Miscellaneous desk
< April 12	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 14 >

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 13

Has the UK ever had a ginger prime minister?

Resolved

Strange question I know. A work colleague asked me this, and google only gives some people who might have been PM and hits for Churchill having a cat called Ginger! -- Q Chris (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill is included in List of redheads. Hack (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBC ref confirms. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 11:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'd only remembered the pictures of Churchill with grey hair -- Q Chris (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found some internet speculation [1] that William Pitt the Younger may have been ginger, but it's hard to tell; this 1930s jigsaw puzzle is the only portrait I could find without a powdered wig or grey hair. The other candidate is Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool which seems even less likely, but you can judge for yourself. David Lloyd George might have had a bit of a ginger moustache. Alansplodge (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do pink ones count? μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean pink or pink or pink? Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an understanding question: By "ginger", do you mean red hair, Chris? — Sebastian 18:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikt:ginger "(colloquial, often derogatory, countable) A person with reddish-brown hair; a redhead".

Common usage in the UK, only recently considered derogatory IMO. Those of us brought up on the Biggles books will recall his chum Ginger Hebblethwaite and in Just William, William's best pal Ginger, who doesn't even seem to have a surname. Alansplodge (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty fair to blame Eric Cartman for the new wave of hate. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I didn't mean this in a derogatory way at all. Certainly it was normal usage when I was at school. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had Julia Gillard not migrated with her family from Wales to Australia, she might have risen to high office in the UK. Thanks to her (or, more accurately, to commentators about her), I'm now aware of the term "ranga" to refer to redheads. Apparently I was the only Australian who'd never heard that word till she became PM. But she'd been in politics for 14 years before then, and that word had never, in my experience, been used about her in that time. But overnight (literally), it was ranga this, ranga that. Strange people, those Australians. Maybe most of them had never heard of her till she succeeded Kevin Rudd. Too busy gorging themselves on food on sticks, probably. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gillard? Why not Jefferson? μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, indeed? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fingernail Growth

Do certain fingernails grow faster than others, and if so, is there a reason for this? For example, using the keyboard to type with mainly the four 'main' fingers and not so much with the thumbs (except for the space bar with the side of the thumb on the right hand). I am asking this because my thumb nails seem to grow a bit faster that the others. $KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！)$ 12:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanisms are unclear. Climate may play a role [2], here's a little more about concepts of nail growth [3], and this recent work says

“

There was no significant difference between right and left fingernail/toenail growth rates. The little fingernail grew slower than other fingernails (P < 0.01); the great toenail grew faster than other toenails (P < 0.01). Younger age, male gender, and onychophagia were associated with faster nail growth rate; however, the differences were not statistically significant.

”

[4]. This paper [5] also lists a few factors that can increase nail growth. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that doesn't exactly answer my question. I am asking about fingers on the same person, growing fingernails at different rates, simultaneously.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

15:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the papers I linked? You could of course make your own measurements if you are interested in n=1, you don't need us for that. The paper I quoted has figures on each finger/toe across the studied sample (see Fig. 2). They show that overall, the ring fingernail grows the fastest, but in some sub-groups (including males 23-33, the entire age range in the sample), the thumbnail grew faster than the mean of all nails. That doesn't guarantee that every individual in that group had the thumb grow faster, but on average, it did. So, the answer to your initial question is "On average, yes, according to one recent study" - they do not however discuss mechanisms of variation between nails within one individual. Looking at forward cites to the Yaemsiri et al. (2010) paper would be a good place to look for that info, if it exists. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KageTora: sorry, that must have seemed rude. I hadn't realized that the article/figure I quoted is not freely accessible, and even if you attempted to read the whole thing, you may have been prevented by the paywall. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SemanticMantis:, I did not take it as rude, so don't worry. Thanks for trying, anyway.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

20:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's normal for nails on one person to grow at significantly different rates. A disease or injury could certainly stunt the growth on some, however. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fingernails also may be subject to different amounts of "wear" (for lack of a better word), i.e. by typing ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you cut your nails appropriately (length wise) the last time(s) you cut them? -- (Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I cut them down to where there is no 'white' part of the nails left, using standard nail clippers. Every finger and thumb.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

20:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 'thumb' is addressed as 'logic' in 'pseudoscience' and 'food' is used for 'growth' in 'science'. You can combine the two if you like! Extreme brain usage! Find out what you do with your brain/mind... Note: You could also see the white bits quicker/earlier if you scratch things with your thumb... -- (Mr. Prophet (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell.mo (talk • contribs) [reply]

Cricket Question

This is a memory from my childhood, when we were playing cricket at school. Is it allowed for the batsman who is on the receiving end of the bowler's ball to hit the ball in the direction of the other batsman, so that the other batsman can hit it further? This actually happened at school, with myself and my friend as batsmen, and the teacher (who was acting as umpire) just said it was OK. Is this a possibility in professional cricket? $KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！)$ 19:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a specific prohibition in the Laws, but I'm sure it wouldn't be allowed: it goes against the spirit, if not the letter, of Law 34 (Hit the ball twice) and Law 37 (Obstructing the field), or more generally Law 42 (Fair and unfair play). From the Preamble: "According to the Laws the umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely out obstructing the field. "[E]ither batsman will be out Obstructing the field if while the ball is in play and after the striker has completed the act of playing the ball ... he wilfully strikes the ball with ... any other part of his person or with his bat." Here's a video of Inzamam-ul-Haq being dismissed in a manner very similar to that described by KageTora. Tevildo (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it would be umpire's judgment as to whether it was intentional? Baseball solves this by making the runner automatically out, whether he intended to run into the ball or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - in the ul-Haq dismissal, it clearly was intentional, as it would be in KageTora's example. And the fielding team have to appeal for the dismissal; it would probably be considered unsporting for them to appeal in anything other than a very clear case. As the commentator notes, running between the fielder who has the ball and the wicket is perfectly legitimate, as long as the batsman doesn't take any active steps to deflect the throw. Tevildo (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As with appeal situations in baseball, they might wait to see the result. Let's suppose the second batsman hit it to a waiting fielder. I could imagine the fielding team would be glad to overlook the batsman's rule violation in exchange for a wicket. In baseball, the runners have to be allowed appropriate space to run the basepaths, and sometimes an errant throw will hit a runner, and the play goes on. But if a runner intentionally deflects a thrown ball, he's supposed to be called out immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, you know. I _think_ the striker (the first batsman to hit the ball) would be out caught (see Law 32), but the non-striker would also be liable to be dismissed for obstructing the field - I'm not sure which would take precedence. (Cricket doesn't have a double-play rule, as soon as a batsman is dismissed the ball is dead). A question for the late Bill Frindall, if anyone has a ouija board... Tevildo (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's an interesting expansion on it. They might get two wickets on one ball. That would be a good deterrent against someone trying it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In baseball, the umpire is authorized to make a decision when a crazy situation arises that is not in the rules. As with cricket, it seems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, basically, although any dismissal has to be within one of the Laws, and in a doubtful case the umpire _shouldn't_ give the batsman out (and call "dead ball" to stop play). They often do give batsmen out in doubtful cases, of course, for various values of "doubtful". Tevildo (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tevildo:, the ball is dead from the moment there is a wicket. If the umpire judges a deliberate obstruction has occurred, then that would take precedence. Hack (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not Cricket derive from Croquet? μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so. Their names both derive from the same origin meaning "stick". Cricket has been attested in a recognizable form since the turn of the 17th century. Croquet only since the middle 19th century, though it evolved from older games played since the 17th century. --Jayron 32 00:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alois Hitler

The article about Alois Hitler, Adolf Hitler's father, claims he always wore his uniform and demanded to be addressed as Herr Oberoffizier Hitler. Was this also true of his private life with his family? JIP | Talk 20:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anywhere where the article claims that. Even using CTRL+F.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

20:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the caption of the second picture of Alois Hitler (but it's "Herr Oberoffizial ... "). It cites The Mind of Adolf Hitler (which I can't check or verify directly). According to Humanizing Hitler:Psychohistory and the Making of a Monster by José Brunner (University of Tel Aviv), the children addressed him as "Herr Vater" (also citing Langer's The Mind of Adolf Hitler). [6] This kind of formal deference within the family did exist in the German-speaking world, including the Austria-Hungary Empire, at the time, though I have no idea how common it was. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a website called The Nizkor Project which has a transcription of the OSS psychological profile of Hitler: "It is said, however, that he always wore his customs official's uniform and insisted on being addressed as Herr Oberoffizial Hitler. According to reports, he [Alois] liked to lord it over his neighbors whom he may have looked down upon as "mere" peasants. In any event, it seems quite certain that he enjoyed sitting in the tavern and relating his adventures as a customs official and also in discussing political topics." (p. 98).

I'm not sure (a) if this is a faithful reproduction of the report or (b) how accurate the report was. Alansplodge (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't click the link to see an image of the report. Alansplodge (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an Austrian site in German with all military ranks at the time, incl. different "Oberoffizial" ranks[7], thus at least the title existed. Google translate doesn't work well on it but you get the picture.--TMCk (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Oberoffizial" is still in use in Austrian civil service and translates more or less to "senior official". The address "Herr Oberoffizial" would be completely adequate. Quoting from a 1941 novel: „Wie heißt der Herr Oberoffizial?″ „Herr Oberoffizial Greiner in Kelheim, Bismarckstraße 6, gleich neben dem Gasthof ,Zur blauen Donau'. Bitt schön.″ --84.58.246.235 (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks

There are many Greek Islnds such as Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Kos which are much closer to the Turkish mainland than Greece. Do the inhabitants share a closer culture to Turkey or Greece? I mean has this proximity affected their relationship with Turks? Has there been discussion of ferries etc.? World bymyself (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relations between Greece and Turkey has generally ranged between diplomatic animosity and actual warfare for at least the last thousand years, ferries and other features of "normal" neighbourly relations do not exist between these two countries. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not quite right. These are sometimes uncomfortable neighbours, but both states are NATO members, there is e.g. a ferry from Piraeus to Izmir, there are direct flights between the two states, the borders are open, there is a free trade system in place, and Greece supports Turkey's acceptance into the EU. But yes, after about 100 years of sorting with less than acceptable means, culminating in the Greco-Turkish War (1919–22) and the associated crimes, the populations are very clearly demarcated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The Turkish mainland or Anatolia was inhabited by Greeks until the arrival of the Seljuk Turks following the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, when the process of Turkification began. There was a sizeable minority of Ottoman Greeks living in Turkey until the Greek genocide of 1913 to 1923 (but don't mention that in Turkey unless you like prison food) and the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923. The islands that you mention are all culturally Greek. Alansplodge (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Alansploge, remember that the Byzantine Empire was a culturally Greek state, and it was centered on Anatolia. The most important cities and places in the Byzantine Empire were mostly in what is now Turkey, including the capital city and what was then the most important city in all of the Hellenic world at the time, Constantinople, now Istanbul, the largest city in Turkey. What is today the Greek mainland was mostly backwater, historic cities like Athens and Thessaly were little more than small villages at the time. Over the course of several centuries, the Greeks were pushed out of Anatolia and East Thrace by the Turks. They just stopped (or better yet, were stopped) before they pushed them out of the Aegean Islands as well. It should be noted that what is now Greece was controlled by the Turks for several centuries until the Greek War of Independence in the 1820s. The Aegean Islands and the Greek Peninsula remained culturally Greek, though Anatolia (as noted above) was gradually purged of Greeks. The last part of Anatolia to have a sizable Greek population was Ionia and the area around Smyrna/İzmir, which for a very short while following the Treaty of Sèvres was formally part of Greece. It was retroceded back to the Turkish Republic at the Treaty of Lausanne, which also confirmed the Greek ownership of the Dodecanese, which are the Islands closest to Anatolia; basically establishing the modern boundaries of the two nations. --Jayron 32 23:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the notion of the "Megali Idea", which is still supported by various yahoos. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some Black Sea Greek "colonies" historically attested in the western Caucasus, the Crimea and northern Anatolia all of which date to pre-Homeric times. It seems the Greeks probably originated in the Eastern Black Sea area, close to the homelands of the very closely related Armenian language and closely-related Indo-Iranian languages. Their appearance in the Peloponessus seems to date to the advent of the Sea Peoples and the whole of western Anatolia was Greek speaking by the time of the Roman Empire. (Previously it seems to have been inhabited by Hittite and its relatives and relatives of Etruscan.) References upon demand, but see In Search of the Indo-Europeans J. P. Mallory first. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]