Miscellaneous desk
< February 5	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 7 >

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 6[edit]

Are there any other places online like the Wikipedia Reference Desk?[edit]

I like the Reference Desk because I can easily ask a question without giving my email address and exchanging emails with people. I also like the fact that there are always several people to look at my question and try to respond to it. Are there any other websites where I can ask a question and get an answer just by coming back to see what other people have written?174.131.43.140 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A number of similarly sites are listed here. They vary in quality, to say the least. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use the answerbank quite a lot, which isn't listed there.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quora is one which is currently generating a lot of interest (mainly in tech circles at the minute). However it's still in beta, and you theoretically need an account to access it, although if you see a quora question in your search results, you can use the link to bypass the login page and read the answers. --Kateshortforbob _talk 17:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stack Exchange Network has a number of question and answer sites on different subjects (41 of them at present). --ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much for all the suggestions!174.131.58.121 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like http://reddit.com/r/askscience for science questions. There's a fairly good culture of not answering if you don't know the answer, a trait our own Reference Desk could use more of. --Sean 19:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Wavelength/About Internet & WWW/Ask an expert.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Nielsen and cigarettes[edit]

Did Leslie Nielsen smoke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.170.202 (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked this before and it's an identical question that can be found at several places on the internet. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

two well known historical figures who are known for separate achievements but have extensive interaction[edit]

For example Kublai Khan was Emperor of the Mongol Empire and Marco Polo was an explorer but they had a long interaction.

Any other examples come to mind?

Coolxcool (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by "separate" you mean completely different areas? Because there are loads of people who have had long correspondences within subject. Indeed, even with that restricted definition the list may still be very long: figures like Voltaire were voluminous letter writers^{[citation needed]}, interacting with numerous celebrities of the time. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 11:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to ask for the same clarification. The first duo that popped to mind were C. S. Lewis and JRR Tolkein who were close friends but both writers. And adding to my confusion, you have duos like Christopher Columbus and Queen Isabella. Both noted for different things, both historical figures, but the basis for how we know them today was their business relationship. If it hadn't been Columbus, it would have been someone else that Isabella got to sail. Therefore, a duo was all but assured. Dismas|^(talk) 11:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Separate" is hard to pinpoint. But what I mean is most known for achievements that are not tied together. Kublai Khan is known as the emperor of a vast territory. Marco Polo is known for traveling across vast territory. Marco Polo spent years in the court of Kublai Khan so the interaction is much more extensive than correspondence. However their separate notability doesn't depend on their interaction together. I think the notability of Queen Isabella to a great extent is based on her connection to Columbus.

Coolxcool (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Isabella's notability is primarily based on her connection to Columbus you probably haven't read the article or aren't much of a student of history of that era. The expulsion of the Jews from Spain, her role in the inquisition, the conclusion of the Reconquista, were all some of the major events in Europe during this era. To quote from the current Wikipedia article:

Spain was united, the crown power was centralized, the reconquista was successfully concluded, the groundwork for the most dominant military machine of the next century and a half was laid, a legal framework was created, the church reformed. Even without the benefit of the American expansion, Spain would have been a major European power.

--Quartermaster (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko and John. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein and Arnold Schoenberg had enough of a relationship for someone to write a book about it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Maynard Keynes and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actor Tommy Lee Jones and politician Al Gore spring to mind as well, as do former American football coach and analyst Lee Corso and actor Burt Reynolds. In both of those examples, the pair were college rooomates who have maintained a lifelong friendship. --Jayron32 20:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: This article at Cracked.com has a list of several other pairs of acquaintances who have no reason to be acquaintences, based on their career paths. My favorite from the list is George Romero and Fred Rogers. --Jayron32 21:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps the most remarkable example is Aristotle and Alexander the Great. Looie496 (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn and JFK. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Swanson and Joseph Kennedy, Sr.. Corvus cornix_talk 22:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the sinister side of philosophy and power we have Wittgenstein and Hitler (if the author of The Jew of Linz is to be believed). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is just that they were at school together, not that they interacted afterwards. They were two years apart at school, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Warhol and Paulette Goddard. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein and Goedel: Goedel didn't work in physics; Einstein worked in nothing else. Yes, of course I realize that physics involves a great deal of math. David32768 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cats and onions[edit]

I often test my cat to see what he likes and what he doesn't like. Today I discovered that he likes the smell of a large yellow onion. I would have thought he would take one sniff and run in the opposite direction, but no, it interests him and he enjoys smelling it. Any idea why this is? Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the onions away from your cat! No idea why your cat likes the smell of onions though. Dismas|^(talk) 11:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But why would he be attracted to a dangerous vegetable? Any ideas? Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs sometimes like to drink radiator fluid, which is poisonous... and in a related story, humans like to eat donuts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a little kid, my parents were constantly warning me not to eat wild berries (granted, most of which probably weren't actually poisonous). It seems like exactly the kind of thing I would have done, had they not told me. Falconus^{p t c} 19:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cat doesn't know it is dangerous. Cat evolution likely did not expose them to many onions, so they probably don't have any innate reason to avoid them. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9 hours and no one has said curiosity killed the cat...? schyler (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I hope the expression isn't dying out... It's a nice one :( Rimush (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our cats used to regularly eat stew which had onions in it. They didn't eat the bits of onion, but the gravy never seemed to do them any harm. They also drank copious amounts of milk. They lived to 16 or 17, and were happy (well, they purred a lot) and active (regularly bringing home gifts of birds, rats, shrews and the like, as well as beating up any insufficiently respectful dogs they met). I do wonder sometimes about the accuracy of some of the online "advice" one reads about feeding pets, especially one like that linked to above which praises premium pet foods. DuncanHill (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you feel better with a link to the ASPCA's web site? I posted the first link because it was the first result that was handy and it said what I knew it should about onions. Dismas|^(talk) 10:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, the same site suggests milk gives pets "...diarrhea or other digestive upset." Astronaut (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most animals are supposed to be lactose intolerant as adults. Googlemeister (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best advice on what a specific pet should eat, should come from your veterinarian, as they will have a history of your pet's health issues, if any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cat's come from Northern Africa and onions apparently come from "central asia", according to the article, so in the wild there would have been very little exposure. (Never mind the fact that onions are roots and cat's don't go digging for vegetables.) There would be no reason for them to have evolved a fear or dislike of them.

So probably he was just curious about a new smell. It's an interesting enough smell, even to us humans who can barely smell anything. It's pretty hard to predict which smells a cat will find interesting verses unpleasant. APL (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not nitpicking, just incredibly curious, APL. How come plural cats qualify for an apostrophe where the other plurals (onions, roots, humans, verses) don't? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They demand it. APL (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I would explain it, too, and it seems entirely valid and sensible from the point-of-view of evolution by natural selection. I wonder if that sort of thing has ever been used as an argument against the notion of Intelligent design, though. Does anyone know what a Creationist's explanation would be for animals not having an aversion to things (in nature) that are bad for them? WikiDao ☯ 20:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use reason to convince people out of a position they did not arrive at via reason. There's absolutely no point in trying to reason young earth creationists out of their position. It is quite past the point of lost cause. Cut your losses, and work on educating people who care about getting it right. --Jayron32 22:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, it works either way. I could easily have said "Cat's are designed to live in a region with no onions. Efficiency must argue against giving animals instincts they have no earthly use for."

P.S.: Jack, I actually typed that wrong by instinct, just now. I don't know why I feel compelled to give plural cats an apostrophe.

APL (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency is not always the goal. Case in point, the SUV. Does that lead credence to the idea that SUVs evolved themselves? I don't think anyone would try to argue that. Googlemeister (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]