Miscellaneous desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

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.

May 27

Leadership

What's the best way to get leadership experience if your previous leadership experience is limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clover345 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a hopelessly vague question, incapable of being responded to in any useful way. Please confine any future questions to matters where a sensible response can be expected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very vague. But somewhat answerable. The OP needs to seek out leadership situations, at any type of level. The more experience he gets, the better he'll get at it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which sort of area of human endeavor is the capacity for leadership sought? Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of civic clubs provide these sorts of opportunities and look good on a resume. Such organizations as the Jaycees, Rotary, Habitat for Humanity etc. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in the same vein, voluntary youth leadership. Many organizations will give formal leadership training too. Leading adults can be different to leading children or teenagers, but there are many transferable skills. Alansplodge (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Marine Corps trains its members in leadership as do many other military organizations. Edison (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article on Leadership and there's various other various other related articles. Once you realize people generally want to be given things to do it isn't too hard. The main difficulty a person who has any social sense has is that sometimes you have to do things you'd prefer somebody else had to do instead. Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The charity and voluntary sector is an excellent place to develop these skills. Approach some local not-for-profit organisations in your [nearest] town or city and offer your time and effort, explaining that you're looking for opportunities to gain experience of leadership in return. --Dweller (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting out images of ex-husband from photos post-divorce

Many divorcées have the habit of cutting out images of the ex-husband from photos. I think that this is a prevalent enough phenomenon that there would be some psychological or sociological research done in this area, I'm wondering if there's a technical term for this that'll help me find more info on this topic? I suppose it is somewhat similar to Damnatio memoriae. Thank you in advance! --108.48.23.190 (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a sign of Misandry, but I'm uncertain that is a listed disorder. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denial? I'm not sure it's really that prevalent, though Photoshop makes it easier.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're begging the question, really—is there evidence that "many divorcées" have this habit? Or is this just one of those Hollywood tropes that gets overused by lazy scriptwriters seeking a convenient visual metaphor? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those "beautiful people" having scripted contrived clashes over mindless material non-issues with lighting and CGI trickery meant to induce a pseudo trance in its audience are fake?^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a practical solution to a photograph suggesting a relationship that is no longer applicable. I don't think the practice of cutting photographs lends itself to studies. I don't think there is complicated psychology involved. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a degree of passive-aggressive behavior, as it makes the trimmer feel better while falling well short of murder, for example. It's nothing new. I know of pictures a century old where a spouse is cut out of a picture (and not always the husband, either). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of activity is an attempt to rewrite reality, like voluntarily becoming Winston Smith (who worked doing this in the 'Ministry of Truth') in Nineteen Eighty-Four or hiring the KGB to airbrush people out of your past. The hole in the picture itself is an even greater reminder of the unwelcome truth than would be leaving the photo untouched. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great answers guys! I guess it may not be as common as I had thought. I suppose it could just be considered a form of denial or self-deception. --108.48.23.190 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to assist, but don't discount my blurb above, its more institutionally common then one might suspect.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad that no one was able to actually provide you with an actual answer to your question—there's not a single reference to a published study in the entire lot. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if any exist. I've had a good hunt around google, to no avail. Maybe we can assume good faith by assuming the earlier respondents also searched fruitlessly. It is a bit suss that nobody mentioned searching, but AGF is for situations where there is a lack of full knowledge. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't assume bad faith; I only pointed out that there wasn't a proper reference provided anywhere. It would be a disservice to the OP to let him walk away with the impression that his question had actually received good answers. The problem is that lots of people gave responses based on guesses, mistaken understanding, or personal anecdotes, but nobody even mentioned research. It isn't a question of good or bad faith, but of WP:COMPETENCE—the responses above seem to have largely missed the point of a Reference Desk. If I wanted to be a little more pointed, I would note that, for example, Marketdiamond's mention (and link to) misandry is a howler; he wonders whether or not divorced women have some sort of pathological dislike of all men, and ponders whether or not it qualifies as a psychological disorder. Bus stop, meanwhile, gives up without searching, offering his guess while declaring that the question is too difficult for systematic study. Baseball Bugs comes up with some pop-psychology nonsense about passive-aggressive behavior. It's an embarrassing but typical result from today's Reference Desk; and every post from an editor with years of experience and who ought to know better. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP himself gave the technical term in his question, damnatio memorae. He didn't indicate that he knew there was a specific actual study and wanted only help finding that. Answers that point toward things like Censorship of images in the Soviet Union are quite relevant, and if the OP wants something else he can say so. But in this case his response was "Thanks for the great answers". That seems good all around as far as I can see. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure it was helpful and constructive for the OP to be able to draw a link between divorced women and Stalin. Well done, Ref Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to give a possible boost to your speculation disguised as a rhetorical question about it being "just one of those Hollywood tropes that gets overused by lazy scriptwriters seeking a convenient visual metaphor" see "Removed From the Picture". ---Sluzzelin talk 03:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question wasn't rhetorical—I actually don't know whether the phenomenon in question is particularly prevalent in real life. (If we're going spelunking in TV Tropes, it could well be an instance of "Truth in Television".) My purely anecdotal experience is that the practice is vanishingly rare in real life, but I don't trust small values of n, and I was hoping that someone could actually locate suitable, relevant research to answer the question either way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Ten. I did try, but my google-fu failed me. More commonly mentioned than cutting out seem to be examples of scratching out faces on photographs, such as in the anthropologist Richard Chalfen's Snapshot Versions of Life (Wisconsin University Press, 1987). I'm not able to access the study, however, and all I got from the summary is "and even, in their darker moments, scratch out the faces of disliked relatives in group photographs". I have no idea how far Chalfen goes in his analysis, but it might be a start. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine who in their right mind would fund a study focusing on such a trivial and obvious matter. The closest anyone might come would be a study of the kinds of things people do in connection with getting divorced. That would be a pretty long list, which could include defacing photos of their former loved ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Psychological or sociological research" is in my opinion is a fairly broad area. Might not this phenomenon fall under some other heading? How would we find information on this subject if it existed under some different heading unless we clarified the nature of this question? I think that dialogue with the person investigating an area of interest can bring related areas for investigation into focus. I liked the post that started this thread. I just wanted to clarify what questions we were working on. Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A good term for that activity might be "passive revenge". Like unfriending someone on Facebook. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US National Register of Historic Places

I've been poking about in the National Register of Historic Places. The entries have a "published" date but I've been unable to find an FAQ or anything that tells me what this is. Is it the date that the site was registered as historic? See here for the entry on the Golden Gate Bridge, or as they officially call it the San Francisco--Oakland Bay Bridge. I'm a bit surprised that it was only registered in 2001 and not much earlier than that. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 04:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First that isn't the same bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge is very different from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, for one thing the Golden Gate takes you to Sausalito not Oakland. To answer the question however it is not unusual at all to have a structure that is only 70 years old finally be designated a national landmark, some very substantial items wait even longer. The Golden Gate Bridge appears not to be a "national" landmark but it is a city and state landmark. There are legal implications that go along with "landmark" status it is simply not just a label. There are some very deserving landmarks that choose not to be named on a national list because of restrictions and requirements on any kind of rehabilitation or reconstruction.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NRHP works with a "fifty-year rule," meaning that in most circumstances a place or structure has to be at least fifty years old (or associated with an event that happened more than fifty years ago). Exceptions happen - the Marin Civic Center was listed before fifty years had elapsed, but by the calendar the Bay Bridge didn't become eligible until 1986. I suspect Caltrans, which as owner, needed to give consent for listing, had some reservations about listing. The eventual listing was probably tied into the reconstruction of the east span and a requirement that the demolished portions be documented. Acroterion (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit bizarre to designate the bridge as a "historic place", since they're currently midway through a project to rebuild virtually the entire thing. (The replacement for the east span is due to open in September.) Looie496 (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The west span is largely being left as-is, with the addition of retrofits. Visually, it's going to be pretty much unchanged. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP, here's the FAQ you might have missed: http://www.nps.gov/nr/faq.htm --Lockley (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for a New Service for Investors in the Stock Market

Note: I have removed this as it is incredibly long and essentially spam. Looie496 (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are some common jobs in Uruguay?

I am trying to find the jobs that the most PEOPLE do, not the largest INDUSTRIES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwoodward48wiki (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your looking at a list of largest industries based on employment then you have your answer. Even if it is industry based on revenue or profit, those are roughly equivalent to employment as well, both direct and indirect, funny things happens when a company facility with a large payroll but even low employment locates to a place, all of a sudden dozens or hundreds of support industries pop right up. But yes the barber or waitress may not work as a computer programmer (i.e. silicon valley), but in large part their jobs depend on that industry.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unlike the United States, Uruguay's economy is dominated by the service sector. Here is a list of the most common jobs in the US, all of them in the service sector. Uruguay is likely to different in some ways partly because it is not as consumer driven an economy as the US, but retail employees, office workers and janitors/maids are still likely to be high on the list of most common jobs in there. --Daniel (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have Flash in your browser and can read Spanish (neither of which applies to me) you can probably find some information at the 2011 Census page here: http://www.ine.gub.uy/censos2011/index.html . Jørgen (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA says 13% agriculture, 14% industry and 73% services (2010). The World Bank says 68.1% services (2011). DOR (HK) (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, a breakdown of occupations is not the same thing as a breakdown of employment in industrial sectors. SOCs rather than SICs in UK/US parlance. The Uruguay national statistical service is at http://www.ine.gub.uy/ but I can't find either occupations or sectors at the moment, despite an adequate knowledge of Spanish. Uruguay has no equivalent of NOMIS unfortunately. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Car Company,1894

Need info on The United States Car Company,1894. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusellim (talk • contribs) 22:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I titled this post for you, please remember to add == to the beginning and end of any query.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the subject, I found a few scanty references, such as:[1] It seems that it was a company that built railroad cars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturer of railroad cars, formed in 1892 (apparently) out of the remains of a company called the United States Rolling Stock Company, with the large industrial plant in Anniston, Alabama, including the largest rolling mill in the south; headquarters in Chicago and New York, works in Illinois, Alabama, and Ohio; went bankrupt in 1897 as a consequence of the great Panic of 1893, with assets acquired by a new entity called the Illinois Car and Equipment Company. Looie496 (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as context, OP, the U.S. railroad business in that period was rife with a lot of tricky corporate shell games: holding companies, mergers, consolidations, stock watering, like that. Whatever information you may find on this company name, take it with a grain of salt. --Lockley (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]