Miscellaneous desk
< September 11	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 12

Lesbian couple

Is there a defined reason why Portia de Rossi dresses like a classically elegant lady and Ellen DeGeneres dresses in less classically feminine clothes? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal taste? I don't think you're going to get a better answer than that without going into stereotypes and cliches. 82.43.90.142 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One is a lipstick lesbian and the other is butch. It's just a question of some people being masculine and some being feminine, really. From the lede on the 2nd article: "Butch and femme are sometimes used to describe the identities of each person in a lesbian relationship in terms that are analogous to a heterosexual relationship, with butch representing the traditionally male role and femme the traditional female role." StuRat (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "defined reason" do you mean something articulated by one of the two individuals? Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to differ with StuRat. I've known some butch lesbians, and Ellen DeGeneres is not terribly butch. I agree that she doesn't fit the lipstick stereotype. However, most lesbians do not fit a stereotype. They are individuals like anyone else, with individual tastes in apparel. Marco polo (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She would fall into the soft butch category, not stone butch. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Bono appears to have taken the concept to an extreme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What gives you the idea that Chaz Bono is a lesbian? This question is getting perilously close to a BLP violation. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that, at this point, Chaz Bono is a heterosexual male. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, there's a couple of useless articles we could do without. People aren't categories, and they rarely fit into them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, then, based on that logic, that we should also delete all articles on ethnicities, races, political affiliations, etc. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose what you like - those articles are almost devoid of meaningful content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the same editor who argued that being gay is not notable enough to deserve a category? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They appear better suited for wiktionary than for wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, as topics they are perfectly valid fodder for good encyclopedia articles. The roles that partners in same-sex relationships take is the subject of a large amount of serious scholarship: [1] and one could use such scholarship to expand those articles into better works. That they are now inadequate doesn't mean they are inappropriate as encyclopedia topics. --Jayron32 13:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In their current state, they are little more than wiktionary entries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But before we start adding members to such categories, we'd better be very sure per BLP that we have impeccably reliable sources. I'm not clear what would constitute an RS for such an opinion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that, as a gay man, I find these categories rather offensive. No doubt people have done research on roles that partners in same-sex relationships may take. But the premise behind such research, that a certain category of people can be classified on the basis of their roles in relationships, is reductive, objectifying, and therefore offensive. Has research been done on roles that partners in opposite-sex relationships play, and has that research been used to create categories of heterosexuals? Does Wikipedia have articles on categories of heterosexuals? Does Wikipedia have articles on different categories of African Americans or Jews, based on their behavior? If not, why should Wikipedia have articles on categories of homosexuals? These categories, by type-casting and stereotyping complex individuals on the basis of a few behavioral traits or context-specific behaviors, in effect dehumanize lesbian and gay people. Marco polo (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of role stereotypes for all the groups Marco mentions. It's important not to be in denial, though. "Butch" and "fem" are terms my lesbian friends have used freely. But it's certainly a simplification. The straight stereotypes include the abusive spouse and the meek spouse (which can be of either sex, of course). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a well-known Jewish researcher discussing male heterosexual stereotypes:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The stereotype is that all lesbians are butch and all gay men effeminate. The actual picture is more complex, and articles such as lipstick lesbian tend to educate people, which is the goal here. As for heterosexual relationship types, we do have articles, such on polygyny and polyandry, for example. StuRat (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"What's the punishment for bigamy ?" ... "Having two or more wives". :-) StuRat (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, it's having two or more mothers-in-law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same. (attrib. Oscar Wilde) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The importance of terminology is to have language with which to be able to speak about any number of a wide variety of topics. Language can always be further refined. Rudimentary language can be imprecise but still have utility. One needs language to build language. From crudeness can come refinement. And even crude language is easily modified by using other pre-existing language. When used in sentences the terms Soft butch and Stone butch can easily be modified. They are starting points for ideas, therefore I don't find fault with those articles. Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I find problematic is the idea that every lesbian (or gay man) can be assigned to a named category. There is also the problematic assumption that this category somehow sums them up. What is the comprehensive list of categories to which we could assign all straight men? Let's confine ourselves to celebrities such as DeGeneres. Show me the Wikipedia article for the category that includes Brad Pitt or Clint Eastwood. There are no such categories, because straight men (and women) are considered normal, not problematic, and not in need of classification. Polygyny and polyandry (types of marriage) are not at all analogous to "soft butch" or "stone butch" (supposed types of people). Also, these labels (e.g., "soft butch") are very different from ethnic labels because, typically, individuals affirm their ethnic identity. In fact, the respectful thing is to allow each individual to define his or her ethnicity as he or she sees fit. So, for example, if Tiger Woods defines his ethnicity as "Cablinasian" (as he apparently does), who are we to assign him to a category such as "Afro-Eurasian", or whatever? Likewise, DeGeneres may very well feel that the existing stereotyped categories don't apply to her. Unless she herself has stated that she identifies as "soft butch", we have no business assigning her to that category. Marco polo (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the dilemma with minimalistic / wiktionary-style "articles" like those is that they need examples - and finding valid and BLP-safe sources for such examples might be difficult. Meanwhile, an article for Pitt or Eastwood would probably fall into the "hunks" category, assuming mags such as People are considered reliable sources. But Rock Hudson probably would have fallen into that category too, which shows how valuable it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to further complicate matters, go to about 2:20 or 2:25 of this clip:[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "Soft butch" and "Stone butch" constitute categories. They are useful terms with generally agreed-upon implications. I have not looked at the sources for those terms. I am assuming those terms have widespread use, at least in the areas where they might be expected to have applicability. A straight man can certainly have terms of description. Wouldn't "macho" or "sensitive" be distinguishing terms for two sorts of straight men? I do not at all equate these terms with many other sorts of identity. I think they are descriptive terms. They tend to be more loosely applicable than terms describing religion for instance, or even sexual orientation in the very general sense. Sexual orientation is: straight, bi, or gay. These three terms lend themselves to categorization processes. In that sense they are akin to religious identity. But I hesitate to lump all forms of identity together. I think all forms of description and identity are best treated separately. The sensibilities applicable to each are not identical. Bus stop (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Person in photo with Ricky Martin

Who's on the far right ? If he can't be identified, I'd like to trim him off. Can we do that without changing the source ? StuRat (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's Chris Smith (New Jersey politician). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like him, but how do know for sure ? StuRat (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, how do you know that's Ricky Martin? Here's the Chris Smith site.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the description was copied from the original source but the link is dead. You can probably find it in the internet archive. In any case, it's unlikely removing the person is justified regardless of who he is. A cropped version should be uploaded under a different name, if desired. Edit (after below): Seems I was only partially right. Ricky Martin is mentioned but not the ~~rest~~other two [5]. I guess whoever added the description identified the people themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This provides some context for the picture, as Ricky Martin has apparently appeared several times before Congress to speak on the issue of human trafficking. this google search turns up lots of connections between the men in the picture. --Jayron32 03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the people who isn't identified in the source was identified by the person who uploaded the photo [6], the other was identified by some anon [7] Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks all. I updated the Ricky Martin article, and finished the update to the Wikicommons picture, which somebody else had partially updated.

Resolved

Geography of the Afar triangle (difficult I think)

Hi, I've not tried asking the reference desk before but perhaps you can help. I'm trying to figure out where various places are for the 2011_Nabro_eruption article. There are several place names that are not clear.

First the Bidu (woreda) (a stub which I created) - is apparently in the afar admin zone2 of ethiopia but I can't find any map or further description of it (so it's still a fairly broad ill defined location - any idea where it 'is' ?)

The redlinked locations in the nabro eruption article are

South Denkalia, Husele and Gagun
Seriru (also I think known as Sireru)
Hawra (not the disambiguation page) - (Hawra) and Wadien (which are possibly villages too small to be notable or even found on a map?)

The 'South Denkalia' redlink might I suppose mean the Southern Red Sea Region assuming you take the 'south denkalia' to mean the southern part of Denkalia - or perhaps they mean the southern part of that ie the Southern_Denkalya_District. That suggested the size of the 'husele' and 'gagun' locations might be comparable - but I can't find any reference/location for them.

So the question is can you point me to a reference or series of references letting me place any/all of these spots on a map (and perhaps I can create stubs for them).

Cheers EdwardLane (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Seriru is the same place as this Pozzo Sirerù, which is just near the Eritrean border. Warofdreams talk 10:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bidu woreda doesn't appear on this map, from 2000, showing all the woredas in Ethiopia. It's generally described as being in zone 2, although occasionally in zone 1 - probably an error. I've found it listed alongside each of the woredas in zone 2, so my guess is that it's a more recently created district in the zone - but I still don't know where it is. Warofdreams talk 10:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks War of dreams - that's a good start that sireru link looks like you've found it, and showing that bidu is next to all the other named woredas at least means it's not just an alternate name for one of the other woredas. EdwardLane (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Google Maps shows Hawra here, on the Eritrean coastal road. Warofdreams talk 10:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The area is shown in detail near the bottom right corner of this old map. I can't identify any of the other locations, unless Gun Gum is the same place as Gagun. Warofdreams talk 14:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much WarofDreams - the map in itself is interesting - I think sheet 38 might contain some stuff in the bottom left too - I'll have a nose around for any of those names there. EdwardLane (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flying on September 11

It occurred to me earlier today that I would have to be really hard pressed to take a commercial flight yesterday, or for that matter, on any September 11, since 2001, never mind the ten year anniversary. I imagine many people would feel this way for obvious reasons. I was just wondering if there is any data on this. I would not be at all surprised if a bar graph shows relatively steady numbers throughout the year and then a huge dip for this date, and I'm curious.--108.46.107.181 (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the TSA agents might actually stay awake on 9-11 anniversaries, figuring reporters might stop by. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may be interesting/useful: Article on this very subject at Slate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right that they are much more alert on the anniversary, but the fear to fly on that date is not something that wells from a rationale part of me or most people I don't think. Oh, I probably should have mentioned: I meant the question to be specific to the U.S., though it would be interesting if the data fro other countries also showed a dip on the date.--108.46.107.181 (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thrift overcomes fear. Thanks Floquenbeam. That certainly conflicts with my expectations.--108.46.107.181 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I may be a craven, little coward, but I'm a GREEDY craven, little coward." - Daffy Duck after beating up the Tasmanian Devil to get back a dollar. StuRat (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Fear of flying is rarely rational. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

word meaning americans do not give up, used by pres. bush

Resolved

with the second letter being e. fifth letter being l . seventh and final letter being e23:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.67.179 (talk)

I resolve to find out the answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For demanding that we answer a random trivia question, I give a link of minimal relevance. Staecker (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is for a crossword, you can put the name of the newspaper that you're getting it out of and the word crossword into Google and it will provide links to the answers. Usually by people who post the answers on their blogs. Dismas|^(talk) 00:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve. You can pay me back by donating $20 to Wikipedia. --Jayron32 02:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buggsy got it three posts ago, Jayron. This question is now well and truly RESOLVEd. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]