Miscellaneous desk
< December 28	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 30 >

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.

December 29[edit]

results of census 2010 of PRC by ethnic population[edit]

Where can I get census results 2010 year of People's Republic of China with ethnic population? --Kaiyr (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you can trust their census ? I would guess they would intentionally under-represent their oppressed minorities, such as Tibetans. StuRat (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has been working on separatists movements and therefore will know that an oppressive government statistics cannot be trusted. His question is not whether they can be trusted, but where they can be found, StuRat. Even biased or made-up statistics can be useful, to either remain neutral when writing a wikipedia article and have already given the opposite side's statistics. or to expose the government's scheme if you are a journalist, for e.g. --Lgriot (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try here (see section VI) or here (see 3rd paragraph below the graph) Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 17:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Shum[edit]

I'm descended from George Shum (1751-1805) who was MP for Honiton from 1796 to 1805. If there is a painting or some other picture of him in existence, how would I go about finding it? Marnanel (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have an answer for your question, but for other readers—the borough in question is Honiton (UK Parliament constituency), and we're still missing an article on George Shum. In 1997, the constituency was merged to form Tiverton and Honiton (UK Parliament constituency). The current MP in that seat is Neil Parish, perhaps his office could put you in touch with an archivist? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The National Portrait Gallery, which specifically collects portraits of prominent British people. does not list George Shum in its collection (I just checked their website) However, it may be that they keep records of portraits outwith their holdings (for future acquisitions or general research), so an enquiry directly to them might bear fruit. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.56 (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could contact the Parliamentary Archives and the Devon Record Office. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; another suggestion is the Allhallows Museum in Honiton. They mainly focus on lacemaking in the town, but the collection includes "momentos of... the Borough of Honiton". They have a contact page. Alansplodge (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Parliament entry on George Shum is not extensive [1]. He lacks an entry in the Oxford DNB though is mentioned in the biography of his friend and business partner Harvey Christian Combe. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singer of Parody[edit]

This is a link to a parody of Joan Osborne's song One Of Us : http://cannatrade.ch/news/audio/mp3/What_if_God_Smoked_Cannabis.mp3 The singer sounds pretty much like Joan Osborne. Is it Osborne herself? 117.227.0.224 (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a bit of a mystery as to who sings this parody. Radio personality Bob Rivers apparently wrote the song to be included on his 1997 album The Best of Twisted Tunes Vol. 2 [2]. The name Kelly Gray appears as an "unknown contributor" on the album credits, and is the only name listed that might be a female (of course, the name "Kelly" could be assigned to either gender, but all the other names are obviously male, so process of elimination tells me this might be the person you're looking for.) By all accounts it is not Joan Osborne singing...and to further complicate matters, apparently Weird Al Yankovic also sings a similar parody on one of his albums, but whether it is a cover of the Bob Rivers song, or his own parody of Joan Osborne's song...I can't tell and have already spent too much time on this already. I'd start with looking into Bob Rivers. Maybe somebody reading this has the Best of Twisted Tunes (Vol 2) album and can check the credits listed on it. See also [3] and [4] Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 16:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie doll for young girls with cancer[edit]

A question was asked this am on Facebook about "What if a Barbie doll could be made for young girls with cancer" so I thought I would ask...Would it be possible to make a Barbie with no hair, dress in pink and put something like HOPE on her outfit or even on the doll itself...and maybe donate some of the proceeds to St. Jude's ... You may have been asked this question before, but if not please consider my question and I think whoever started the idea on facebook it is an idea worth looking into....cancer is such a terrible diease for all and the young really need to have some HOPE.. Thank you for your time and have a good day and a Happy New Year... Mary Lou McGowan my email address is [redacted].... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.178.61 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Mattel, this is Wikipedia, we can't control what a toy manufacturer does. --LarryMac | Talk 15:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is possible, in the sense that I'm sure someone could create a doll in the way that you describe. But if you wanted the doll to be part of the Barbie line, which is trademarked, I imagine the first step would be getting permission from Mattel. Here is a link to a form on Mattel's website to request non-commercial use of their trademarks: [5] I also suggest directing any further questions about this to Mattel using the contact listing on their website. Here's the link: [6] Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 15:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [barbie doll hairless] and a petition came up. I'm not going to post that here, as it might be regarded as spam, but anyone who wants to can look it up. A couple of things occur to me. One is that the OP could always buy a series of Barbie dolls and close-crop their "hair" to get the desired effect. Another is that there are enough Barbie jokes already, and this approach could lead to more. For example, double-mastectomy-Barbie, albeit at some cost to her center of gravity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you find the subject of breast cancer a suitable subject for humour, Bugs. My mother had a double mastectomy and I'm not sure she would have seen the joke. But you carry right on, no matter whether it's answering the question or not. --Viennese Waltz 16:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find breast cancer funny. I DO find the Barbie Doll funny. And I did give the OP some information on the subject (via google), which is more than you can say for yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the the first part of Bugs reply (not commenting on that last part tho sheesh), though I think he was speaking a bit Tongue-in-cheek, the OP does not strike me as someone very familiar with this board's tendency for sarcasm, so I would strongly advise against altering an existing trademarked product with the intent on selling it, whether for charity or otherwise. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 17:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altering them and then selling them might be a legal problem, but altering them and then giving them away is entirely legal. However, if you shave a Barbie, this may leave visible hair plugs on it's skull, so you might want to go with a doll that comes already bald (intended to be used with wigs). Those are quite easy to find online. Here's a doll that already comes bald, specifically for sick kids: [7]. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything in google, having apparently googled the wrong thing - but your solution is obviously better than mine. And a baseball cap, or any other head covering a chemo patient might wear, could be a good accessory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, altering the dolls and giving them away (to cancer patients) would probably be OK, but I was specifically commenting on the OP's remark "...donate some of the proceeds to St. Jude's," which indicates an intent to sell them (albeit to raise money for charity). That could bring up some legal considerations if they use the Barbie name, and if Mattel is not on board with it. A more generic doll might around these concerns, though I think it is the "Barbie" name that would give the doll legitimacy and press coverage. Anyway, this is all kind of bordering on legal advice, and I am hardly an expert, so I digress. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 17:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any doubt that Mattel would have to be totally in the loop, especially if someone is trying to sell them for a profit. It could be a good publicity deal for Mattel, but it would have to be their choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 29 December 2011 (iUTC)

Are there any articles or links which would suggest why it would be illegal to sell modified Barbies? As long as the originals were purchased from Mattel and the final product was appropriately labeled, clearly indicating that it was no longer an original Barbie and was not being sold by Mattel, what cause for action would they have? -- 110.49.224.96 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provided the labeling made that clear, and that there's no software-style disclaimer on the box that "This product may not be modified and resold", you may be right. I suppose Mattel could argue that you were damaging their reputation. Not likely in this case, but maybe if somebody sold modified "Lesbian Barbie with strap-on dildo", they might sue under that logic. (Oops, didn't mean to give away my business plan like that. :-) )StuRat (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be going round Facebook, and to be honest as it's outside the purview of the RD, I'm inclined to call WP:DNFTT. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, there's a news blurb just today about a settlement in a suit Donna Douglas filed against Mattel for using her image without permission.[8] Having had their consciousness raised, I wouldn't put a lot of faith into thinking that an organization, however well-meaning, could get away with reconfiguring a "chemo Barbie" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]