North America, and most of this venison is destined for restaurants."

Can anyone point out why this is? Has it been tried? Tempshill (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are relatively few deer farms (they don't produce much meat per carcass and are hard to control - ever seen cattle jump over an 8-foot fence?) Specialty grocers carry it. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to control — logical; meat per carcass — well, less than a steer, but there's plenty of meat on a deer. I guess I should have asked why it's not found in US supermarkets while, according to the venison article, it is "widely available" in European supermarkets during hunting season. Tempshill (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that U.S. supermarkets could get a game license, allowing them to sell wild game. Are they only permitted to sell farm raised game? Edison (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sale of wild game is illegal in my state. Is it legal in any U.S. state? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that, but keep in mind that supermarkets are interested in mass-market and are unlikely to stock marginal foods. That's why they stock the standard beef, pork and chicken, and seldom stock bison, elk, etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wild deer are abundant in a great many areas of the US, and there are a great many hunters. Most folks who like venison know someone who has plenty to give away. -Arch dude (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meat from deer, elk, bison, etc., can be had from specialty meat shops. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some supermarkets carry game meat. [2] Buffalo has become a bit more common in the last couple of years. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deer is just not very popular in the USA as a food. If you grow up without it, you need a much stronger reason as an adult to seek it out, purchase it, figure out what to make with it and eat it. Since most Americans are brought up on beef, chicken, turkey and fish, things like venison are sort of outside the box. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if hunting were not still an activity in the USA, no one would eat deer meat at all. It's like, well, I shot it, I have to do something with it, might as well eat it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a supermarket in Elkton, Maryland that carried Raccoon in their meat case. I don't know if it's still there, or if they still do. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

family data removed from right column summary block

Did you do a global change that removed the spouse/family data from all pages? It does not appear anywhere even on pages it used to.....

If yes, can you explain why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.157.219 (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a question about Wikipedia, this is probably a better question for the Help Desk, and when asking over there, you should cite some specific pages you're referring to. The Bill Clinton article, for example, still has some family data in his infobox. Tempshill (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CA 39 to open again

When should CA 39 the close part (north of CA 2) open again? First they said by 2008 they will open, then they delay another I don't know time? Will will the close part of CA 39 open again so people can drive on it to get to 2?--69.229.39.33 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find useful information at http://www.cahighways.org/state.html Also you may consider looking for the appropriate government website. This answer applies to the two questions below by the way. 152.16.15.144 (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In April 2009, it was noted that the project is fully funded. The project is programmed in the 2008 State Highway Operation and Protection Program for $43,360,000, capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2010-11.

Quote from CA hwy article it's going to begin construction in November 2010 but completion date is unknown. Construction can take at least 3 years to complete. Maybe more.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CA 15 becoming I-15

When will the southern end of CA 15 become I-15? They said once they upgrade parts close to lemon grove in San Diego, should it be 2012 when the 15 is full up to interstate.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CA 210 ceoming i-210

When will the east half of CA-210 become I-210? Since the unbuilt portion of the 210 was finish in 2007, they said soon but when will the east part of 210 become interstate? They said about fix something in orange show. Is it like 2010?--69.229.39.33 (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]