Miscellaneous desk
< July 15	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 17 >

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.

July 16

Cluidunning

Editing Syd Nicholls, I read that his mother's birth name was Arabella Cluidunning.

I googled the name Cluidunning as I'd never seen it before. I got a few hits about Syd Nicholls, but no other examples of the name. It must surely be a typo that has crept into all the references, no? But what should it have been? Clendinning or Clendinnen, perhaps? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least one person named Dunning, so that part might be correct. StuRat (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like a bad transcription of a handwritten record, and I'd guess Clendinning or Glendinning as likely originals. Are there any Australian genealogy websites where you can look up images of birth, marriage and death registrations? That might help. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, but I expect to have to pay, and my interest does not extend that far. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well if what you need is a reference unsold but solid enough for comforting the current view of the article there is this. I take it the typo could be just after the reading of birth certificates, or not. --Askedonty (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The main source for that Trove entry is the Australian Dictionary of Biography's article on Syd Nicholls, which is already mentioned in his article. The ADB is highly regarded for its accuracy, and Cluidunning appears there as his mother's name. On the face of it, the spelling seems to be correct. But the fact that I can find precisely zero other examples of the name on the entire internet troubles me greatly. I know that surnames are sometimes made up, or re-spelt in odd or unique ways. I suppose it's possible that Cluidunning was such a name, and Arabella was the sole child of the family, and the name died out when she married. Possible? Yes. Likely? Hmmm .... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a genealogy site, and a user-generated page gives her name at birth as Arabella Glendenning Bartsch (born 17 May 1872, died 19 June 1949). However... the same site reports her official birth record as Arabella C Bartsch - and, to add some more confusion, her maiden name at marriage as Arabella Clendoning Bartram. This site gives her middle name as Clendening. Not much help, am I? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, mon ami. You've confirmed that (a) her name is a matter of considerable uncertainty, and (b) that the Cluidunning we see in sources is, as I suspected, probably the least likely of all the possibilities. Thanks for your research. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre at Hue

My father, Donald Rochlen has pictures of uncovered mass graves discovered at Hue. I was wondering if I could share them.

Robert Rochlen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.175.240 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre at Huế is our article. And yes, the pics may be suitable for inclusion there. I would suggest you upload them, list them on the talk page for that article, and get opinions on them there. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before you (the original poster) upload them, you first will want to read this. Unfortunately you will have to figure out the images' copyright status. If you have questions about this, I suggest asking them at the Teahouse, help desk, or the Commons help desk. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he was an official US Navy photographer, and they were taken in that capacity, I guess they would be WP:GOVSOURCE? _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual / Lesbian fertility

I was wondering why gays (man and the woman) are fertile they are not interested in normal relationship they are attract to same ones so why did gay man or lesbion woman have egg or the sperm type for sex which worked to make the babys ? i dont know my teacher cant explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.188.9.185 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of gays have had childen, and plenty of straights have not. Your premise is way too simplistic. For starters, read Human sexuality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even the most enthusiastic heterosexual breeder cannot achieve fertilization of their body's every available sperm or ovum. This is because sexual reproduction works on the basis of a) a standard "plug and play" physical interface that enables a wide ranging choice of partner, and b) numerical over-production of Gamete cells throughout the body's fertile life phase. This should have been explained but is worth revision if you are uncertain. Some questions that remain about whether physical gender differentiation and individual sexual orientation necessarily correlate are still open to research but the mystery of Libido can be handled thus:

Who can explain it?

Who can tell you why?

Fools give you reasons,

Wise men never try.

Some Enchanted Evening by Oscar Hammerstein II AllBestFaith (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fertility (the ability to breed), libido (the desire to have sex), and sexuality (who one is attracted to), although typically overlapping in function, are not identical. Infertile couples still often have sex (for a disturbing example, your grandparents). Some perfectly fertile people are asexual, and some of them (while still not interested in sex) prefer romantic attention from one gender or another (or both, or neither). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One way to think of it is that Mother Nature gives us the capability to reproduce, but it is not a requirement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subject that has totally ceased to interest me in my dotage, but I remember two theories from the 80's and 90's. One was that people of both sexes are inherently more attracted to feminine/hairless women and children (hence virgins and cherubs in art), rather than hirsute masculine men; yet there might be a gene that causes a preference for the stereotypically outward signs of masculinity; beards and body hair. Women with this gene would mate more with rugged men, gaining a reproductive advantage, but there sons might tend to be gay.

There's also the theory that gay people tend to be sexually active at an earlier age, and more experimental. I worked with a guy who fathered two children in his teens, but was exclusively gay in his 20's and after. The point is that it doesn't matter how promiscuous a man is with men, he can still father children with only a handful of heterosexual sexual encounters. μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a BBC News Magazine article on the subject from February 2014: The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality. -- ToE 16:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Management layers in large organisations

Why do large organisations have so many layers of management. What's the point? Some companies are known to have 100 managers and directors from the low level employee to the board. 2A02:C7D:B99E:8200:D8B:94C8:5862:641C (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes necessary, at companies with many employees, if you want to keep a small number of direct subordinates per manager. Of course, 100 levels does seem rather excessive. Even if each manager only had 2 direct subordinates, that would still mean there would be some 10³⁰ employees. I'm hoping you are exaggerating. An organization with a million employees (like a military branch) might have some 20 levels, if only using 2 direct subordinates per manager. On the other hand, if they go with 10 direct subordinates per manager, they would only need about 7 levels.

I suppose it is possible for each manager only to have one direct subordinate, but that seems incredibly inefficient, unless all these managers are spending most of the time doing work unrelated to management. In such a company, with a million employees, you could theoretically have nearly a million levels of management. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To cut off an apparent misreading by StuRat, the OP cited companies with 100 managers, not 100 layers of management. There are usually multiple managers in each layer of management.

One contributing reason for this is that many companies are internally split into several parallel divisions, each covering a different area of operations. Each division requires some managers at each level of management/directorship, so immediately the number of managers/directors needed is multiplied by several. The same principle applies when the business is spread over several to many local offices or other premises rather than one. The article Organizational structure and its "See also" links might be helpful, and Organizational chart is also relevant. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.26.60 (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious image licensing

Hi there. I'm currently GA-reviewing Russian gay propaganda law, which includes several images, all of which claim to be the uploaders' own work. Given the type of images they are—close ups of public officials, athletes, etc.—this seems dubious to me. Also, at least 2 of them claim to be crops of larger images, but have no attribution to the original. Could someone with media licensing experience be able to take a look at these and determine if the claims are legit, or at least good enough not to hold up GA promotion? Thanks! Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jujutsuan - this question would be better at WP:MCQ. Tevildo (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll copy it over there. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinhole Glasses

Where could I buy the entitled item in/near Rochester Hills, Detroit Michigan, USA? A list of places would be of help... - Btw, I wish to view all the frame designs firstly via the internet because I have to order someone to buy it for me, so, include the websites of wherever you guys refer me to… -- Apostle (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk is not a shopping guide; we (purportedly) provide references. --So, ... here's a reference for Google Shopping:[1]

--2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A99B:8185:FE40:CECC (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's include the link to pinhole glasses. StuRat (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried Mr. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A99B:8185:FE40:CECC, look, that's why I sought help. Could you/others show me how to search for an item in another country via the internet? This person I'm sending will go by foot to the shop(s), because they don't know how to shop via on-line. -- Apostle (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did a map search for eyeglass stores in your area, and there are 4:[2]. You probably need to call them to see if they carry pinhole glasses. I checked websites, but no mention of pinhole glasses, but calling might be worthwhile -- if they don't have them, they might know who does. Also tried Walmart (2500 S Adams Rd, Rochester Hills, MI) -- but, "We found 0 results for pinhole glasses at Rochester Hills Walmart Supercenter.":[3]. Sorry that I could not be more helpful. --[dynamic IP, not a "sockpuppet"]:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:9559:2AAF:B103:4945 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, I appreciate it... Regards.

-- Apostle (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did Comey actually ever say Hillary Clinton told lies about the email flap?

Did he say she was deceitful, or misleading or lying, and did he say she told a lot of lies or what?144.35.45.70 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He said some of her statements were "not true". As far as I can tell, he never accused her of deceit, just negligence. He said "We have no basis to conclude that [Clinton] lied to the FBI." ([4]) -- BenRG (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So in that too he's letting her off for lack of intent, which has not helped many others. —Tamfang (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Reproof Valiant, in other words, not the Lie Direct. Tevildo (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Did not lie to the FBI" is not the same as "did not lie." He apparently did find that she "said things that were untrue" to the House Benghazi Committee.[5] Rmhermen (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it must be noted, that the meaning of "lie" is not identical to the meaning of "untrue". The definition of lying includes an intent to deceive. One must be careful not to imbue extra meaning into quotes by legal personnel, they specifically choose specific words, and the difference in meaning between words they ACTUALLY chose versus words with similar (but distinctly different) definitions are most definitely intended. If Comey used the word "untrue", he most definitely meant to use that word and not "lie", and also meant to NOT imply the extra baggage that a word like "lie" has with it. This is, of course, entirely independent of whether or not any lying occurred or not (I make no statement one way or another on that), merely noting that when speaking in Wikipedia's voice, we should not interpret meanings beyond what is expressly stated. --Jayron 32 16:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]