Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 September 15

= September 15 =

Fouke Monster ?! - Scare Tactic ?!
I've just heard a claim from a former USAF NCO that this thing is a hoax perpetrated to scare the hell out of the African Americans in the '50s to keep them compliant and "non-uppity" as HE put it. Anyone hear about this ?! This one is news to me. No wonder the citizens don't like certain inquiries, since this sounds stupid and insulting. Can this be placed in the "Hoax" catagory ? 205.240.146.131 08:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I think it has to be a proven hoax before being placed there. It's already categorized as a cryptid, which speaks for itself. You wouldn't need to include the entire list of cryptids in the long list of hoaxes. As for the "claim", this would need a published source for it to be included.--Shantavira|feed me 11:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Speak Like A Pirate DAy (Sept 19)
What are the chances that it will appear an article for "on this day..."? And will anyone besides me be answering questions as a pirate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.21.81 (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) Infinitesimal (2) Inevitably.--Shantavira|feed me 14:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Shantavira. See International Talk Like a Pirate Day.  :)  Corvus cornix 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing that on the Main Page last year. Quick check... yes, it's scheduled for this year as well: Selected anniversaries/September 19. · AndonicO Talk 01:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Nay, it be not lik'ly. (2) Arrr. (Just practicing) SteveBaker 22:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lighthouse joke
The joke here which is, incidentally, very funny indeed, purports to be a genuine US-Canadian radio transcript. In my joke book, it claims to be an Anglo-Irish transcript, featuring the HMS Britannia. Which is correct?--Rambutan (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 15:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I should have thought to look there... :-) Rambutan (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When was the joke book published? The various web sites have referred to purported earlier sightings of this joke but do not give details. Maybe you have a genuine early example. -Arch dude 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Pubished '07!!--Rambutan (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Snopes page linked above has sources (of varying reliability) going back to "the 60s" --Dweller 15:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha! That's a good joke. :-) · AndonicO Talk 01:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Chanel Chance
Approximately how much would a 35mL bottle of Chanel Chance perfume for woman cost in Canadian Dollars? Thanks. Acceptable 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's be about $55 in stores, I believe, since that's how much it's MSRP is supposed to be in the states, and it's about 1 USD = 1 CAD. Or on eBay, the 100mL bottles seem to get to about CAD$25 or so, but there's not any auctions for 35mL/1.2oz bottles. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there anyway one can distinguish and opened bottle of perfume from brand new one? For example, is there some sort of seal taht one must remove in order to use it, like in cough syrups? Thanks. Acceptable 17:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never seen tamper-proof packaging on perfume/cologne bottles. But they usually come in some sort of container that is sealed, if only by tape. But it's not impossible to make it seem like new. One of my colognes came in a clear plastic box, so it won't even be detectable if the tape was removed and reapplied, since it won't be like ripping really sticky tape off paper. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy marketing
Kevin Trudeau's books Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About and The Weight Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You To Know About both are meant to appeal to people who believe in conspiracy theories. Is there a name for this particular marketing technique ? Does anyone have any other examples ? Do we have an article that talks about it ? (If not, perhaps I will write one.) StuRat 17:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This doesn't seem to be a widely used term, judging from google. So, if you do take a stab at an article, be careful to avoid original research or someone may decide the article should be deleted.  In particular, if you invent your own term and then look around for examples that you say are in that category, it's definitely original research.  Friday (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I get 274 hits from Google, that certainly seems "notable" to me, and hardly "original research". StuRat 18:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I saw them too, but many of them even on the first page didn't seem to be about conspiracy marketing at all. Some of them were just sentences that happened to have those two words in a row.  So maybe there are useable sources out there, but I didn't see them at first glance.    A couple hundred google hits surely doesn't make a thing notable.  Friday (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. For what it's worth, google news and google scholar both return 0 hits on "conspiracy marketing".  If neither the news nor academic papers use the term, I suspect it's not a widely recognized category, among people who study marketing.  But, again, maybe there's another term that would include this sort of thing.  Friday (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this paragraph on the 2nd page of Google hits, which appears to be using the term in the same way as I am:


 * "Krush specializes in ultra creative non-traditional marketing campaigns. We use any and all forms of media and personal interaction to increase awareness and generate buzz about your product.  Most of the techniques used are of a proprietary nature, and will only be disclosed to clients.  From ruse marketing to conspiracy marketing, Krush has the experience, creativity, and technical know how to do what other agencies can’t.  We also have ties to the right young people, which is an absolute necessity.   On its own, or as a supplement to a traditional campaign, this is a relatively inexpensive and very effective tool.  If you are looking to truly engage a young market (15 – 25) innovative campaigns are by far the best way."

StuRat 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Conspiracy marketing' looks like a neologism at best. Friday notes that there are fewer than three hundred Google hits for the phrase (I actually only get 87 unique hits when I page through the results).  Of those, I would tend to lump them into four categories.
 * Coincidences. This is a large category; possibly the largest.  The words appear together as part of a list of terms in a sentence, a random keyword list, coincidental appearance at the end of once sentence and the start of the next, etc.
 * Viral marketing. In many cases, it appears to be used as a synonym for or subset of viral marketing techniques (especially stealth marketing or guerilla marketing).  I'm fairly certain that the Krush link above actually intends the term in this way (but God, what an awful web site!).
 * Selling a conspiracy. In these cases, someone – typically a blogger – uses 'conspiracy marketing' to describe the tactics employed in encouraging people to espouse a particular conspiracy theory. Alternatively, it may refer to the tactics used to cover up a conspiracy: 'selling' a cover story.
 * Selling a product. This last case would be the one discussed in this thread here, and involves the creation of a conspiracy theory as a marketing tactic for the purposes of selling a product.  Note that this is distinct from case #3&mdash;this case fabricates the implicit or explicit suggestion of a conspiracy as a tool to support or sell another product or idea; case #3 is selling the conspiracy itself.
 * In any case, it doesn't seem that 'conspiracy marketing' is a widely-accepted term for what is described in this thread. At best it could be said that the term's usage and meaning are disputed; realistically we would be more honest to consider 'conspiracy marketing' a neologism or chance turn of phrase.  While there may be a specific term for this phenomenon, 'conspiracy marketing' doesn't appear to be it.
 * Do we really need a specific term for the technique of selling people things by playing on their fears and insecurities? I always thought that was just called...'marketing'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Playing on people's fears (like "no woman will ever look at me if my hair is grey") doesn't necessarily mean playing on conspiracy theories. There is also a lot of marketing that doesn't play on fears at all, like food ads which mostly just argue that their food tastes good. StuRat 13:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I should have added a smiley, it seems.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

football (soccer)
who is the richest football team now? first it waz man u then real madrid and how much do both teams earn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.93.203 (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Translation for Americans -> This question is about soccer. StuRat 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As opposed to merrer, if you want to follow the logic through. DirkvdM 07:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Some older sources have Manchester United, but this source from earlier this year has Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, and Juventus beating out ManU.  --User:Nricardo 19:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a Wikipedia article, Richest football clubs, but it appears unreliable. --Nricardo 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a full report: . It's a PDF, and you may need to register.  --Nricardo 19:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As for financial potential, PSV should score high, because it it Philips' own football team. They don't just own, it, it's the company team. Not that any employees play in it. Or is a PSV player automatically a Philips employee? DirkvdM 07:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, why don't the flags appear, except those of USA, Wales and Zambia? Is that just me or do others also have this problem? DirkvdM 07:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've noticed lots of flags not appearing correctly over the last day or two. FiggyBee 09:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal results, just published. show it second only to Real Madrid. MU relegated to third place.86.202.28.76 13:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)DT

Part of the problem here is definition of "richest" (income? assets? cash?). Another part is the secrecy. And the biggest is wild speculation, even by so-called experts, none of whom (especially when looking at assets)can really accurately predict things like transfer values. (See Darren Bent for a case in point) All in all, it's a fairly meaningless exercise, other than to list a bunch of clubs, all of which are extremely "rich". --Dweller 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

financial
What exchange are the stocks of Acer Inc. traded on and what is its symbol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.236.72 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is 2353.TW on the Taiwan Stock Exchange. You can also get a GDR: 2306Q.L on the London Stock Exchange.  --Sean 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Bewildebeast seems to be correct, and Acer's web page incorrect. --Sean 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to our article, it's ACID on the London Stock Exchange — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

analog to digital
when tv's changes from analog to digital in feb. 2009 does that mean every thing will be in high definition?22:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Digital TV in the US consists of various resolutions, high definition (HD) is the highest resolution. Other resolutions are called enhanced definition (ED) and standard definition (SD). It's up to each station what resolutions they use. I suspect most prime time and special programs will be available in HD. Older programs or times when subchannels are used may use lower resolutions.
 * "HD is the highest resolution" can be confusing, since the term HD is used for multiple resolutions, from 1280x544 to 1920x1080.Froglars the frog 10:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On the Feb 2009 switchover date, analog TV signals will stop being transmitted, so existing over-the-air analog TV sets will have nothing to receive unless you get a digital converter box or new TV to receive digital TV. A digital converter box will be able to downgrade and letterbox the high def signals to an analog TV screen. Newer TV screens will be able to support the full high def resolution and aspect ratio.


 * See www.dtv.gov/whatisdtv.html for information. --Bavi H 22:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an amazingly historic event. A TV set bought in the U.S. after May 2, 1941, if maintained, would have picked up VHF TV broadcasts right up until the changeover to all digital, except for the elimination of channel 1 after World War 2. Present day 42 inch HDTV sets go for under $1000, and are substantially cheaper (allowing for inflation) than the 1941 12 inch GE TRK-12 black and white TV set at $395 (marked down from $600) which would equal $5487 in 2006 . Edison 01:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't have to have a digital receiver. Any cable box will work.  Corvus cornix 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: To recieve free antenna-based over-the-air TV after the switchover date, you will need to have some sort of digital tuner. But as the dtv.gov site says, "Analog TVs will continue to work with cable, satellite, VCRs, DVD players, camcorders, video games consoles and other devices for many years." --Bavi H 00:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)