Miscellaneous desk
< February 19	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 21 >

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.

February 20

Why aren't electrical panels waterproofed where flooding is a possibility?

I find it inexcusable that in the Fukushima nuclear disaster, there was not more protection for the electrical equipment in event of a tsunami. Likewise in the Costa Concordia disaster the cruise ship apparently lost all engine power a minute after being opened to the sea, preventing it from maneuvering. True, in that case maybe it saved a thousand lives by preventing the idiots in charge of the ship from sailing it far out to sea and instead leaving the wind to blow it to land It seems to me that electrical cables are generally well insulated, and while the equipment at the end of it might well be leaky, they should only short out circuit by circuit, leaving some better protected or better located circuits unaffected - if the central cabinet were simply waterproofed. Even an imperfect seal should prevent an outage for some minutes during a disaster. So why isn't this done?

Waterproofing stops water leaking into something, but it doesn't help deal with the immense force involved in a tsunami. Also, both the backup generators in Fukushima and the engines in the Costa Concordia worked by burning fuel - that requires oxygen. If they are underwater, they aren't going to work however watertight they are (and if you make them completely watertight, they would also be air tight and wouldn't work when they're not underwater either). --Tango (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't really expect a tsunami to occur really to be fair. Mr little irish 13:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Fukushima was designed with a high wall against tsunamis -- just not high enough. They could afford a few extra precautions. The force was probably only a few feet of water - not a full atm of pressure, I would presume, and I think of electrical cabinets being built rather sturdily. And while the engines and generators required air intakes, I'm skeptical that they sucked it in straight from the middle of the engine room or basement - I bet there was a shaft going somewhere, which could also be waterproofed. Even if that wasn't done, any battery backup at all would prevent a shutdown for some time. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the weight of the water, it's the speed it is moving with. You would need an incredibly large battery to run a nuclear cooling system for a useful length of time (the cooling system needs to run for several days after a SCRAM, at least, although I guess a few hours would give you time to get something else ready - even a few hours would take a ridiculously large battery, though). You might use batteries to power the pumps while you are waiting for the generators to get up to full power, but that's it. --Tango (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the force of the tsunami was mostly taken by the concrete, with water only draining into the basement, rather than smashing through the walls ? Waterproofing is problematic though, because of the difficulty in testing it. Short of submerging the system in water periodically, how would you detect if leaks exist ? Placing all vital system above the possible waterline seems far more sensible. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be inefficient, though, since it would mean you had to pump the water you are using as a coolant up a significant height. --Tango (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, and you also lose any possibility of gravity-fed emergency seawater cooling (which, unfortunately, the reactor wasn't designed to take advantage of, in any case). Keeping all possible electrical system above the waterline would be a good compromise, with only the portions required near the reactor being below the waterline, and waterproofed as best as they can be. The diesel generators, for example, should all have been above the waterline. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monticello has a reactor of the same style. They have their generators buried and watertight. (no idea on how they get the oxygen to them.) The Dry Cask storage containers are stored above the 1000-year flood plain. Basically, plants of this style in the US have been repeatedly upgraded over the years...and Fukushima should have been. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://pueblopolitics.com/2011/03/would-a-nuclear-power-plant-be-safe-in-pueblo-county/ - No idea on the accuracy of the page, but ties in nicely to the question. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The tsunami did damage the buildings (water reached 15 meters high[1]), knocked out the salt water cooling pumps, and caused two fatalities at the plant. Rmhermen (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That just said the buildings were flooded, not smashed open by the force of the tsunami. For example, the phrase "completely submerging the facilities' doors" implies that the doors remained intact and attached. StuRat (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for waterproofing ship electrical systems, the lights on the Titanic stayed on for some 2.5 hours, almost until the final plunge (probably until the boilers failed). I wonder how they managed this feat ? Apparently, whoever designed the electrical system was far better prepared for a disaster than those who placed the inadequate number of lifeboats. Of course, the risk of electrocution must be balanced against the need to provide lighting needed for passengers to evacuate, and the need for intra-ship communications and to send distress signals. StuRat (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The electrical equipment was in basements at the Fukushima plant, which is problematic when it it that near the ocean, at low elevation above sea level. It was quite foreseeable that the basement might become flooded, and that the cooling pumps would be disabled as a result. Countermeasures could have included gasketed doors and backup power to large sump pumps, to prevent flooding of the basement electrical controls until the water level outside had dropped. Certainly the emergency diesels could have been placed on elevated concrete structures, or could have been placed on nearby higher ground. Alternatively, emergency control circuits for backup pumps could have been elevated or placed on higher ground. Within the electrical space, it would be feasible to have gaskets sealing the circuit breaker and relay panels, but relays and circuitbreakers generate heat in normal operation, and some provision for cooling the sealed panels might be needed when there is zero air circulation. If all wire chases or conduits were sealed, maintenance would be more expensive, when conductors had to be added. It would be an expensive proposition to adapt a control room so that it still worked when it was full to the ceiling with seawater. The better plan would be to avoid filling the control room with seawater. Edison (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the best way to ensure that is to put the control room above the waterline. StuRat (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South American pesticide

Anyone can explain to me details regarding South American pesticide and the information on its current pesticide market? also any information regarding agricultural pesticides in South America would be great. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenzy (talk • contribs) 09:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Roger (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special name for this?

Is there a special name for when a song changes drastically mid-way, like the tempo, pace mood and often the lyrics too? Examples;

[2] [3]

95.91.36.113 (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to a bridge (music)?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the exact type and the genre it happens in - it's a bridge if it happens in the middle, a coda if it happens at the end, a drop if it happens in techno or dubstep music, and so on. It's probably too varied to give it a general name. Smurrayinchester 14:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings with many floors

To the best of my knowledge, the highest numbers of above/below-ground floors in a envisioned structure are 800 and 65, respectively. My questions:

Which envisioned structures have this numbers of above/below-ground floors?
Are there any envisioned structures with more above/below-ground floors?

--84.61.139.62 (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, the highest numbers of above/below-ground floors in a existing structure are 163 (or 209) and 10, respectively. My questions:

Which existing structures have this numbers of above/below-ground floors?
Are there any existing structures with more above/below-ground floors?

--84.61.139.62 (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Seed 4000 would have 800 above-ground floors if ever built, and it took just a minute to find out. I'm kind of working so I'll let others continue. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For existing tall buildings, see this article: List of tallest buildings in the world RudolfRed (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining structures are in Mexico City, Dubai, and Istanbul, respectively. --84.61.139.62 (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Proposed tall buildings and structures. StuRat (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earthscraper, Burj Khalifa, and Istanbul Sapphire, respectively. --84.61.139.62 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What did Johnny Rebel do between 1970 and 2001?

So apparently, he made all those catchy country songs in the 1960s, then did absolutely nothing for over 30 years, then made ONE song (about 9/11)... Isn't that pretty odd? What did he do for those 30 years? Was he in prison or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not all that rare of a pattern. Musicians frequently get burnt out and do something else for many years, then, late in their life, possibly low on cash, they try for a come-back. StuRat (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if this is trolling or not, but the "catchy country songs" of Johnny Rebel (singer) were apparently pro-KKK songs. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously it must be "trolling" since "catchy country songs" cannot possibly be catchy and country songs if they are pro-KKK. And we all know that "trolling" means "anything that isn't exactly like my stupid, worthless mind wants it to be". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 01:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Mr.98 didn't assume good faith, but that reaction was uncalled for. Vespine (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will go on the record that I think referring to blatantly, disturbing racist songs as "catchy country songs" without any qualification looks like trolling to me, if it wasn't meant to be ironic, which is apparently the case. I don't have any problem with people asking about racists, of course, but I thought it might be worth pointing out that this was an unusual case. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the history of Mr. Rebel himself on Wikipedia, one might want to question the initial question. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That's all I can reply to this. What on Earth do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think TMotB is suggesting Johnny Rebel has a history of editing wikipedia. I'm not sure if there is clear cut evidence for this. Someone has been persistently spamming sites to buy Johnny Rebel CDs and also official sites associated with Johnny Rebel but I don't know for sure if it's JR. Of course if Johnny Rebel had persistently tried to use wikipedia to promote himself in the past, people wouldn't be surprised if it happens again. Nil Einne (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People's classification of the US

Why is everytime somebody talks about America, whether to bash, praise or whatever, they're always referring to the US? Like, for example, a guy from Virginia or Florida goes to Canada, Mexico, or somewhere overseas like the UK or Australia, He is automatically address as an American instead of a US citizen or something more specific. This doesn't make any sense to me as is was my understanding that America was a continent and the US, Canada, Mexico, and everything below were nations.

Even when talks about illegal immigration, you'll hear things from US residents like "this is America, we speak English" or "Mexicans aren't Americans". So why is the generalization, that America only consists of the United States? Sarujo (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's the way it is. It is not intended as some kind of marginalisation of other nations. People from Canada are Canadians, people from Mexico are Mexicans, people from South America are Brazilians, Argentinians, Peruvians, etc. or maybe South Americans, and people from the United States of America are Americans. See the articles: Demonym and Exonym and endonym for the linguistic details. Astronaut (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just easier to say Americans than it is to say United Statesians, I suppose?--WaltCip (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The demonym article directly discusses this problem in Demonym#Cultural problems ... the two paragraphs starting with "The demonym for citizens of the United States of America suffers a similar problem..." Astronaut (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people from the United States Americans in English is just a convention, or a commonly accepted thing. It probably came to be because, at least since about 1900, the United States has had far more influence and cultural presence in other English-speaking countries than any other country in the Americas. Thus, American became an easy shorthand for from the United States, since English speakers (except Canadians) had reason to refer to the United States far more often than any other country in the Americas. The other countries were the exception, to be referred to by their individual names, and they weren't seen as having much in common with "America" other than location. Canada is an interesting exception. Canadians do not generally object to calling things from the United States American even though they have just as much reason to feel slighted by the usage as Latin Americans. Perhaps the reason that Canadians have almost never called themselves American is because of that term's association with the neighbor to the south; Canadians wanted a distinct identity. Latin Americans probably object because the term America in Spanish refers to the entire Western Hemisphere. However, the same word can mean different things in two different languages, and that is the case here. It doesn't do much good to take offense. Marco polo (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple summary. We're using English. It's often not logical. HiLo48 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because we consider the name of our country to be America and United States to be the form of government. We do not refer to Federal Republicans (Germans) or United Statesians (Mexicans) Rmhermen (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...or the Ukish. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem is that the US has no name of it's own, which is distinct from it's form of government (United States, which other nations also share) and continent (America, which many nations share). To make it unique, you need to say United States of America, and United States of American or USAian just don't flow. The US is sometimes referred to poetically as "Columbia", but calling people Columbians would cause massive confusion with Colombia. StuRat (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue goes deeper than just "Why are only this one country's people called Americans when that term could validly apply to anyone in North, Central and South America?". The question really should be "Why did they name this country United States of America in the first place, when the word America was already in use to refer to a much larger land mass?". But they did give it that name, and given that fact, what would be a better name for its people than "Americans"?

If Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand and Burma were to unite into a single nation called the "United States of Asia", there might be case for calling its people "Asians". In that case, though, there'd be ample scope for confusion since "Asian" normally refers to the entire continent of Asia. But "American" does NOT normally refer to the entire New World, unless the context dictates. If someone said "I'm an American", nobody would wonder if they were from Argentina, Guatemala, Canada, the USA or wherever else in the Americas. No, everybody would assume they meant the United States of America. Hence, there is no confusion - not in the English language. There may be confusion in Spanish or other languages, and they have to sort out that issue in their own way. But to apply that solution to English would be a case of fixing something that ain't broke. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And "Asian" has other problems, too. Are Israelis "Asians" ? StuRat (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Holy Land" was once called "The Orient," as in the Oriental Institute. So perhaps Israelis could be called "orientals." Edison (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens of the United States of America are Americans. Citizens of the United States of Mexico are Mexicans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are unofficial names used internationally to refer to people from the USA. Some Yanks may find these offensive, but usually they are not intended as such.-gadfium 00:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly enough I find the fuller version of the rhyming slang to be less offensive than the Australian contraction thereof. I consider them both to be slurs though. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. I can take it. I'm just a dumb Yank. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yank => Septic Tank => Septic / Seppo / Sep. Septic isn't diminished, whereas seppo is. To my mind seppo just has more hate in it. Sep (singular) or Seps (collective) also makes sense. Tends, at least to my understanding, to only be applied to participants in the dominant culture in the USA, or that culture collectively. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. You probably don't want to know what we call Brits. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable allies"? --Dweller (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's annoying about foreigners' use of "Yank" or "yanqui" is that in America, a "Yankee" is a Northeasterner. Calling someone from Alabama a "Yankee" is like calling someone from Cornwall a Scot. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or from Yankee Stadium. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly in the case of the rhyming slang, as it relates less to internal US geography, and more to the perceived qualities of States Uniteders in 1942. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly unusual though - non-British people often use 'British' and 'English' as synonyms, and non-Dutch people often use 'the Netherlands' and 'Holland' as synonyms. If a region of a country is particularly prominent, it is unsurprising that foreigners will confuse one for the other. Often, the inhabitants of the country end up doing so too (think how many modern countries derive their name from that of a much smaller region, or even from an entirely different part of the world). 130.88.73.65 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has yet linked in this discussion to the article about the subject: American (word).-gadfium 00:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And even more appropriate: Names for United States citizens.-gadfium 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also because we were Americans before the United States existed. Shadowjams (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Names on the Land George R. Stewart suggests that the US might have ended up with a better name during the Constitutional Convention, but: "There seems to be some kind of unimaginative quality in statesmen which makes them think that a name should describe, even at the expense of being awkward. Of the two chief men who might have argued for a better name, Franklin...was no longer vigorous, and Jefferson was in France." He goes on to say that there was some agitation for the adoption of "Columbia" around 1800, along with a few others—Washington Irving proposed "Appalachia" or "Alleghania". The Columbia effort resulted in that name being used for a number of counties, towns, cities, and a major river (via a ship's name), but "after 1819 Columbus was associated with a region in South America, and was no longer available as a national name". Stewart sums all this up by saying: "The makeshift establishment of the national name was the worst misfortune in our whole naming-history. Its too great length has consumed paper, ink, time, and energy. Its vagueness and inaccuracy have caused incalcuable misunderstanding, and bad feeling. Yet the trouble has never been acute enough to occasion an amendment to the Constitution..." Pfly (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I suspect it must go back to pre-independence, when there was no U.S. but there were the American colonies and British American colonists. I thought "americano" in Spanish was properly general, but Wiktionary doesn't agree with my recollection. Wnt (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:::We could always take up GWB's practice, and refer to US citizens as 'Merkins' ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of the opposite of calling them Yanks. If you call them Merkins, you are intending to insult them, but they won't be offended and will probably compliment you on your good grasp of English.-gadfium 20:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone ever says "A penny for your thoughts", you can respond with "A merkin for your quim". They'll probably thank you. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Please amend Dr. Michael Aris's birthday.

Dear Sir/Madame,

How are you? I wish you are well and happy. Permit me to introduce myself. My name is Myint Kywe. My pen name is Myoma Myint Kywe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myoma_Myint_Kywe

I saw Dr. Michael Aris's biography in en.wikipedia.org who was husband of Burmese famous politician Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. I saw his birthday was 1 January 1937. But in following websites, I saw that Dr. Michael Aris's birthday is on 27.March.1946.

http://www.topyaps.com/top-10-people-who-died-on-their-birthday/

http://cdburma.tripod.com/Files/memorial.html

http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/p/Michael-Aris-And-Aung-San-Suu-Kyi-Marriage-Profile.htm

http://www.burmafund.org/Pathfinders/news/michael_aris.htm

http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/reg.burma/archives/199903/msg00531.html

I respect Dr. Michael Aris very much and I am very appreciate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's family.

Please can you amend true date of birth of Dr. Michael Aris?

Thanking you in anticipation. Thank you very much, Wikipedia!

Sincerely yours,

Myoma Myint Kywe

Burmese Writer and historian

61.90.93.237 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Michael Aris, it arose from this apparent vandalism by an IP which I have reverted. However I have not used any of your sources as they don't seem reliable. The good thing is the external links (formerly) used in the article support the claim he died on his 53rd birthday which gives the date you suggested so I have used them as sources. In future, I suggest you ask these sort of question at WP:Help desk or use the article talk page Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Country versus Rock 'n roll?

In one episode of South Park, country (the music genre) and rock 'n roll are put against each other to represent "the conservatives" and "the liberals". But I thought that "the South" liked rock 'n roll even back in the days when it was a new genre, and it was played alongside of country and never was an "either you're with us or you're against us" kind of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the two genres is hopelessly complicated and isn't a black-and-white as a satire like South Park makes it out to be. Early rock-and-roll borrowed heavily from country music, and there was, has been, is, and probably always will be significant cross-over between the two genres. Take Ray Charles, who released the landmark album Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music which is considered one of the best albums ever made. Consider such genres as country-rock and southern rock with bands like The Eagles and Poco and Lynyrd Skynyrd and the Allman Brothers Band which blur the lines. Darius Rucker has a solo career as a country artist after leading the pop-rock band Hootie and the Blowfish. John Doe has a solo career as a country artist after leading the seminal LA punk band X. Garth Brooks began in rock music before transitioning to country (lets ignore the disaterous Chris Gaines fiasco). Eric Clapton loved country ("Bell Bottom Blues", "Lay Down Sally", etc.), as did Bob Dylan (Nashville Skyline). Both Elvis Presley and Johnny Cash are considered pioneers of both forms of music.

The political angle played up by South Park comes from the fact that Country music has an image of having a greater following in the Southern and Midwestern U.S., while Rock music is more associated with "the coasts"; roughly the same division that exists between "Red states" and "Blue States". Still, you get rock bands from the South, and not just southern rock (i.e. Pantera from Texas and Louisiana, 3 Doors Down from Mississippi), you get Country artists from the North and California, and even outside of the U.S. (Eddie Rabbit was from Brooklyn, Lee Greenwood is from California, Shania Twain is Canadian, Keith Urban is Australian). Lionel Richie had a productive song-writing partnership with Kenny Rogers. I could go on and on. Divisions between musical genres are much stronger among fans than among musicians, and you will find a lot more musicians which "cross over" between genres than fans that do, and politics knows no musical boundaries. Rock act Ted Nugent is a professed "conservative" (by the American definition) and country act The Dixie Chicks have been noted for taking "liberal" (by the American definition) political views. --Jayron32 23:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Park is often not a reliable source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trudat. --Jayron32 04:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP should listen to Brenda Lee's oft-played "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree" and tell us whether it's more "rock and roll" or more "country". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that the "country:rock :: conservatives:liberals" analogy is about territory. I would think that the association of country with conservatism and of rock with liberalism (or non-conservatism) is not region-dependent. The Allman Brothers were big backers of Jimmy Carter, for instance. Lynyrd Skynyrd -- the original Lynyrd Skynyrd -- wrote a song promoting gun control. It's just that country music is more popular with rural people and Southerners, who also happen to tend to be conservative. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that genres like rockabilly combine the two. StuRat (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also about race: country music is almost exclusively white, while founders of rock and roll were either black like Fats Domino, Little Richard, Ike Turner, or sounded black like Elvis Presley, and rock derived largely from black music like blues and jazz (although it also derived from country/bluegrass/folk/etc, rock obviously sounds less like country than country sounds like country, and even country now sounds "whiter" than in the 1940s and 1950s when jazz-inluenced genres like Western swing were big). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget Charley Pride and Pat Boone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

best Pat Boone album ever. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]