Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 April 27

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.

April 27

Help finding ISSN or OCLC number

I am trying to find the ISSN or OCLC number for a newspaper. I've searched WorldCat and the newspaper directory at the Library of Congress.

newspaper: The Source Weekly
company: Lay It Out, Inc.
founded:' 1997
location: Bend, Oregon
website: tsweekly.com
owner: Paul S Butler
publisher: Aaron Switzer
editor: Eric Flowers

Does anybody have any better searching tricks? Thanks for any help. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 08:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Email them at info@tsweekly.com and ask? --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I emailed, but no response so far, so I called and the person I spoke to had no idea what I was talking about. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Library of Congress don't seem to list it, however Trove at National Library of Australia does: http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/34145316 there seems to be no ISSN. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the new search tool. I wasn't aware of that one. Does anybody else have any tips or tricks? - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 09:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Bar trick

Last night my bar tender performed a magic trip for the group of people I was with. He had laid out 5 quarters on the bar top and asked one girl in our group to touch one quarter when he had his back turned/left the bar area/whenever he was not looking and he would predict which quarter she touched. She waited for him to leave the area and carefully touched the quarter of her choosing twice without moving the coin. Each time he correctly predicted which quarter she touched. How did he do this magic trick? --Endlessdan (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The first thing that pops to mind is that he had a conspirator. Dismas|^(talk) 13:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

An accomplice is the easiest way to perform this trick:

...Take 5 nickels and arrange them on the bar table in a box shape (one in each corner and one in the middle). Now tell your friend to buy a drink and get a napkin. Get your friend to sit next to you but pretend you don't know each other. Tell someone at the bar you can read their minds. Tell them to touch any nickel without you looking and you will tell them which one they touched. Here's the trick: when they touch a nickel your friend will move his cup to either a corner of his napkin or the center indicating which one of the nickels the mark touched.

A variation on the theme, from this page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

bars have many mirrors; some bars even have one-way mirrors. bartenders and bar owners learn early on that drunk people need a lot surreptitious watching and get in the knack of watching without looking like they are doing so. --Ludwigs2 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama-Biden 2012?

Scandals or personal tragedy aside, what are the chances that Joe Biden will not be on the Democratic ticket in 2012? Skomorokh 13:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately our crystal ball is not functioning at the moment, so doing anything other than speculating wildly on this subject is currently beyond our abilities. Sorry. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on past history, it's rare for a president to change his vice president. List of United States Democratic Party presidential tickets and List of United States Republican Party presidential tickets provides historical data. Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940/44 was the last Democratic US president to have different VPs at consecutive elections; the last Republican was Benjamin Harrison in 1888/92 (Spiro Agnew resigned just after Richard Nixon was re-elected and was replaced by Gerald Ford, but Agnew was on the ticket both times Nixon was elected). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on overall past history, it's equally rare for a President to run with the same Vice President. It's only recently (since 1952) that it's become relatively predictable. Washington, Monroe, Van Buren, Taft, Wilson and Hoover kept the same running-mate when seeking re-election. But John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, J.Q. Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison did not. (Nor did non-incumbent Theodore Roosevelt on his come-back try in 1912.) FDR ran with Vice-Pres. John Nance Garner for his first re-election in 1936, but with Agriculture Sec. Henry Wallace in 1940 and Sen. Harry Truman in 1944. Truman's Vice President, Alben Barkley ran against Truman for President in 1952 until Truman dropped out after the New Hampshire primary.
¶ But since 1952, the only Vice-President not to run with a President seeking re-election was Nelson Rockefeller, appointed by Pres. Gerald Ford in 1974; Ford sought a return to office in 1976 with Sen. Bob Dole as his Vice-Presidential candidate. Otherwise, Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush all ran for re-election with the sitting Vice President. (I'm pretty sure that while he was seeking renomination in 1968, Lyndon B. Johnson's running-mate was Vice Pres. Hubert Humphrey, but I'm not absolutely certain that LBJ had a definitely-confirmed running-mate before dropping out after the New Hampshire primary.) —— Shakescene (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

48.26% --Tango (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, (to site a real statistic), Biden is being given 12-1 odds of being the Democratic presidential nominee [1]. I can't find anyone betting on the VP nominees. You can, however, bet on the presidential winner, both parties' presidential nominees, and which party will win. Buddy431 (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Scenarios under which Biden would not be on the ticket:

1) Obama doesn't run, and Biden decides not to run on his own (or does and is defeated) and isn't selected as VP by the winner of the Democratic primary. This could happen, say, if the economy collapses further.

2) Obama runs but loses in primary, and the winner doesn't pick Biden as VP candidate. Unlikely, since this only happens when there is a major split in a party (as between the Tea Party and traditional Republicans). Democrats are relatively united now, so would be likely to support the President if he runs, if only because the chances of winning the Presidency after bitter in-fighting would be almost zero.

3) Obama runs, but does not choose Biden as VP. If Biden were caught in some scandal, then this could happen.

4) Biden chooses not to run. Again, this could be due to a scandal, but health or personal reasons are also possible. StuRat (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama birth certificate: who was the doctor?

President Obama today released a certified copy of his original "long form" birth certificate, titled "Certificate of Live Birth" showing that he was born when and where he had always said, consistent with the earlier released "Certification of Live Birth" computer printout. One piece of information on the long form certificate is the doctor's name. It appears to be "David A. Smilan",(edited to add) but others read it as "David A. Sinclair" although the last name is not easy to read. This appears to be in conflict with Snopes which posted a January, 2009 statement by a teacher in Hawaii, (here is the original newspaper interview) who claimed to recall a 1961 conversation with the obstetrician who delivered Obama, whom she said was Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February, 2008, age 98. She said she remembered West telling her on August 4, 1961 that "today" a baby named Barack Hussein Obama had been born to a mother named Stanley Ann Dunham and a father who was the first African student at the University of Hawaii. If Dr West was the obstetrician, why is Dr. SmilanSinclair (or whatever the scribble represents) the one to sign the birth certificate? Historical sources can be found for Dr. West, such as one saying that he was there providing medical aid during the Pearl Harbor attack, which events he wrote a book about. Was the lady's memory faulty about her connection to history, and did Snopes get fooled, or were there two doctors there? Did a "Dr. David A. SmilanSinclair" (or Smiljan, or Smilain or Smilai") leave any historical record in Honolulu? Edison (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Next round of the conspiracy? The name is hard to make out. The easiest explanation is that every non-trivial hospital will have multiple physicians on duty, and that any one of them (or always one designated for the job) signs the paperwork. "The marriage certificate is witnessed by Bob and Blanche, but I remember that Carol and Curtis claimed to have been at the wedding..." ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not this Bob and Blanche, I trust. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, a half-remembered conversation from 50 years previous is not exactly what I would consider to be a definitive source. (Anyway, I would note how ridiculous it would be to forge a birth certificate with a fake doctor's name on it, especially when there are no doubt many real doctors who worked there who would be dead by now and not be able to protest if their name was misappropriated.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's what we are meant to think. Maybe it's a fiendish double bluff. Or triple bluff. Just like the moon landings ... Gandalf61 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The account at Snopes was claimed to be very clearly remembered, not "half remembered." Additionally, the Snopes claims from the woman were widely trotted out for 2 years as "proof" of the Honolulu birth, with the doctor conveniently dead. I could find no mention of a "David A. Smilan" in Google Books, but I did find one source stating that in the late 1950's early 1960s the hospital delivered about 4000 babies per year, which sounds like it might have been a "teaching hospital." The form says "signature of attendant," resumably the physician actually in charge of the delivery. It is not a trivial matter, because there are many malpractice suits if there is anything "wrong with" a baby, and the doctor in charge is the one who would get hit with any malpractice suit. If Doctor A delivers a baby, Doctor B who wasn't there is very unlikely to take credit for it. I suppose that at a large hospital there might have been a senior doctor and a doctor who is an intern medical school graduate on his rotation through ob-gyn who does the "hands-on" baby catching and gets to sign the form. Edison (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying, as a professional historian (one of the few times I will flash my badge around), all 50 year memories are half remembered. People's confidence in their own memory is not a substitute for evidence in a more tangible medium. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the Smilan guy will turn up, although he would likely be at least 70 by now and probably wouldn't remember the specifics anyway. The most interesting thing about this turn of events is how it's given a boost to The Donald's campaign (or whatever to call it at this stage). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In the US, attending physician may actually refer to the supervising physician in charge of OBGYN at the time, regardless of whether he was personally involved with the delivery. One would need to know more about Hawaii's specific process to know who would generally sign the form. Dragons flight (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone with access to a 1961 Hawaii Medical Directory? That might clarify the staff positions of the two positions mentioned in connection with the birth. Edison (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Some read it as "David A. Sinclair" (died 2003), who would have been about 39 in 1961, while Dr. West would have been 51. Edison (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I got a hunch you're right, as that name is turning up a lot now in google, in reference to this. And, predictably, the birthers have moved on to the claim that somehow Obama's father being African makes Obama ineligible. Despite the egg on their faces, they forge ahead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Haven't they been saying that all the time anyway? They just didn't care as much before since he was obviously born in Kenya and/or Indonesia. Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Lol - I've been trying to decide whether this was a stupid move on Obama's part or a brilliantly Machiavellian one. Releasing his BC at this late date is just bound to make the conspiracy theorists go ape (e.g. "Why did it take so long - did he just need all that time to fabricate a solid background cover?") and revive the controversy. On the other hand, getting the conspiracy theorists to go ape will likely benefit Obama in the long run. Nothing better for a candidate than to look extremely sane and reasonable by comparison to his opponents' pet fanatics.

US Politics: a huge roller-coaster ride, where every car carries a nuclear missile, and no one is allowed to get off. funFunFUN! --Ludwigs2 16:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My personal theory is that he did it, in part, to boost Trump's campaign and help create further division within the GOP (that theory makes the assumption that the Democrats were smart enough to think of that). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Ludwigs2: I agree. If he was going to release the BC eventually anyway, why not do it earlier rather than later, and avoid all the bullshit we've had to endure? Since it's a formal constitutional requirement that the Pres be native-born and not just a citizen at the time of election, I've long wondered why it's never been necessary for presidential candidates to produce documentary proof that they're eligible to be elected, before even being permitted to run in the first place. Some joker who was born in Outer Mongolia (no offence to Outer Mongolians) could claim to have been a native-born American, get registered as a presidential candidate, and it seems the whole establishment would just have to take his word for it, until someone did a bit of digging and outed him. Nobody else is able to get away with just their word, when it comes to saying exactly when and where they were born, so why is such latitude extended to those who aspire to occupy the most powerful office in the world? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's never really been an issue before. Most of the time, Americans generally accept that someone is born where they say they were, and if anyone wants to check into it, there are publicly available documents (as there were in this case too, but whatever). And usually, someone would have had to deliberately lie about their place of birth for a long time before they considered running for president for a credible lie to be in place. There is of course, Chester A. Arthur, who did start to lie about his year of birth in the 1870s (to make himself look younger), and who may or may not have been born in Canada, but at the time of his presidency, nobody really cared that much (his opponents tried to drum up the foreign born aspect, but people really didn't think it mattered). It's only now that people are actually making much of a fuss about this requirement. There are several so called "birther bills" making their way through state houses [2], [3], so it's possible that in the future, more stringent proof of birth place will be required. Buddy431 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama's case was also more of a fuss because if he were not born in the U.S. (a silly IF), he might not currently be a U.S. citizen at all. His mother fell into a category that might not have granted him immediate citizenship, and taking no affirmative action to claim it, might have made him a Indonesian citizen later (or perhaps a stateless person). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Jack: that's a matter of history, really. Documented births didn't really get established in the US until the 20th century (it's doubtful that Washington, Lincoln, or either of the Roosevelts could have produced documentation of their US birth); presidents have typically come from upper social classes where questions about parentage and residency don't exist (Lincoln and Obama being obvious exceptions); and moreover the political concern is really that the president have a life-long allegiance to the US (i.e., we don't want someone raised in, say, France to emigrate and run for president, because he might be too sympathetic to the interests of France). The Founding Fathers lived in a world where people translocated slowly and infrequently, and could not have imagined a world where this would ever be an issue (I'll refrain from speculating on what the FF would think about the Birthers - that's a highly amusing but inappropriate line of thought). --Ludwigs2 22:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, but we've moved on somewhat since Lincoln and Washington. There's been significant public interest in the "native-born" question since at least as far back as 1964, when Barry Goldwater was running. Surely it would be a simple matter for there to be established a protocol/procedure whereby: (a) those wishing to run for president have to produce evidence that they meet all constitutional requirements (which include things other than the native-born thing), (b) that evidence be certified as satisfactory by someone like the Attorney-General (which doesn't necessarily mean it could never be challenged, but that it passes the prima facie tests), and (c) that evidence then be publicly available to all comers for all time. This should occur no later than the time of registration as a formal candidate, and certainly well before any voting occurs. After all, this isn't just the presidency of the local kindergarten we're talking about here. Someone wanting to join the army or the police force or the CIA/FBI would be subjected to a far more intrusive and searching examination of their background than any presidential candidate ever is. That just seems wrong in principle. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack, the whole thing is partisan silliness. You do realize that many of the people who are drum-beating about Obama's citizenship now are same people who advocated removing the citizenship requirement a few years back when they thought the Republicans might field Schwarzenegger as a presidential candidate? The only reason they didn't push that harder was because Arnie said he wouldn't run. What we need in this country is actual accountability for actual political actions, not acres of senseless maundering over where a presidential candidate was in the first 15 seconds of his life. I swear, our own government is reducing us to wage-slavery in order to pander to giant corporations, while all we do is babble on about meaningless criteria. pish AND tosh. --Ludwigs2 01:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I fully understand where the birthers are coming from, and I wouldn't give any of them the time of day. But it just seems to me that if you folk are going to have it enshrined in your constitution that the President must be native-born, then there should be some process, in the name of transparency, that assures everyone right up front that the person they may wish to vote for does indeed meet that requirement. It shouldn't be down to "I know the President was native-born because I read it in the newspaper, or my next door neighbour Bert told me, or I read it on Wikipedia, or I heard it on TV". One can come by lots of information in each of those ways that turns out to be 100% wrong. Why bother to have such a formal constitutional requirement if there's no proper way of ever checking that any of the candidates actually satisfies it? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing I don't understand about all this - When I went my first time to get my driver's license, I had to show my birth certificate to prove my citizenship. Same with my passport. (I would assume his Senate position in Illinois beforehand would also want at least some documentation on him, which may include proof of citizenship - I dunno for sure, though.) Obama, to my knowledge, has a license and a passport - did he get them the normal way, or what? And if he did, why is it so hard for birthers to accept that those people who reviewed the documents at that point in time found them to be official? As a side note, I did get my license and passport a good deal later than Obama, I believe - (Since he's almost 50 and could have received these at 16, whereas my license and passport I got ~ 10 years ago) - have requirements become more strict? ^Avic_ennasis @ 16:38, 24 Nisan 5771 / 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(sigh...) It's the same reason why important people have a special line at the airport where they don't get searched or scanned, why the very weathy get tax breaks and hand-outs while the very poor are told to be 'fiscally responsible', and why corporate crime generally goes unpunished despite the fact that they sometimes cause more misery than the collected crimes of all the inmates at a given prison. We live in a class-based society, and once you have entered into the 'right' class, you are assumed to be beyond reproach (and it is in fact considered an insult to suggest otherwise). I'm not approving or disapproving of that - that's just the way it is. --Ludwigs2 17:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama released the standard Hawaii birth certificate 3 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And I would note the reason he didn't release this document earlier is because it's never provided (in Hawaii) to people. A special exception was made for Obama. Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to call BS on that. I have a Hawaii birth certificate and it has been in my possession for years. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this normal practice in the US? I must admit I've never understood why the full certificate was never made available before - in the UK anyone can get an official copy of anyone's birth (or marriage, or death) certificate by locating the index details and making an application to the General Register Office with the fee of around £10, it's the standard method of doing genealogical research - I had a problem initially locating my father's birth certificate, but that was only because back in 1919 he was registered under the English version of his first names and he always used the Welsh versions during his life. I had to get a long-form copy of my own birth certificate when I first wanted a passport, as my parents had only got the short-form certificate when I was born. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It varies by State. In Ohio, while tracing my family history, I found out that you can request a copy of person's birth certificate, but only if you are related to that person. (I got one for my grandfather there.) In Pennsylvania, however, (IIRC) the only birth certificate you can get is your own. While this information/documents used to be available to the general public, its use in identity theft in recent years have caused some states to place tighter restrictions on getting certain documents. ^Avic_ennasis @ 16:38, 24 Nisan 5771 / 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's mentioned the rather obvious reason why Obama's birth has been scrutinized while nobody else's ever has: he has dark skin, a funny name, and a father from Kenya. Staecker (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody else's? Sure about that? Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 13:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything in this thread which is relevant to Wikipedia? (Asked rhetorically)68.122.51.169 (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Things don't have to be 'relevant to Wikipedia' to be allowed on the RD. Arguably parts of the first question at least were factual questions that could be or can now be answered by providing references even if there has been perhaps a little soapboxing and general discussion that followed. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the original question, not remotely soapbox: If Doctor Smilan-scribble/Sinclair was the doctor who delivered him, per the official birth certificate, how was the Snopes' Doctor West also the doctor who delivered him? Tag team obstetrics? Edison (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack of OZ, could you articulate what YOU mean by the term "native-born" in the statement "it's a formal constitutional requirement that the Pres be native-born"? By "YOU," I mean it doesn't have to be sourced or scholarly or whatever, but rather just the impression informing your statement.63.17.71.218 (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Painted into a corner - literally

This cliche has been used numerous times on TV and in cartoons over the years. Has there ever been a documented case in which someone literally did this to themselves? What was the outcome? Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What sort of documentation would you expect for such an eventuality? I'm sure people have done this - it's an easy mistake to make. The outcome will generally be footprints in the wet paint, and a requirement for some remedial work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, you just wait. I have "urethaned" myself onto an upstairs landing. My spouse tossed me a book and I read for a couple of hours. Bielle (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your example actually answers the question, assuming the OP will accept "original research". I'm sure there are countless cases of doing housework and finding yourself "trapped" by the approach taken. Then you either wait for it to dry or you walk through it and fix it later. I googled [paint into a corner] and there's nothing about the origin that I can find, only about the meaning of it as a metaphor; and the google images that come up are either cartoons (where one is most likely to see it) or as an obviously staged photo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of the story about the guy who built an airplane in his basement, where it remained. I always thought it was a joke, but check this out homemade airplane fills basement190.148.135.112 (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a stock joke like that about boats. Airplanes is a new one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• During Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel the steam shovel Mary Ann is outmoded by diesel diggers and instead proves her worth by digging the town hall cellar in one day. She fails to dig a ramp to get out of the hole. So they build the building around her. Mike Mulligan gets a job as a janitor and Mary Ann becomes the boiler. However, in real life when the declining rate of profit outmodes an industrial sector the common result is the liquidation of the workforce and industry. YMMV. A related industrial joke to painting yourself into a corner is the game three men down a hole which is played with a confined space, a human need to rescue someone in trouble, and a heavy than air deadly gas. This appears to be a recent match with the usual result. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the earliest railway steam locomotives were quite deliberately redeployed in a similar manner to Mary Ann (of which I had not previously heard). The first one of all known to have successfully run, Richard Trevithick's 1804 Pen-y-Darren locomotive, was primarily intended as a stationary engine and only temporarily converted to locomotive form, and the Stephensons' 1825 Locomotion was fortuitously preserved by being used as a stationary engine for 16 years after retirement from active service, before being restored, while Todd, Kitson & Laird's 1838 Lion spent no less than 59 years in a similar role. Thus also was preserved the boiler (only) of Foster, Rastrick and Company's 1828 Stourbridge Lion, the first loco to run (in 1829) in the USA. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.101 (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was at a construction site for a grocry store where some moron had a crane erect the last outside wall with the crane still in the building. His supervisor was rather irritated. Googlemeister (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Marmion automobile

I have a photo (circa 1910?) of an automobile - a Marmion (sp?). Any information (including correct spelling)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisysmom02 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Marmon Wasp was the first Indianapolis 500 winner, if that helps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the Mormon cricket. (Wink.) Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 13:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a photo of a Marmon Model 32 from which the Wasp was developed. Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why no OEM drop-side trucks in the U.S.

Have found such trucks in every country but Argentina, U.S., Mexico and Canada, ranging in size from 1/4-tons to giant sixteen wheelers. Most are made by companies who also sell trucks here: Mercedes, Hyundai, Toyota, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.115.156 (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The US has drop-side trucks. They are not very common, but they are around. Googlemeister (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Holiday

Who decides on bank holidays? The UK have made a new one for this coming friday, who did that? Who has the athority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.192.253 (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would assume Parliament and ultimately it's their call, but it's possible they've delegated that to a department. Shadowjams (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

See [[bank holiday#Current practice]].—msh210℠ 19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That reference is a little vague, but after a little searching, I think it's fair to say that the decision is made by "the Crown", which in the UK apart from Scotland in effect means the Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister. The Scottish Government apparently gets to make a separate decision for Scotland. However, I am not British and my understanding of British constitutional matters is imperfect, so it would be good to have someone confirm. Marco polo (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in practice it seems to be the members of the government (of the appropriate country) who make the decisions on bank holidays. This Friday's is a one-off and just follows the usual practice for a wedding of a probable future monarch. The government also seems to have the authority to make permanent changes, but they do so with care because they don't want to upset any part of the electorate. Dbfirs 21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Slight correction to what I wrote above: Quote from Hansard (Lord Bassam of Brighton in reply to a question addressed to the UK government about bank holidays in the UK) "Bank and public holidays in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. Dates for Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Executive."[4]. Dbfirs 07:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A colleague said today that he couldn't remember getting a day off for the Charles & Diana wedding. I was on holiday anyway so can't say either. Anyone know? Alansplodge (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes (OR), the Charles and Diana wedding day (29 July 1981) was a Bank Holiday. My daughter was born that day so I didn't need to take an extra day off work... (Her second baby arrived a couple of weeks ago - a couple of weeks too early to ensure a spooky coincidence.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes - being a good republican, I went to the seaside for the day so I could avoid watching the thing (not as drastic as some others, who left the country for the day). If the weather's nice, I may do the same tomorrow. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Another colleague suggested that republicans should have to go to work tomorrow! Alansplodge (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as non-Christians should get no break over Christmas or Easter. It's an old and not very productive argument. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

On hygiene, and soap

I've long had a habit of showering (with soap and shampoo) at least once a day -- I just feel dirty if I don't, and hey, showers are nice. But I like to think that our bodies generally know what they're doing, and I started researching natural body oil and such our of curiosity. Everything I've found seems to conflict itself, and everybody seems certain you should either scrub yourself squeaky clean every single day, or only bother to bathe once a month, and not use any soap because it's just another product of the man. There's no in-between. I just want to smell nice, but not interfere with my body's natural workings.

I understand that hot water can cause problems, so I've been experimenting with warm to lukewarm water instead, and it does seem to make for softer hair and skin. I've also cut back scrubbing all over with soap to two days a week, and only using it daily on the places that need more frequent cleaning. Does this seem like a reasonable compromise of cleanliness and letting my body do its own thing? Well... More on the cleanliness side, I suppose. But it's progress. --184.166.126.17 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly a happy medium between "scrub yourself squeaky clean every single day" and "only bother to bathe once a month". It will differ for everyone. Most people like to wash daily, but strenuous scrubbing as if your body is covered by some vile poison is really not necessary. The body produces its own natural oils - for a good reason.

But you talk as if soap and shampoo are the only cleaning agents available. Commercially produced soap is notorious for skin irritations and other problems, due to its pH value. Sorbolene (what, still a red link) is neutral, just as effective, has no side effects, and leaves no horrible scum. There are legions of other body washes, but they typically dry out the skin even more quickly than soap does. I've been on this particular soap box (pun) since at least 2006. (Disclaimer: I do not hold any shares in sorbolene manufacturing companies.) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The first website I found to explain sorbolene says "Scientific testing has raised issues about the security of Sorbolene for regular use. Used too frequently it's been found to break down the natural barriers the skin produces to fight the effects of irritants." which seems a world away from Jack's "has no side effects". Neither of then RS, of course. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I wonder which soap manufacturer funded that study. This was the exact radio program I heard back in 1997 that first got me thinking about saying goodbye to soap. That's 15 years now, and I can report that after I switched to sorbolene my skin immediately became a lot softer and smoother than it ever had been before. I'm not a Nazi about it, though. Sometimes I run out, or I'm out of town or whatever, and I revert to soap for a few days. Inevitably, my skin becomes rough and dry again. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems clear that excess in any form tends to have negative effects. Your question triggered thoughts from long ago about the habit of skin exfoliation. see exfoliation (cosmetology) To much scrubbing going on. Yes a happy medium makes a lot of sense.190.148.133.64 (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

See, everyone is different. I have exceedingly oily skin. If I don't wash my face at least once a day (twice in the summer) it literally feels like I wiped margarine all over my face, and I end up with horrible break outs. However, washing with a mild acne soap does a really good job and keeping my face feeling clean. I have never had a problem with dry skin; my problems lean towards the other dimension. --Jayron32 01:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This sound more like me -- for a while there, I was taking two showers a day and didn't have any problems with dry skin. I guess it's probably just a matter of whichever feels better to an individual person. --184.166.126.17 (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I found switching to a diet low on animal fats, and particularly trans-fats and saturated fats, reduces both oily skin and acne. StuRat (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Cola drinks and chocolate seem to exacerbate acne also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why cola would cause that problem, but chocolate is normally high in fat and saturated fat, and some may even contain trans fats, so that's consistent with my observations. StuRat (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My motto: There's no such thing as too rich or too thin or too nice OR TOO CLEAN.  :) —This lousy T-shirt (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily for kids. See hygiene hypothesis. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)