Miscellaneous desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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.

May 7

SEALs Information in SEALs Article

I'm not sure just how to contact you about incorrect information. As a US Naval Officer in the Amphibious Forces, I was in two "practice exercises" that included SEALs (and they were called SEALs.) in 1957 and 1958. Your article about the Navy's SEALs indicate they were formed by JFK (from Naval demolition units) in 1961/1962. And that's your "historic" birthdate to the right of your article, by the SEALs' logo. While it's true that the SEALs were an outgrowth of Underwater Demolition Units, they were SEALs -- including adjuncts with Naval Aviation -- and called SEALs by the Navy in the 1950s (and, perhaps, in the 1940s; but I cannot personally attest to Naval activity then.) As an Naval Officer with "high clearance" for information, I do know that JFK, during his clandestine efforts in Southeast Asia upon his taking office, did "rev up" Naval activity in the area as he prepared to go to war in Viet Nam.

Anyway.... my point is the SEALs were not an outgrowth of JFK's administration -- his own Naval history notwithstanding. They preceded his presidency. I know. I saw them in action during Naval exercises/amphibious landings in the late '50s; including one at Kodiak Island where I -- as ship's deck officer -- watched them drop into the water during the dead of night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.157.42 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. I think I must inform you that Wikipedia is a community encyclopaedia, and as such, is freely editable by anyone. You can edit the article in question yourself if you think it is erroneous. One rule that we generally have here is that any editors provide references for the information they are adding (in part, to prevent people from just writing anything they want, but also so that others can follow up what they have read here by going to the references provided). These references can be to books, or to reliable websites with the information. If you are not comfortable with adding the information yourself, then you can go back to the article in question, and click on the 'Discussion' tab at the top. There you can leave a message to editors for that page, in the same way that you have done here (except there you click on the 'New Section' tab, instead of 'ask a question'. Good luck! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I added a title for your question here and link to the article in the title. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should bring up your concerns at the talk page of the relevant article, in this case talk:United States Navy SEALs. Wikipedia tries very hard to make sure articles are supported by reliable sources which are independently verifiable; it's a particular problem when dealing with stuff that is wholly or partially covert, but articles must nevertheless rely on what published sources say. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is that the term "SEAL" came into use informally before it became official. This often happens. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clocks going back and hospitals

Hey all. I've wondered this for a while now, but I don't think I ever got round it asking it here. When the clocks go back an hour, an hour is duplicated (here in the UK, there are two 1.34ams, for example). How do very time-sensitive organisations cope with this? For example, in Accident and Emergency departments, I imagine that there exists times when Person A records the time of admission and this is then used by Persons B, C, D etc. when dealing with the patient. How do B, C and D know which 1.34am Person A meant? Does A make a supplementary note? Or do they make sure that there are no shift changes around that time so Person A is always around? Am I simply making a mountain out of what is in practice a molehill? Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 10:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The systems are all automated these days with a computerised date/time stamp. All the clocks (PCs, network servers) synch to the National Time Server for the NHS. There isn't any manual time recording. (This from my husband who runs the computer network for a major hospital in the UK) --TammyMoet (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that many organisation with critcal timekeeping ran thier systems on UTC anyway Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the other responses note, any computer system that has to handle time-sensitive events will have an internal timekeeping standard that is just translated to the appropriate format for display. (You'll note that the dates after all Wikipedia signatures are in Coordinated Universal Time, or UTC.) In principle, if one were keeping paper records (remote location, power outage, network failure, etc.) one could note specifically which clock was being used – UTC, GMT (Greenwich Mean Time), or BST (British Summer Time) – after all of the times recorded that evening. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Jarry1250 may be asking a slightly different question. Imagine that a woman is about to give birth to twins on the night the clocks change back to Standard time. The first baby is born at 01:30. At 02:00, the computer shifts all the clocks back an hour. The second baby is then born 45 minutes after the first one, but the time of birth will show it as 01:15, not 02:15. There could be consequences in record-keeping, where what is, in fact, the oldest child, appears to have been born after the youngest one. And having re-presented the question, I would also like to know what the answer might be. Bielle (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From hubby: the systems use UTC so there is no GMT/BST there. The local time (i.e. either GMT or BST) is not the recorded time: the recorded time is UTC. Baby 1 would be recorded as being born at 12:30 UTC, Baby 2 would be recorded as 01:15 UTC. The local time would be noted for the convenience of the mother, and would be recorded on the birth certificate (as far as we know). --TammyMoet (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that my answer already covers this. In situations where this sort of issue might be important, the doctors (or their computers) will use a clock that doesn't double up or skip hours (like UTC) or annotate the time on the chart with the appropriate time zone to distinguish between standard and daylight time: GMT versus BST. In the example you gave, 01:30 would be ambiguous, but 01:30 BST (versus 01:30 GMT, or 01:30 UTC) would not be. It's no worse than – indeeed, it's exactly the same as – tracking the timing of events that occur in more than one time zone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had to reword the question in order to understand that you had, as you say, already provided the correct answer. Thank you. Bielle (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly can be handled as mentioned above, but I would tend to agree that avoiding shift changes during that time would be important to prevent critical errors, like giving a patient their insulin injection twice. Yes, an automated system that tells nurses when to give the shot (based on UTC) would prevent this, but computers go down at times, and manual methods must then be used. StuRat (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(WP:OR) Agencies I am familiar with in the U.S. will append the time with either EST or EDT, for example. — Michael J 17:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The TV series Dr. Kildare is a reliable source of information on hospital procedures and shows here that time adjustments are achieved by everyone freezing motionless while the titles show. I can't see any moles in the linked video but there are two hills in sight. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Actually, I found all the replies interesting and applicable to my question :) Computers that ignore/account for DST it is then. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 09:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what is { { pp-move } }? "Disambiguate QC to Queen's Counsel using popups - You can help!"?

I often run into such cryptic notes on wikipedia and have no idea where to find an answer without spending hours looking.

Thanks in advance Ottawahitech (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typing "wikipedia:cryptic" into the search box leads to a page containing links to other pages where comments such as these may be defined (Wikipedia:CRYPTIC#See also) - one of these is Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. The first example you gave is Wiki markup for Template:pp-move. Peter E. James (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can always find an answer at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Which is where these kinds of questions generally should go. But to answer your question, they're automatic edit summaries made by software such as WP:POPUPS and WP:TWINKLE. -- œ ^™ 15:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally the "You can help!" part is a link to the page which describes the effort that the edit is aimed at helping. Dismas|^(talk) 18:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Disambiguate QC to Queen's Counsel" part means that a page should be (or has been) created for the abbreviation "QC", and that this page should provide a link to the "Queen's Counsel" page, as well as links to any other possible uses of "QC". Such a page, providing links to multiple pages, and little else beyond a basic definition of each term, is called a "disambiguation page". StuRat (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culture/"civilization"

Why has the center of culture/"civilization" always moved to the west? It went Mesopotamia->Greece->Rome->France->England->America. --75.40.204.106 (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your question makes some unfounded assumptions about where 'civilization' or 'culture' exist or have existed, and is therefore unanswerable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're looking at world history from a western viewpoint? -- œ ^™ 15:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had a similar question recently. In fact, the Russians viewed (at least part of) the progression as an eastward one: Rome --> Byzantium --> Russia. On the whole idea, see Translatio imperii and Translatio studii. Deor (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't India and China pretty much have everyone else beat? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that civilization started at one (or maybe a few) locations and spread from there, this means it must have spread west, as well as east. It also spread north and south, and every direction in between. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The center of what culture? Sure, the Romans may have been (for awhile) centered around Rome, but the Incas weren't. One thing I have quickly learned since I started studying in college is that there were many incredibly advanced societies that were not even aware that there was the continent of Europe (look at the Incas prior to contact, and the great predecessors to the Inca as an example). Beyond that, we have China, Japan, Byzantium, India, and North Africa, all of which at one point (or today) had cultural centers. I would suspect that Mecca and Jerusalem could be considered cultural centers in their own rights, if for no reason other than religion. There are sites along the Ganges which are quite important. I do not think that we have a cultural center - for that, I believe that we would need only one majority culture (which we certainly do not). Falconus^{p t c} 20:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any place that spells civilisation with a z cannot be classified as civilised. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we are rather uncivilized. At least, however, we don't spell it with an s, because then we be uncivilized and narrow-minded. Please don't attack the OP purely based on the fact that you were not raised where s/he was. Falconus^{p t c} 23:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any culture that leads to a failure to understand the humorous intent of that post is decidedly uncivilised. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite hard to tell online. I just have a lot of cases where people lump all the Americans together, so it gets under my skin. If you meant to be humorous, then I apologize. Falconus^{p t c} 00:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite hard to tell online - that's exactly the point, Falconus. It's not up to you to apologise when another editor does not make it clear their post was intended to be humorous. Online, we don't have access to all the usual elements of communication we take for granted out there, and which account for most of the meaning (eye movements, smiles, intonational nuances, other body language). The words alone are a poor substitute, but that's all we ever have here, so we have to make do or improvise. Hence, the use of smileys, small print, and similar devices that don't exist in spoken discourse. I heartily commend them to HiLo48. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Sorry guys. I do forget the online issues and cultural differences sometimes. HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANYWAYS.... I recommend for the OP to read Rise of the West, and Guns, Germs, and Steel. -- œ ^™ 05:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every civilization (by its nature) sees itself as the pinnacle of civilization. 'Western' civilization is a term derived from colonialism, where most goods moved west (around Africa) and 'sophisticated' (European) culture was exported east (around Africa), and the Americas were mostly inconsequential. Chinese, Indian, and Islamic civilization were (each in their own days) major centers of civilization, and I still run into people from odd places (Hungary, Turkey, Monaco, Tibet, Beijing) who see 'western' europo-american civilization as decidedly impoverished (low-class neuvo-riche bores is a fairly common phrase). Civilization is largely a matter of perspective, regardless of how one spells it. --Ludwigs2 06:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This question took me back to my history classes in American schools. World history as taught to American kids progresses in place as well as time: from the Fertile Crescent to ancient Greece to ancient Rome to feudalism (which took place in some unnamed European country), then back to Italy for the Renaissance, Germany for the Reformation and finally with the Pilgrims to America, at which point the rest of the world disappears except for wars involving the U.S. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing what isn't taught at our schools. The Native Americans just fall out of the history textbooks after the first Thanksgiving (except for brief mentions of the "heroic battles" "fought" against unarmed Native American women and children), and then we are raised to believe that Christopher Columbus realized the world was round and discovered the Americas (leaving out the prior discoveries by the Native Americans, Chinese, and Vikings), and such places as Africa and Australia really are not mentioned. I don't think I ever learned about Scandinavia in a class, and we skipped the World History chapter on Africa. We did learn about India and China, and spent some time on Russia, but other than that, I really don't remember learning a lot that happened east of France (or, in ancient times, east of Greece). History taught in the United States is rather disturbing. Though, I would suspect that most history curricula are equally slanted toward the culture in which they are taught. Falconus^{p t c} 02:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History classes in Canada are similarly patchy, though not in the same way. Back in the day (1980s, 1990s) Canadian history was usually a separate class, well apart from any kind of world history or current events. So, while I took the requisite classes in Canadian History, there was no greater context for anything. Efforts like the Cartoon History of the Universe are a great attempt at giving equal time for all, but even there there are wide gaps that just get skipped over. In those books, it's pre-Columbian North and South America and pre-contact Indonesia/Australia/New Zealand that get short shrift, but it at least present Africans, Indians, and Chinese as individuals with their own motivations and cultures, etc. rather than the nameless masses my old history books sometimes lumped them into. Matt Deres (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving out Chinese discovery of America is probably a Good Thing. I don't think there was any evidence of it that didn't later turn out to be a hoax. All that's left is wild speculation just one small step up from 'Ancient Astronaut' theory. APL (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already partly mentioned, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the rise of western powers in the 16th century, the most advanced cultures were probably those in the Middle East (Umayyad Caliphate and Abbasid Caliphate) and China. Even while the Roman Empire flourished, imperial China was just as great and powerful, while the Sassanid Empire was able to fight of Rome and outlast the Western Roman empire, while seeing a great flourishing of culture and the arts. Certainly, in the period 1500-1900 western European powers conquered most of the world (though the Russian Empire didn't do badly), but outside that period your supposition that Rome and Greece were the only civilisations of note is one due to a limited education more than historical fact. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]