Miscellaneous desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 19 >

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.

October 18[edit]

Acts of charity[edit]

Is it incorrect to tell others i.e your friends about the charity one does if the intention is to suggest to them a particular cause/NGO or to make them aware of the need to do charity?Sumalsn (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might compare the Freudian concepts of ego and the superego. To simplify, the ego is having others think well of you, while the superego is thinking well of yourself. So, the ego would want you to tell others (or perhaps arrange for them to discover it "accidentally"), while the superego might find this distasteful, thus the two are in conflict with each other. StuRat (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Jewish teaching identifies eight levels of charitable giving, with partnering with a poor person to create a viable ongoing business venture being the highest level. Here is a description. The model values anonymity. One can publicize a worthy charity without bragging about the magnitude of one's own gifts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity teaches the same core value do not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing. --Jayron 32 11:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the standard by which you expect your "incorrect" to be judged, Smalsn? There is no one standard for either behaviour or morality. It varies with place, time, cultural, religious, and moral milieu. --ColinFine (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, so we can provide a sampling of different moral systems and compare whether charity should be conducted anonymously under each. StuRat (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism prescribes that acts of charity is to be anonymous.````

Social mores vary greatly. In the US, much philanthropy is well publicised (e.g. major donors expecting their names on buildings), whereas in Britain it has traditionally been quieter. Modern ways of donating to charity (e.g. JustGiving) make telling one's friends through social media an everyday possibility. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the UK, praising a charity that you are involved in to your friends and recounting some telling experience is perfectly acceptable, whereas boasting about the contribution you make may be less well received. Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Widow's mite. This is a complex subject:

Generalizations about who became a rescuer, who a collaborator, were and are impossible to make. Those who were rescuers defy any effort at classification. Religion, social and economic class, level of education, political views, age and gender - all fail to serve as predictors of this kind of altruistic behavior.²

Thus it was extremely difficult for the Jews to determine who might have turned foe, who remained a friend. On the run, these decisions had to be made instantly. Which lighted window on a dark night might mean a loaf of bread and warm shelter, which a hail of bullets? Which doorway must one avoid even in a raging storm? There were surprises of both kinds lurking behind those rural windows.

2.Samuel P Oliner, Pearl M Oliner Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. New York 1992 ISBN 0-02-923829-3.

Nechama Tec, When Light Pierced the Darkness: Christian Rescue of Jews in Nazi-Occupied Poland New York 1986 ISBN 978-0-19503-643-5.

Yaffa Eliach There Once Was a World: A 900-Year Chronicle of the Shtetl of Eishyshok Boston, Mass. 1999, page 611. ISBN 0-316-23252-1.

The question is answered a little further on on page 619:

When asked many years later how he accounted for his willingness to risk his life on a daily basis, as well as the lives of his mother and other members of his household, he explained it in terms of his Christian duty: "All nations are brothers to one another. The whole planet belongs to God almighty, to our Lord Jesus..."

Korkuc also used his faith to try to explain the genocide committed by the Germans and their collaborators. Korkuc saw the mass killings of the Jews as a punishment for the killing of Christ. One day several of the Jews on Korkuc's estate saw him driving off in his Sunday carriage, dressed in his Sunday best. Where had he been? he was asked on his return. "To see the Jews being led to their slaughter" in a nearby shtetl, he replied. And why would a man like him wish to see such a sight? "When Christ was led to the crucifixion you lined the streets to Jerusalem. Now, when you are led to your death we line the streets".

On the individual level,

A few weeks later, after what turned out to be Wien's last visit to the Korkuc farm, Wien was betrayed by a shepherd for a kilo of salt. Wien was then taken to Eishyshok, where he was severely tortured by the police, all of whom knew him personally. They pulled his fingernails out, one by one, offering to spare him if he would reveal the names of other Jews in hiding. Eventually he did give them several names, after which he was taken to the mass grave that contained all the women of Eishyshok, including his wife and daughters. There he was shot, as were the Jews whose names his torturers had forced him to reveal.

On a lighter note, page 628 records:

On Monday June 8 she went into labor,and Moshe walked her out of the pit into the stable, where she lay on a bed of fresh straw amid the sheep and cows. Pani Korkucowa came in with boiled water and towels, and Sorl Kabacznik and Hayya Solomianski emerged from the pit beneath the stable to attend the birth. Suddenly Marushka the maid began to scream, "Jesus, it's a baby boy!" Pani Korkucowa crossed herself, saying, "It is just like the birth of our Lord Jesus". And Moshe, ever ready to see the humor in even the grimmest of circumstances, responded, "This is our eternal problem: nobody ever allows our women to have their babies peacefully in their own home."

Question about hair colour[edit]

Since light or medium blond is not very common, in adults, can dark/sandy blond be somewhat common in adults if they were a lighter blond as a child and teen? 2001:569:7671:F100:3D61:B566:A67C:7C01 (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our article Blond, which says "Blond hair tends to turn darker with age, and many children's blond hair turns light, medium, dark brown or black before or during their adult years." That statement is referenced, and the article includes many good references about blond hair. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Human hair color#Aging or achromotrichia. jnestorius^(talk) 07:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Word Usage[edit]

Cost from Destination "A" to Destination "B"; back n forth.

What should I be using, "back n forth" or "forth n back"?

119.30.35.177 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. Use "round trip" if you want the total, and "Cost from A to B and vice-versa" if you want the two individual prices. "Back and forth" (note we don't just use "n" for "and") is too vague and casual for such an inquiry. "Forth and back" isn't used at all, except perhaps in jest. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, we would say "return" for tickets [1]. "Back and forth" is the usual way around, but curiously, "there and back" is the other way. Alansplodge (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of these comments are correct, but since the original wasn't even a complete sentence and we weren't told where it was to be written (or spoken), it's hard to offer suggestions for appropriate language. I will also note that "destination" means a place you go to, not a place you start from. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Back and forth" often indicates more than just two movements, one in each direction - it can indicate any number of movements, and may describe a continuing cycle of alternating movements: Newton's balls swing back and forth. "There and back" does limit it to two journeys, one in each direction. Wymspen (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Travel companies use the terminology "outward and return" [2], [3]. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3,800 calories a day[edit]

I'm not trying to start an argument here I am just curious about something. I've been looking at the List of countries by food energy intake article and it states that the average daily intake of calories in America is "3,800". Obviously many people in America will eat less than that, and some will eat more. However I am curious as to what weight someone who ate 3,800 calories every single day would actually be, assuming an average height of 5 foot 9 inches according to List of average human height worldwide. Thanks for your time. 159.192.227.158 (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A critical piece of the equation is how active the are. For example, professional cyclists consume a great deal of calories per day (in the range of 4,000 to 7,000 depending on the topography of the stage), and they are nearly all as skinny as rails. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all calories aren't the same, with some forms increasing metabolic rate while others are more likely to become fat. And weather is a factor, too, with cold weather requiring more calories to maintain body temp. Your best approach might just be to look at the actual average weight of people in the US rather than to try to determine what a given caloric intake will produce. StuRat (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relating daily caloric intake to weight gain is FAR too variable to be able to calculate in these broad terms. Metabolism is a messy process, as the sheer length of our (very excellent) article can attest to. --Jayron 32 19:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought 3800 sounded sort of unbelievable, till I saw this passage from the article you're quoting:

“

However the actual food consumption may be lower than the quantity shown as food availability depending on the magnitude of wastage and losses of food in the household, e.g. during storage, in preparation and cooking, as plate-waste or quantities fed to domestic animals and pets, thrown or given away.

”

After I read that, it was a lot more believable. I don't know what factor to reduce the 3800 by for waste and spoilage, but I bet it's pretty substantial. --Trovatore (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Trovatore. About one third of all food produced for humans is lost to waste, according to the FAO [4]. That document presents lots of detail on how different types of waste are more important for different types of food, and how waste is different regions around the world. Perhaps unsurprisingly, North America leads the world in consumer-level food waste. Honestly, I don't think this is worth digging in to from this angle, because this is not at all "food consumption" in the traditional sense of the word, it is more like "food availability" that the FAO is discussing. And in that regard, yes, USA is one of the richest countries in the world with vast agricultural production, so it's not too surprising that we'd be at or near the top of that list. And this isn't even production, it seems imports count too. TLDR: this stat is useless for understanding how many kcal an average person in the USA ingests in a day. I'm sure someone has estimates of that, but this 3800 isn't it. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the figures are only talking about household wastage (my reading) and not agricultural/wholesale/retail wastage: "Estimated total food loss in the United States, 2010.... Losses - Consumer (percent)... Total 21[%]". See Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Documentation, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (from the table near the bottom of the document).

Are companies allowed to edit their own article?[edit]

I was looking at the Havertys Wikipedia article. I looked at the revision history, and there is an IP that is editing the article (they're not being disruptive or anything) and the IP is from Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc, according to the WHOis. The IP is 12.129.89.3 I was just curious if companies can edit their own article or if it's a conflict of interest. Paige Matheson (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is WP:COI. The short version is, it's not outright banned, but it's strongly discouraged, and disclosing your conflict of interest is required. ApLundell (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the users' history, they've made minor factual changes (for example, when a new CFO was appointed), and they've corrected a few spelling errors. I think that's well within what would be considered acceptable. They were still supposed to disclose their ~~bias~~COI, but I don't think it's a big deal. ApLundell (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A conflict of interests is not necessarily a bias. The conflict is what was disclosable. Requiring editors to disclose their biases would be a somewhat uphill battle. In my biased opinion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing is supposed to be done by individuals. Although that's kind of hard to control if it's a company-owned IP address. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing is done by individuals. A company is a concept and not tangible, so it lacks a physical manifestation, never mind not having a brain to think with nor hands to type with. Companies cannot edit anything. Now, sometimes individuals will edit on behalf of their companies, as directed by them, to do so. That is called a conflict of interest and we like to be nice and say "You probably shouldn't do that". But what we really mean is "You REALLY shouldn't do that". Small, innocuous changes to basic facts, properly accompanied with sources to verify those basic facts are probably fine, but anything else will be mercilously removed. --Jayron 32 12:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. As long as they adhere to the rules, there's no reason they shouldn't edit. But anything beyond neutral, mundane facts is risky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is right, of course. I meant to say "disclose their conflict of interest". ApLundell (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "Jack is right, of course" is always redundant, of course. But thanks for the acknowledgment of my omniscience. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

So how would we know that articles have been edited by individuals "on behalf of their companies, as directed by them, to do so"? Where does policy distinguish between "neutral, mundane facts" and some other kind of fact? African Potash seems to have been developed by people with a connection to the company but nobody has removed the content. 31.52.216.53 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]