Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 August 7

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 7

ESUT post UME

When is ESUT having their post UME please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikenna Osita (talk • contribs) 04:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you talking about? — QuantumEleven 11:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a good forum for asking about Post-UME stuff. (UME = University Matriculation Examinations, a nigerian exam). Fribbler (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

WW2 crime responsibility

The article says John Demjanjuk is being tried for the murder of thousands of people because they were killed while he worked as a guard at that camp. What exactly determines who is responsible and who was just doing what they were told? 71.176.139.194 (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Victor's justice" is the term for the victors in a war punishing members of the losing forces, while ignoring war crimes by their own forces. "I was merely following orders" has been discredited as a defense to be used by members of the losing side. Edison (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was watching the Discovery Channel's reruns of their series of interviews with Walter Cronkite from 12 years ago. He talked about the Nuremberg Trials, and pointed out that those Trials were necessary, to stand up for something, to do something about the gross atrocities committed by the Nazis. "Victor's justice", yes, but something had to be done with those evil characters. Having said that, I'm not at all sure they've got the goods on Demjanjuk, and it looks kind of like scapegoating of a low-end figure in the Nazi regime, of which there aren't many left. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted some comments [1], see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Deleted highly offensive comments for further discussion Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping command responsibility will be a blue link... and it is! Take a look. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this straight - the Germans are prosecuting one of their ukrainian slaves for war crimes.?83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No they are claiming he was an SS volunteer who literaly put people into gas chambers and turned on the gas. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the National Socialist government isn't prosecuting anyone. The government of the Federal Republic of Germany is trying a suspected collaborator. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Many believe Germany wants only to look tough on Nazi criminals, even if this means prosecuting an innocent man, that is possibly way to fragile to survive (literally) the process.Quest09 (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not just Germany. After the Nuremberg trials, there was not a concerted efforts to get at lower levels of potential war criminals. When in the 1980s public pressure, from sources such as Simon Wiesenthal, shamed some governments into looking at what some of their citizens (or immigrants who later acquired citizenship) did in World War II, 40 years had already passed, and there were few perpetrators or reliable witnesses left alive to testify. In Canada, for example, the Commission of inquiry that looked into the matter only issued its report in late 1986, and prosecutions did not begin until the late 1980s. Most of the cases actually prosecuted around the world, such as Demjanjuk, Maurice Papon in France, or Imre Finta in Canada, turned into questions about the identity of the accused (i.e., is the 80+ year-old man now before trial the same person who did untold harm 40 some years ago ? How can one be sure ?), or why this person in particular is being prosecuted when he was just a cog in a huge machinery of repression and death. As more decades have passed since these later-day trials began, the underlying problems have become even more untractable, and the objective of achieving justice through trials is increasingly elusive. --Xuxl (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Buying Expensive Ballpoint Pens

Do high-end ballpoint pens such as Montblanc ones offer any performance advantages over cheaper ones that one can find in everyday department stores? Acceptable (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

They are often more comfortable to hold and write with, are usually more durable than cheap ones. They are also refillable, although only the very cheapest are not. But, in my opinion, you don't need to buy anything as high-end as a Montblanc to get all those features. Warofdreams talk 10:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Expensive pens are, effectively, jewellery. Like Warofdreams notes a quality pen will probably bring about certain benefits in terms of comfort, durability etc. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's like the answers to the earlier question about monogrammed handkerchiefs being any better to blow your nose into than a kleenex (or other disposable tissue). It's much better to be seen using the upscale model dahhlling. And bugger the cost. 92.10.85.217 (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The better pens with a sealed ink refil are not prone to leaking in the same way that inexpensive 'biros' are. You can also assume that the pen will work (though only the very worse cheap pens have this problem)

beyond that it's all 'look and feel', and the quality of the clicking action.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Space Pen offers a performance improvement over other ballpoint pens. (Even if you're not trying to write in hard vacuum.) but I don't know if it qualifies as "expensive" anymore. You can get them for about $20 at Staples. (Though they certainly sell expensive variants of it!) APL (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Economics of International Mail

How does International Mail work economically?

When a letter or package is sent overseas, does the destination country receive any compensation for receiving and delivering the mail? If so, how often are the "book's balanced" by monetary transaction?

How does this work for countries that there is a trade embargo against? When the US had a trade embargo against Libya, you were still able to send mail to Libya from the US. Did Libya profit from this interaction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.192.140 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Our article Universal Postal Union has some information - essentially payment is made on the difference in weight between post received by the country and post sent from the country. I do not know how trade embargoes would affect this. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no citations to offer, but I recall reading that what the United States Postal Service does is roughly this, which shouldn't vary that much from other postal services' bilateral relations within the UPU:

• On one day each year, all the outbound mail destined for (say) the United Kingdom is weighed. And (I think on the same day) all the incoming mail arriving from (again, say) the UK is weighed. Then, after accounting (as mentioned in the UPU article) in each instance for the proportions of periodicals to other mail, the difference in weights is used to calculate the payment that the USPS either pays to or receives from the foreign post office, in this case the Royal Mail.

But I can't remember the precise mechanics. Perhaps the USPS would only weigh US mail going to the UK, and let the Royal Mail weigh the mail coming in the other direction on the same day. In each case, one country's post office would normally assume good faith and honest accounting from its foreign counterparty.

As for embargoes, they often make an exception for personal letters and sometimes for small non-commercial packages. One great advantage of international organizations like the UPU or the Red Cross is that they often offer a means by which otherwise-hostile nations can cooperate in a specific technical area without compromising their principles on the issues which divide them. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

New Kitten in House with Cats

How can we safely integrate a new kitten into our household? We have two adult cats, one an older male and one a female ragdoll that is about five or six years old. We've recently introduced a male shorthair kitten. All three have been fixed. The ragdoll, who is extremely gentle around humans, is very aggressive toward the kitten, attacking it repeatedly, even as the kitten cowers and tries submissive postures. We are considering declawing the ragdoll, but wonder if there are any other options available to us. John M Baker (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whow. A bit late to ask for help! Adding a young male to an existing pair can be very difficult. The female will lose her place as the youngster gets older. So resents him. Also, does she think (are you actually?), spending time with the kitten that you used to spend with her? Is she jealous ? With reason ? Are the older cats sterile ? Answer these questions and some advice will be possible.90.0.6.92 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)DT

All three cats are sterile. We have not been giving any less attention to the ragdoll, but of course the new kitten gets lots of attention, so she may have a different perception. John M Baker (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Remain in a confined space with all three. Close the door to a small room and go about your usual activities while also interacting with all three. Convey dissaproval for any negative interacting between the three cats. Probably do this only verbally, and only mildly. Express approval at times that peace prevails. I think cats want your approval. The aim of a period of time in a confined space is to convey your desired expectations of each of them. It takes time for them to figure this out. You don't want them to inadvertently receive any unintended messages from you concerning any of this, so your expressions should be mild, and merely verbal. You are not forcing anything on them. You are allowing them to figure out what your wishes are concerning how they relate to one another. I would try to do this for an hour per day for one week, approximately. Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome please do not declaw the cat, even putting it to sleep would be preferable to that. If the kitten have no scratch marks from the attacks, the cat certainly has no intention of really harming it, even though it may look vicious in human eyes, but it is most likely only establishing itself in the hierarchy. The ragdoll and all cats of Persian-descent are generally not the most sociable of cats, and no perfect harmony between the kitten and the older cats may ever occurs, but in my experience they should eventually at least begin to tolerate each other. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe someone would have a cat in their house and it is NOT declawed. How do you keep it from shredding everything? No claws is much better if the cat is going to be an indoor cat. Googlemeister (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Utterly wrong. If the only way you can deal with behavioral issues is to maim an animal, you really should stick to goldfish. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Some people have different ways of dealing with unruly behavior. It isn't illegal in some places. I don't believe this is the place for such ethical discussions though.--Zarfol (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Bus stop. Saddhiyama, the ragdoll is scratching the kitten, not just intimidating it. Our view on declawing is that we will avoid it if possible, but we will declaw rather than put an animal to sleep. John M Baker (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please consider a product like Soft Paws prior to a potentially painful surgical procedure. --LarryMac | Talk 18:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Choose between undeclawed cats and no decent furniture, or "maimed" cats and furniture which does not have the material shredded and the wood clawed. I have seen cats immediately jump on a new piece of upholstered furniture and start clawing it, while refusing to scratch a wooden or cloth covered official scratching post. There is a great selection of furniture at thrift shops, some pre-clawed, suitable for homes with cats having their claws. An indoor cat does not need the front claws. Do any cat vets refuse to declaw on moral grounds? Sticking to pets which live in aquariums or birdcages is another option. Cats (usually tomcats) routinely kill kittens which are not their offspring. You might have to choose between the kitten and the attacking cat. The attacker might be happier in a single cat home. Edison (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Declawing cats is considered animal cruelty and is illegal in many countries. A vets personal morals don't come into it. All you need to do is train your cat in how to behave. A sharp noise and a hiss whenever they do something wrong will usually suffice. --Tango (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's great that you have the freedom to follow your cat around 24 hours a day, seven days a week, hissing at her and making sharp noises until she is fully trained. Unfortunately, some of us must do other things, and it is distressing to come home and find the new sofa clawed to shreds. Edison (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Shut the cat out of the living room when you're not there, then. --Tango (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not all living rooms have doors. And they can shred a bed or curtains or something else to amuse themselves. Unless you plan to lock them in the basement, or the bathroom, good luck with your stuff. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Cats will claw furniture to get attention (and boy! does it work!)and because they were not taught not to. Declawing includes the nailbed, that is some of the actual toes. It is painful and cruel.

You can get the ragdoll comfortable in your lap and TRIM its front claws with toe-nail clippers, no more than one-third of the way, to blunt the points. That is enough to save the kitten for now. They will have to work it out for themselves. The hour a day in a closed room is a good idea. Also give the kitten (supervised) time alone with the other cat, so he can make an ally. This is a good time to spend some quality time alone with the ragdoll, to reduce its jealousy.

Feed the kitten in the same room but 4 or 5 feet from the adults, putting the kitten's food down last. Stroke and pet the kitten and the ragdoll at the same time, so both understand you like them equally, but hiss at the ragdoll if she gets aggressive.(You can turn the stroking into a firm grip). This will tell her YOU are keeping the kitten, so she'd better get used to it. It also tells the kitten that you are on his side, so he will gain some confidence. Try talking to them throughout in a low comforting tone. Expect the fighting to settle down to threat displays only in about a week, then mutual avoidance, then toleration, with some arguments over right of way probably for months.(I've never heard of desexed domestic males killing kittens; lions allegedly will kill very young cubs of a mother they are hoping to mate, a totally different story and different cat).- KoolerStill (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edison, Yes, a minority of vets refuse to declaw on moral grounds. (Some will make exceptions for certain extreme cases.) I've even heard of vets refusing to provide (non-emergency) care for declawed cats. Many cat vendors, like shelters and pet stores, will make you sign a contract agreeing not to declaw the cat. (I assume that they have no way of enforcing the contracts.)

I have to say I'm surprised at what seems to be a vast number of cats that are uncontrollable without removing their claws. This hasn't been my experience with cats, and I can't help but notice that cats are still popular housepets in parts of the world where declawing is unavailable. APL (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we avoid the debate on declawing and stick to the original question, please? Preferably providing, y'know, references? --Anon, 22:11 UTC, August 7, 2009.

De-clawing is legal in each of the 50 U.S. states. It is illegal in some other countries. When people have to choose between euthanizing or declawing a cat, personal values come into play. Please do not state your personal prejudice here as if it were a fact. (This is as inappropriate on Ref Desk as stating as a fact "Abortion is murder!" or "God favors religion X!") Indoor cats get along fine without claws. Cats who go outdoors need their claws, to fight to defend themselves, or for swift tree climbing, but will only live a fraction as long as indoor cats (due to disease, dogs, cars, etc). Clearly "declawing" is not like trimming fingernails. Rather, it is akin to severing the first joints of a human's fingers to prevent nose picking or banjo playing. (Original research warning:) A reliable young observer I know, who did an internship at a vet clinic, said that neutering cats was less gross than declawing. Now that's settled, we can move on to debate whether animal rights groups are correct that having a pet is "immoral" and akin to slavery. Edison (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Indoor cats" - as in cats that are never allowed outside the house? This isn't a concept I've come across here in the UK. I've never kept cats (more of a dog person) but it seems unfair and unnatural to keep them locked inside the house all the time. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your claims cats who go outdoors will only live a fraction of the live of indoor cats is likely too simplistic. Their average lifespan is likely to be shorter, but I don't think it's that much lower, particularly if you live in a relatively quiet (i.e. few cars) and safe (i.e. no stray or loose dogs, which in many countries is the law) neighbourhood but many will still live a relatively long lifespan, even more so if they are given adequete vetenerian care. My cat is currently in its 12th year and still relatively healthy. Obviously a single anecdotal example is useless, but I'm also aware of other cars about that age. I would like to see sources, particularly ones comparing different and consistent environments rather then just average lifespans (which will likely include ones living along busy streets and in places were dogs are not properly controlled)Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Indoor cat:14-20 years. Outdoor cat, 3-5 years, per per "Housecat" (2005) by Christine Church, page 19. Indoor, 14 to 18.Outdoor, 2 to 6, per "It's a Cat's World...You Just Live in It" by Justine A. Lee, page 41. It is quite common for cats to live exclusively indoors. "It is cruel" is just someone's personal viewpoint, and they are welcome to it. Edison (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it even safe to de-claw only a single cat in a household of three? Wouldn't the other cats quickly recognize that they had a tactical advantage in any disagreements? APL (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cats don't usually use their claws in disagreements unless it gets really serious. Batting with claws retracted is much more common in my experience. That is why somebody above pointed out that is the kitten isn't getting injured by the other cat's claws (as is very likely), declawing would be totally pointless. --Tango (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

An alternative to declawing is nail caps [2] Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So, back to introducing a kitten to established adult cats... my children like to collect abandoned cats of all ages and so far we've managed to persuade all the cats to get along. (Pity it's not so easy with children...) KoolerStill made most of the important points; try these leaflets. I tend to shortcut and skip a few steps according to how my cats react but I would recommend them for information. MuDor (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One trick I've heard of, but not tried, is to smear butter on the newcomer's head; when the senior cat licks it off, bonding magically occurs. —Tamfang (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are IQ tests illegal but Personality and Integrity tests legal in employment screening?

Why is it not the other way around? ----madjello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.0.134 (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are IQ tests illegal in employment screening? --Tango (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty unlikely to me. SteveBaker (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Veiled IQ tests are illegal where you cannot show predictive validity for the job at hand (Griggs v. Duke Power Co.). In effect, this means IQ or aptitude tests aren't used but by the largest employers (since small businesses cannot spend the money to validate the test; they just require a BA which functions as a disguised IQ and personality test). Personal opinion: the racial IQ gap is something that the lay public finds more offensive than personality differences between races, so you're less apt to offend the public if you find that race X has higher <insert personality trait/characteristic> scores than race Y. Integrity tests have a much easier naive explanation for their predictive validity, so they are not usually challenged. Basically, the mired history of intelligence testing has made the society such that they are hypersensitive to them whereas personality tests do not share that same stigma.--droptone (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the United States Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over the entire world. I propose banning Americans from the Ref Desks, their arrogance is getting on my nerves. (Yes, I'm generalising, I consider the few Americans that are aware of the existence of the rest of the world to be acceptable losses.) --Tango (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You misspelled "generalizing." And please save the personal attacks for your favorite blog. Edison (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't live in Oxford. --Tango (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards Tango. According to Global Internet usage There are 295.4 million English users of the internet, and according to List of countries by number of Internet users, 227.2 million of them (76.9%) are American, so it would appear that us Americans are pretty justified. The other 23% just need to take it in stride. Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. You don't completely ignore a quarter of the population. --Tango (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? You just wanted to ignore 3/4. How about providing information rather than bigotry? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not ignore, ban. There is a difference. I know Americans exist. It's not bigotry, it's justified based on observations. --Tango (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of Brits who are just as bad. You probably just don't notice when they do it. One of my hot buttons is when they start referring to their dialect as "international English". --Trovatore (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How often does that happen? I can't think when the last time I saw anyone say "international English" (before you did). --Tango (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you guys take this discussion somewhere else? Algebraist 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your statistics are highly flawed. You're using figures from September 2004 in Global Internet Users and figures from 2009 in List of countries by number of Internet users. Hopefully no one here disagrees that the internet has changed a lot in nearly 5 years! (How many people here were even editing wikipedia in September 2004?) If we take the figure of 430.8 million English users in 2008 from Global Internet Users (from another group as the one you are using but the same group as the one you are using for your by country stats) we get a figure of ~52.7%. Or even more sensibly we go to the sources themselves. [3] gives 463,790,410 English users and [4] gives 227,190,989 for the US which is ~49.0%. This is of course presuming all Americans use English as their primary language on the internet (at least I think this is how IWS derive their stats, since they only assign one language per person) which I find fairly unlikely. It may be a fairly high percentage but it seems to me easily possible up to 5% and easily more, may not. I should mention that according to your flawed stats, there are [5] 88039115 internet users from Canada+UK+Australia+NZ despite being only 68209011 people who use English on the internet but aren't from the US, in other words 19830104 people from these countries who don't use English on the internet (I can imagine some in Canada who use French, but that's nearly the entire Canadian internet population). And none from India, Philippines, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Hong Kong, South Africa, Singapore, Kenya, Ireland or any other country... While as I've already stated these are figures of people who primarily use English on the internet or whatever, coming from Malaysia myself I can say I find it very hard to believe that no one there primarily uses English... In other words, even without looking at the dates in the articles you took your figures from and realising you're using figures from very different dates, it should be obvious your figures are highly flawed. Then of course, there's the obvious fact that there are likely a fair number more who use some other language as their primary language on the internet, but are still likely to read and maybe even participate in some discussions that are in English. BTW, this sort of use of highly flawed statistics to prove a point I personally find much more aggrevating then any of the other stuff that's been discussed here (which I've purposely avoided getting in to) like presuming everyone else is from the same country as you or ignoring the fact what you are talking about only applies to one country, although I'm not saying only Americans do it Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tango: His IP comes from a cox link in Georgia, the United States. I presumed...--droptone (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Since he didn't specify a country in the question, I would have assumed the same, but I would have specified the country in my answer. --Tango (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

An IQ test might serve as a substitute (In the U.S.) for just noting skin color. A high score on an IQ test does not automatically predict success as a firefighter, policeman, electrician, carpenter, garbage collector, welder, ironworker, bricklayer, crane operator, typist, customer service representative, bulldozer operator, or salesman. If I recall correctly, U.S. courts ruled that an employment test must be shown to have criterion-based predictive power for job success. A test should be valid and reliable. A company might have a consulting firm give a test to a pool of those who entered any of the above occupations, using a large bank of test items, and select test items which successfully correlated with completion of the training program and achievement of journeyman ironworker or whatever. Then there would be a valid basis for only accepting in the training program those who had a better chance of making the grade, based on the job-related and validated test. Edison (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

While there is a correlation between race and IQ, it isn't very strong. It's not going to make any real difference to an individual. --Tango (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing an IQ test can reliably measure is the ability to take an IQ test. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You've been hanging around me too long! That's almost word for word my standard response to questions about IQ! --Tango (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My dad used to say the same thing. Ironically, we both tended to score well on IQ tests. Come to think of it, that's how we know. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. makes it clear that race is the deciding influence. To quote the article: "if such tests disparately impact ethnic minority groups, businesses must demonstrate that such tests are 'reasonably related' to the job for which the test is required." So it's ok to indirectly racially discriminate as long as you can show the people you're discriminating against are on average inferior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Another way to put it is that the test measures the so-called I.Q. for the specific job. As a crude example, tests involving numbers might pertain to a job that requires skilled us of numbers. Tests involving language might pertain to a job that requires skilled use of language. The author of a sign I once saw that said "Help keep are city clean" probably wouldn't have scored so well on a language test. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What you are describing is face validity, which does not involve scientific evidence. In reality, any type of measurement can be used so long as the company has done statistical research to determine that the instrument or process is able to predict job performance, usually through a validity study. —Cswrye (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

UK Royal organiser

Who was in charge of the arrangements for the marriage of Charles and Diana on 29 July 1981 at St Paul's Cathedral? (Talk about Recentism: I can't find an article for the event, which was watched by hundreds of millions of people.) I am looking for the name of, presumably, a senior official in the Royal Household. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything myself, but there's this section of the archive Times site that is dedicated to Charles and Diana's wedding (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/system/topicRoot/Wedding_of_Charles_and_Diana/) ny156uk (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We have Prince_Charles#Engagement_and_wedding_to_Diana and Diana,_Princess_of_Wales#Engagement_and_wedding, but apparently no specific article. Neither mention the organisations, though. I'm not really sure where to start looking for that information... --Tango (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And we have an article on Chas and Camilla's do. The Earl Marshall does coronations and funerals, but I seem to remember that Charlie's uncle Dickie had sketched out the bones of a wedding ceremony, though sadly he had been murdered by the time it was needed. DuncanHill (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Duke of Norfolk is the highest ranking peer. He handles Royal ceremony.90.4.245.191 (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)DT

And of course the Dukes of Norfolk have held the office of Earl Marshall since the 17th Century. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How to clean a braided leather belt

I have had the same braided leather belt for nearly 11 years. It is beginning to show its age a tad, and it needs a good cleaning. How do I go about cleaning it thoroughly without damaging the leather? --Abin Sur (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Saddle soap is the stuff. You can get it hard (in bars), or soft (in tins). The soft stuff is easier to use, but cognoscenti prefer the hard sort. Ask at your local horsey-shop or farm suppliers. DuncanHill (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S., you can find saddle soap in small tins (like those for shoe polish) in stores that sell a wide range of shoe-care products. On the other hand, this auto-care site claims that saddle soap is not a cleaner but a compound for softening leather, so they recommend against using it to clean leather seats in your car. Could be hard to get all the soap out of the individual strands in a braided leather belt. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It cleans and softens, which is why it's so good. Horsey types use it on all the fiddly leatherwork you need in order to stay on a horse. I use it on boots. DuncanHill (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

animal mistreatment question

In those countries where declawing cats is considered to be animal cruelty, is it also considered animal cruelty to shorten the tails of dogs? Googlemeister (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

According to our article on Onychectomy, "Although common in North America, declawing is rarely practiced outside North America and is considered an act of animal cruelty in certain other regions." Comparing the list of countries where tail docking and ear cropping are illegal in our article on Docking (animal) to the list of countries where declawing is illegal, it appears there's significant overlap, although admittedly I didn't cross reference very thoroughly. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See Docking_(dog)#Legal_status. I'll read it myself after I've eaten! --Tango (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Docking. That's what it is called. Will take a look. Googlemeister (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

From an Irish perspective, declawing is punishable by imprisonment here, whereas Docking is legal (likely as a result of Farm lobbying). Fribbler (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is neutering legal in countries where declawing is illegal? Do the critters get a say in it? How about slaughtering? Edison (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any country where neutering is illegal. Lots of countries have restrictions on the slaughtering of animals - requiring it to be done humanely, requiring it to be done in a licensed abattoir (for food purposes, anyway), etc. Killing members of endangered species is often illegal. --Tango (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe neutering is illegal is Sweden. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems unlikely to me since [6] is apparently involved in Trap-Neuter-Return in Sweden and [7] mentions two neuter cats although [8] and [9] both suggest neutering dogs is very rare (but don't say it is illegal) Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In Finland the answer is yes. --194.215.122.213 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you go: you can't always believe what you read in books. On the other hand, it's possible that neutering is only permitted in populations at risk or to reduce animal overpopulation, such as among strays. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, neutering is allowed in Finland. I should have read the above a bit better. --194.215.122.213 (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

De-clawing seems to be arousing a lot of interest - see San Francisco. Of course there had to be a website called declawing-dot-com. Or just google 'cat de-claw' and you can read all the research. MuDor (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

About the First Two Rules of Wikipedia...

Whatever does it mean if you "talk about Fight Club", on this website, anyway? --Ericthebrainiac (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget rule #3: If today is your first day at Wikipedia, you edit! --Jayron32 23:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Having an article on Fight Club clearly bars us from being a member of Fight Club. So instead we write articles: "His name was Robert Paulson"...Fribbler (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)