Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 May 25

= May 25 =

SS Jackets Open
Might be obvious, but all the pictures of Secret Service agents that I've seen, depict the agent with their suit jackets open. This is to allow for easy access to their firearms right? Acceptable (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That and/or it's easier to move with it open.  Dismas |(talk) 00:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Or they are just copying Hollywood, that copies them, who copy the movies, who....86.209.155.227 (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)DT

Postmodern Humanism
What is postmodern humanism? Is it the same thing as posthumanism?

Bowei Huang (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Posthumanism means a lot of things, as our page indicates. Definition #3 is probably the closest to anything like "postmodern humanism." --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

But is it really postmodern humanism? What is really simply postmodern humanism?

Bowei Huang (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * | Here is a paper that purports to explain. I tried to read it; really, I did. I thought I might be able to extract some pithy synthesis. Instead, I feel as if the author is taking the pith. | YMMV // BL \\ (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Voice actor
How can Tara Strong lend her voice to both Raven of Teen Titans and Bubbles of The Power Puff Girls?? The voices are so different! 117.0.58.102 (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * She can do that because she's good at her job. Skilled voice actors don't just read the lines into the microphone, they create distinct voices and vocal mannerisms for their characters. A well-known example of this is Billy West, who voices Fry, Professor Farnsworth, Dr. Zoidberg and Zapp Brannigan, as well as various incidental characters on Futurama. And of course, there's "The Man of a Thousand Voices", who single-handedly (single-mouthedly?) voiced Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Barney Rubble, Marvin the Martian, Porky Pig, Sylvester the Cat, Tweety Bird, Yosemite Sam and dozens of other well-known characters. Another example is Frank Welker, whose ability to fashion animal-like sounds has been in consistent demand. He's got about 1,200 voices under his belt, apparently. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And, following up on the female focus of the OP's question, let's not forget the very accomplished June Foray. Deor (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure! As far as female voice actors go, one of my personal favorites is the consistently funny and versatile Tress MacNeille. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember that Bart Simpson is voiced by a woman. Steewi (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

10 million and 1 billion articles
Are there any statistical projections about when we (en wiki) will have 10 millionth and 1 billionth (if ever) article? Thanks - DSachan (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See Ten-million pool. Dismas |(talk) 10:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this: Modelling Wikipedia's growth Dismas |(talk) 10:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It may never reach 10 million even. Deletionists go around deleting interesting pages like List of fictional characters by IQ as being unencyclopaediac. You'd need an awful lot of non-notable and original research pages as well to get anywhere near the billion mark! Perhaps Deletionpedia will eventuallly reach such dizzying heights. Dmcq (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems Deletionpedia has not been updated since December 2008, so I doubt it will get anywhere near there soon. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well at least wikibin which is a bit more discriminating has List of fictional characters by IQ. ;-) (Don't bother starting an article on wikibin unless you can defend it properly - see Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia ) Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we're close to having articles on everything that meets our notability criteria today - since about 2 million articles, it's becoming quite difficult to come up with things that we don't have articles for. I very much doubt that there are 10 million concepts in the world today that are sufficiently notable to warrant articles.  However: new, notable, things appear all the time (just today - the North Koreans detonate a nuclear weapon - and voila! We have a new and notable article).  So the growth rate will probably flatten out considerably - but I don't see how it can stop altogether.   Until that flattening out is actually observed, I don't think we can estimate when we'll hit 10 million articles.   It's possible that some unexpected catastropy or technological advance might obsolete or destroy Wikipedia before we get there - but again, there is no way to predict that.  Certainly, I don't think you can take the time it took to get to 2.5 million and multiply by four...it's going to take a lot longer than that.  If we can't predict the 10 millionth article's creation date with any precision - don't even think about the billionth article.  The only thing that MIGHT make a significant difference would be if there were to be some kind of policy change to relax the notability criterion.  I think that would actually be quite welcome in the Wikipedia community - and if there were a significant 'levelling off' of new article creation, there might be the political will to make that happen.  SteveBaker (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that there is the possibility of 4 or 5 million at least. For example concerning notable persons from non-English speaking countries the coverage is still nowhere near the relevant language Wikipedias. A translation of all the notable persons, objects, events etc from the various languaged Wikipedias would easily amount to 1 or 2 million (if the number of articles added to these while this process is going on is added). Then think of all future events, objects and persons that will gain notability in the future, this will also secure a steady increase of articles, although of course not at the same rate as before. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that article about the North Koreans exploding a nuclear device satisfies WP:N. Shouldn't it just be part of a more general article about their nuclear potential? This sort of argument can be applied quite rightly to many old new stories so I'm  not sure there is inevitable growth. Dmcq (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we'll likely end up in the 4 to 5 million range before the article creation rate starts to significantly level out...but if you think of 10 subjects off the top of your head that would be notable and encyclopeadic - and go look them up - do you find that three quarters of them don't exist? Do you find that half of them don't exist?  Personally (and I do a LOT of article searching in answering questions here) - I doubt that one in fifty of the things I search for don't exist.
 * Notable persons from non-English speaking countries is certainly an area where we are missing articles. But whether they'll EVER be created is also problematic.  Getting someone to write these articles AND to reference them properly is going to be tough.  It's not just a matter of translating them into English.  The standards of referencing and notability in many of the more obscure non-English-language Wikipedia's is appallingly bad.  So what may have survived deletion in the Bulgarian Wikipedia might not make the cut in English or German Wikipedia's where patrolling for that kind of thing is much more intense.  There may ultimately be holes in our coverage of things that are notable - but without "English language notability".  As for the North Korean nuclear test - WP:N#TEMP say that notability is NOT temporary.  If this article is considered notable today (and I doubt VERY much that it'll be AfD'ed on grounds of non-notability anytime soon!) - then it's notability is established for all time.  It's possible that with the hindsight of history, it might be better rolled up into an article with larger context - but that's not always the case - and that source of article-lossage is pretty well balanced by articles that get too large and have to be split.  Often, when a large article is split - there wind up being not two - but half a dozen resulting articles.  SteveBaker (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (after ec)
 * Wikipedia is excellent in its coverage of subjects that have contemporary and English language Googleable sources, but otherwise it can be quite spotty. For example here are a few thousand subjects that are indisputably notable by current wikipedia standards, but are yet redlinks:
 * Padma Bhushan awardees
 * Padma Shri
 * Sahitya Akademi Award to Marathi Writers
 * Sahitya Akademi Award to Gujarati Writers
 * I can go on, but I think my point should be clear. Going from 2.5 million to 10 million articles does not necessarily involve diluting the notability standards, but perhaps will need more involvement of editors from non-English speaking countries and overcoming of some other systemic biases that ail current wikipedia topic selection. As for the date ... my best guess is eventually :) Abecedare (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that articles about all of those people could be written. Having an article that says "so-and-so worked on such-and-such and got some prize for doing it" isn't enough.  You have to write something more about them otherwise they should merely be relegated to "List of SSBPST recipients".  In order to write more, you have to find references - if nothing has been written about this person in multiple respectable sources - then that's going to be very difficult.   Besides - nobody is denying that there is a likelyhood of another million articles - the question is whether we're only hitting a QUARTER of the notable subjects about which properly referenced articles could be written.  You've found "a few thousand" - but that's maybe 0.05% of the number needed to hit 10 million articles.  Can you really find me 2,000 lists as long as the one you just presented us with (without duplication)?  I very much doubt it. SteveBaker (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "You are assuming that articles about all of those people could be written." Yes I am, because I know that to be true. People do not win some of India's highest civil awards without having a documented body of work. If you wish I can even list reliable sources that undoubtedly contain biographical material about most of the above listed literary and science awardees.
 * But, anyway, the point of my post was to illustrate that wikipedia's coverage is highly uneven and that it is not difficult to come up with things that we don't have articles for. I provided examples from India (since I knew exactly where to look) but the situation is similar, if not worse, for topics about China, Eastern Europe, Africa, South America etc. So 10 million articles is not really a stretch.
 * Finally, I don't think the "think of 10 subjects off the top of your head" and see how many of those are covered by wikipedia is an adequate test. For example, try it for Britannica (which has only 65,000 articles, and <0.5 million indexed terms) and you'll think it is already complete. The fundamental reason the test does not work is that thinking of subjects off the top of our head does not sample the space of all notable subjects uniformly. Regards.  Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree - back when Wikipedia had around 100,000 articles, it was extremely easy to find things that were not written about - pretty much anyone could find dozens of things to write about. As an owner of a set of Britannica - I can tell you that in most areas of life, it's woefully and obviously inadequate.
 * As for your Indian civil awards - that may be enough to guarantee passing the notability criteria - but a body of work isn't enough to write a properly referenced biography on that person - we'd need background material - who were the person's parents? What was their childhood like? ...and we need REFERENCES for those things.  Without that kind of in-depth detail, you don't have an article - you have a brief entry in a "List of..." article or a table someplace.  Furthermore, as I said, a few thousand such people from India doesn't come even close to one million articles - even if every country in the world awarded such things (they certainly do not!) and even if every one of those countries had population sizes comparable to India (which they don't) - there are only about 200 countries times a few thousand articles - you're maybe getting half a million articles that way...nowhere CLOSE to enough to hit the 10 million mark. SteveBaker (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can go on, but I think my point should be clear. Going from 2.5 million to 10 million articles does not necessarily involve diluting the notability standards, but perhaps will need more involvement of editors from non-English speaking countries and overcoming of some other systemic biases that ail current wikipedia topic selection. As for the date ... my best guess is eventually :) Abecedare (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that articles about all of those people could be written. Having an article that says "so-and-so worked on such-and-such and got some prize for doing it" isn't enough.  You have to write something more about them otherwise they should merely be relegated to "List of SSBPST recipients".  In order to write more, you have to find references - if nothing has been written about this person in multiple respectable sources - then that's going to be very difficult.   Besides - nobody is denying that there is a likelyhood of another million articles - the question is whether we're only hitting a QUARTER of the notable subjects about which properly referenced articles could be written.  You've found "a few thousand" - but that's maybe 0.05% of the number needed to hit 10 million articles.  Can you really find me 2,000 lists as long as the one you just presented us with (without duplication)?  I very much doubt it. SteveBaker (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "You are assuming that articles about all of those people could be written." Yes I am, because I know that to be true. People do not win some of India's highest civil awards without having a documented body of work. If you wish I can even list reliable sources that undoubtedly contain biographical material about most of the above listed literary and science awardees.
 * But, anyway, the point of my post was to illustrate that wikipedia's coverage is highly uneven and that it is not difficult to come up with things that we don't have articles for. I provided examples from India (since I knew exactly where to look) but the situation is similar, if not worse, for topics about China, Eastern Europe, Africa, South America etc. So 10 million articles is not really a stretch.
 * Finally, I don't think the "think of 10 subjects off the top of your head" and see how many of those are covered by wikipedia is an adequate test. For example, try it for Britannica (which has only 65,000 articles, and <0.5 million indexed terms) and you'll think it is already complete. The fundamental reason the test does not work is that thinking of subjects off the top of our head does not sample the space of all notable subjects uniformly. Regards.  Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree - back when Wikipedia had around 100,000 articles, it was extremely easy to find things that were not written about - pretty much anyone could find dozens of things to write about. As an owner of a set of Britannica - I can tell you that in most areas of life, it's woefully and obviously inadequate.
 * As for your Indian civil awards - that may be enough to guarantee passing the notability criteria - but a body of work isn't enough to write a properly referenced biography on that person - we'd need background material - who were the person's parents? What was their childhood like? ...and we need REFERENCES for those things.  Without that kind of in-depth detail, you don't have an article - you have a brief entry in a "List of..." article or a table someplace.  Furthermore, as I said, a few thousand such people from India doesn't come even close to one million articles - even if every country in the world awarded such things (they certainly do not!) and even if every one of those countries had population sizes comparable to India (which they don't) - there are only about 200 countries times a few thousand articles - you're maybe getting half a million articles that way...nowhere CLOSE to enough to hit the 10 million mark. SteveBaker (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I should add: I do agree with Steve that it will be a looong time before we actually have adequately referenced 10 million articles. We seem to have already picked the low-hanging fruit, and now are are in the long tail of our growth don't you love mixed metaphors :) - which IMO will depend heavily on increasing the (geographic, cultural and specialization) breadth of our contribution. Abecedare (talk)

Each day, Wikipedia gets more and more articles documenting a specific episode of vaguely notable TV shows (etC)... surely this is a more likely way of reaching the 10 million mark? Catoutofthebag (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all! Suppose there were new episodes of TV series made at a rate of one episode per day - it would take 19,662 years to create the needed 7 million new articles that way!  There certainly aren't 20 new episodes made every day (assuming you don't count news programs and such) - and even then, we'd be looking at around 1000 years for that source of articles to get us across the magic 10 million line.  But beyond that - you have to find something to say about each episode - and you have to back that up from reliable sources - that's pretty tough for the more obscure TV shows.  Wikipedia does have extensive episode-by-episode articles for some of the most popular series - but really only for the top few shows.  For example - we do have an amazing 441 articles - one for every single episode of "The Simpsons" (and one page for almost every character - and one about running jokes...and so forth) - and there is one article for each episode of "The Sopranos" too.  But that's quite misleading - it's certainly not true of every popular series.  Take 24 (TV series) - a spectacularly popular TV series.  It has a main article - one article about each series - but each show warrants only a single paragraph of synopsis.  If something as significant as 24 doesn't get one article per episode - it's not reasonable to assume that much more obscure shows will have them.  It's a similar situation with many shows - "The Apprentice" (to pick one at random) - same deal one main article plus one per series.  Top Gear - same deal.  So I don't think we can get even 100,000 articles this way for the forseeable future.  SteveBaker (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * New topics - easy peasy - There are oodles of bugs and bacteria that one could write articles about. Finding reliable sources and people who know enough and have enough access to write said articles - highly unlikely. But we are no where near that desperate yet.  My personal "laundry list" contains such mundane and "low hanging" fruit as Color catcher sheet and tension rod. (Please feel free to take them off my plate.) There are still plenty of redlinks for quite ordinary things in the plant and animal kingdoms, too. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - but we need SEVEN MILLION...that's an awfully big number. SteveBaker (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You just have to allow for time to find and describe them all. If you run out there BTW you could go to describing chemical substances. We make between 1500 and 2000 each year.  (We barely scratched the surface for those already created and in use.) The various results of protein folding might also be worth an article each to future generations.  Given our historical track record for technological progress we create numerous new words, products concepts and named pieces of software each year.  I'm also reminded of the "15 minutes of fame" saying which will probably lead to articles on newsworthy people and events. I guess it's going to be a while till we have to resort to bacteria or proteins for material.  71.236.24.129 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Lets just take it in terms of time.  There are 60 minutes in an hour, and 1,440 minutes in a day, so if we created one good article per minute, it would take 694 days, or a bit less than 2 years, to create 1 million articles.  To create 7 million new articles at that rate, it would take 13.3 years.  If you go to: Special:NewPages and page back about 2 days (to get past all the stuff that gets speedy deleted, then you see that a new worthy article gets created about every minute or so.  For example, this page:  lists 500 articles created between 12:20, May 25, 2009 and 19:48, May 25, 2009 which is 7*60+28 = 448 minutes, or about one article every 54 seconds or so.  So, revise my original estimate.  At that rate, it would take 11.9 years to reach 7 million more articles.  Looking at the rate of article creation over time, Wikipedia had its 1 millionth article after 5 years (see ), which is one article every 2 and a half minutes or so; and had its 2 millionth article after an additional 1.5 years or so (see: ) that the 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 rate was rougly one article every 47 seconds.  Now, as of this minute, there are give-or-take 2,893,878 articles, and its taken roughly 1 year, 8 months to get those extra 900,000 or so articles, meaning that we are now at a nominal article-creation rate of one article every 53.6 seconds, which is almost exactly what my random sample size showed above.  So, Wikipedia grew slow at first, hit a big burst of speed around 2,000,000 articles, and has now plateaued at about one article every 54 seconds, which means we should hit 10,000,000 articles some time in April, 2021.  Assuming that rate remains constant.  I suspect it will taper off some over time.  And we will hit 1 billion articles (at the rate of one article every 54 seconds) in roughly the year 4,009 AD. Give or take a year or two. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions about paypal
I'm trying to set up a paypal account so that I can send a friend a small amount of money to his paypal account. I have some questions


 * 1) How long do the transfers take?
 * 2) Is it possible to use a  prepaid credit card to send money with through paypal?
 * 3) Will my personal details be viewable to the other person when I send the money?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Questions needs answers111 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What did Paypal say when you emailed them? 86.3.22.178 (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, the PayPal help section is pretty wretched. On this page, PayPal says "We keep your bank and credit card details private from sellers."  Your name and address are shown, however, if memory serves.  The transfer of money from your PayPal account to your friend's PayPal account is immediate; if your friend wants to transfer the money from PayPal to his bank account, then I think it takes 3 or 4 days.  Not sure about prepaid credit cards, sorry.  Tempshill (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Paypal is pretty simple in the way it works. Even better if the recipient has a premium or business account (still free, but they take fees through paypal to paypal transfers as well instead of a monthly fee)


 * 1) Transfers are immediate, but withdrawing can take additional time depending on the method.  The first time I transferred to my bank account it took over a week.  As I did it more, it took around 2 to 3 days.
 * 2) If the prepaid card is through a company that paypal accepts credit payments from, you may do this.  However, you are less likely to have problems with paypal if you use a verified bank account to withdraw money.
 * 3) Personal details such as your address are generally viewable.  However, this depends on the method of giving money and the requirements of the particular form or request for money.  It will tell you what information wil be seen on your receipt.

As a tip, verify everything in your account and you are unlikely to have paypal take the money or hassle you in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.131.39.6 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

why is it we hear more stories about people being shot dead than animals?
do less animals get shot dead, or are they better at surviving gunshots, or do the media cover up animals shootings? Catoutofthebag (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because people are more interested in shootings of people than animals, which happen all the time. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you were to understand whale songs, your perception of newsworthy massacres and slaughters may be a different one. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Private Eye Magazine - Eye Need...
As an occasional reader of Private Eye i'm always intrigued by the 'eye need' part of the magazine. Is there any examples of people getting a response to their request? Example one includes:


 * "Struggling student: require £5,000 to pay fees: NatWest XX-XX-XX XXXXXXX" (where Xs is the account number and sort-code).
 * or
 * "YOUNG, GIFTED VIOLIST with a guaranteed place at London's Guildhall School of Music and Drama desperately needs funding to complete her studies. Needs 12K. Will even play for you! XXXXXXX NatWest XX-XX-XX XXXX" (removed phone/sort-code/account number).

Many of them are quite comical and so i'm assuming they are a joke, but some of them seem to be potentially real (or at least I don't get the joke). Anyone know if they are real or fake? (And if real do they get responders?). (Link http://www.eyeadvertise.co.uk/?section=classified&catid=13 )ny156uk (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone who's been involved in fundraising for registered charities in the past, I've often wondered this myself. Private Eye does have a smallish circulation, but it's a pretty affluent one, and the lineage ads are fairly inexpensive. I often considered placing such an ad for a genuine cause (as opposed to the usual gamut of hard luck stories and possible charlatans, such as those you cite) but never got round to it. I'd be fascinated if anyone has hard info on this. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've often wondered if these are parody or real, I'm occasionally tempted to call one of the numbers. I'm afraid I have no information from you, so consider this response just me adding myself to your question. 91.85.138.20 (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've always wondered about these too, and have occasionally been tempted to give some money to those with the more heart-wrenching stories (but I've always been a soft touch!) There was an article about charitable giving in The Guardian at the beginning of the month, where the writer contacted several people who advertised to see whether they had received any responses/donations. Apparently, the answer was a pretty resounding no, at least as far as getting money was concerned. Actually, it seems someone at The Guardian is quite invested in getting the answer to this, as they also had a go at contacting Eye Need advertisers in 2000; again they apparently didn't find anyone who had gotten money. -- Kateshort forbob  11:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What the heck are these things?
Any idea what these things could be? I found them at a garage sale in California, and I've spotted a couple of them online (eBay and such) but none of the sellers know what they are either. They're made of brass, with some dense wood on the handle; the longest is about 6 in long. The tips are not spoon-like; they seem more like the instruments are to be pressed down on something. The reverse (behind the Buddha) says "Willy Made In Siam".

Any informed guesses? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like a Hair stick to me. Nanonic (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be. But why would they come in a graduated set? And what's the purpose of the blunted end? Hair sticks are usually pointed. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Google and check the first ghit.  They are ornamental letter openers.  152.16.59.190 (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I found that too - but look closely - it has a blade - jpgordon's don't. SteveBaker (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! This is a good one!  A couple of places I found claim that the handles are made of ivory.  One points out that they must have been made before 1949 because that's the year Siam became Thailand.  This is an interesting lead - it has an identical-looking end and handle - but with a blade instead of the rounded rod - the claim is that this bladed form is a letter opener - which I have to agree with.  OK - but it's otherwise identical to your 'sticks'.  So I wonder if these are used in a similar office setting? SteveBaker (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Intriguing indeed! Found some more instruments apparently made by the same company, but still have no idea what they or the "mystery thing" is. JPgordan, can you post higher resolution pictures of the instrument tips ? Abecedare (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh - jeez - that just makes things worse! So they made letter openers and tableware with matching handles - that just means that they might have made almost anything else with the same handles - so these things may not be used in either an office or a tableware setting.  Argh!  The fact that these artifacts come in three sizes (and one of the online sellers of these things had a boxed set of two that were also different sizes - so they were obviously sold like this)...that's gotta be a clue. SteveBaker (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More pictures (with names) of the tableware:, . The mystery objects don't seem to be part of the set. Abecedare (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get better pics tomorrow. More info -- I think these were three of a set of four; they came in two boxes, and I think one "thing" was missing. I do so love mysteries like this. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is just a wild guess, but: I dimly remember seeing a film of an artist (Japan ? / calligraphy ? / silk painting ?)  using similar sticks in his art work.  The tip has a hollow sleeve and is used to insert the appropriate sized brush or nib or whatever.  Unfortunately, Googling does not show any examples of such a tool.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe they are for eating nuts. You insert the correct end into the newly cracked nut to pry out the contents. We are a very evolved species. Bus stop (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you make a photo of one of those things from the side? Letter openers are blade-shaped and flat, these things would seem to be round. Also, I think the pointed tip is more important than the ornamental handle. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those things might date back to the point in time at which man broke away from his animal ancestors. This may be the proof of evolution we've been looking for. Bus stop (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I might not be able to get to a photo today -- it's a trans-Death-Valley commute day for me and the photographer. But: the ends are solid cylinders, not pointed, flat perpendicular to the axis of the rod (and the rod is also completely cylindrical, round in cross-section for the entire length including the end.) I do like Bus stop's theory, however, even though it implies man broke away from his animal ancestors, which the photographer and I question (she says woman may have done so, but she doesn't think man has yet.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are they some sort of weaving/knitting needle, macrame comes to mind, yes I know macrame does not normally use a needle, I'm grabbing at anything! On the other side of the spectrum the shape of the shaft and tip reminds me somewhat of a urological probe or ear wax remover, yes I know, but I can't help my previous experience. Richard Avery (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again - the problem with this theory is the question of why you would want weaving/knitting needles, urological probes or ear-wax removers in a range of subtly different lengths? SteveBaker (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A graduated set of smooth-ended long probes suggests they might be medical sounds which would be successively introduced in the Urethra for Urethral sounding to restore urine flow (or for whatever reason). Edison (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Urethral probes, beautifully decorated to match your letter opener and tableware? There must be some amazing cultural differences in Thailand! :-)  But why the three subtly different lengths?  (Oh - wait.  OK - on the other hand, I don't want to know!) SteveBaker (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: We know they are different lengths - and that's very puzzling - but is it possible that the protruberances on the ends are different diameters? That might be a significant clue. SteveBaker (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. They're all identical. And of course I can't take any more photos until Saturday, since I left them in Kernville, CA. And, no, these sure aren't going into any urethras. And since they're blunt ended, they're not going to scraping anything. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say "handle" in your OP, which end are you talking about, the buddha end, or the weird-shaped bit at the bottom of pic#1? And when you say "pressed down", this can't mean a force exerted transaxially at one end producing a force at the other end, they're much too slender for that. Even an axial force from one end to the other is questionable.
 * I'm wildly guessing something to do with ear (or possibly nose) cleaning at this point. The difference in length would affect the precision with which you could clean the ear canal, depending on how big the ear was. Franamax (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a pointer, for reading holy texts. Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * may be used as Toothpick or Cocktail stick - manya (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * or even better as Hair stick - manya (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, a toothpick for people who have 1/4 inch gaps between their teeth. Oh, good idea regarding being a pointer; the blunt end might be to prevent from tearing fragile material. When I say handle, I mean the part with the Buddha and the wood/laminate/horn/whatever dark part riveted there. No, they aren't slender -- they're quite sturdy, not easily bendable. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Who the heck needs three pointers, three nose pickers or three ear cleaners all in different lengths?!?! We know they were sold in boxed sets with 2 or four of them in different lengths. SteveBaker (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Since we seem to have narrowed the objects down to having something to do with Thailand, you might get lucky by asking at Project Thailand. Since most of the other similar items were tableware, these might be used in a loop to hold rolls of tablecloth together or something like that. We have no page for toggle=button. (another wild guess, I'm afraid.) 71.236.24.129 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked at Wikiproject Thailand Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've decided to guess that they are cocktail stirrers. Different lengths for tall, medium or short glasses.  Rounded ends so that they don't scratch the glassware.  That fits with the tableware theme too.  I bet I'm wrong though...this is a tough one! SteveBaker (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue for me with that is that would imply you use the Buddha end to stir. To me this seems unlikely (it seems more likely to be the handle), but I could be wrong Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For sure the skinny end is the end you'd have to stir with - all of the other utensils in the range have the same handles as these objects. But do a google images search on "cocktail stirrer" and you'll see gazillions of different stirrers - mostly with fancy decorated handles and a simple 'bulge' at the business end. SteveBaker (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If they did not come in sets of 3, I would have guessed chopsticks. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No! Chopsticks of different lengths?! SteveBaker (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't look like chopsticks to me, but our article does claim (uncited) that chopsticks may come in three sizes (for men, women and children). Angus Lepper(T, C) 15:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but they would come in pairs of the same size, not one of each. --Tango (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, my point was more that the different lengths alone was not necessarily enough to dismiss the idea. Angus Lepper(T, C) 15:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True - but they look like they'd be really badly unbalanced for chopsticks - that big heavy top end...I can't imagine them being very easy to use that way. SteveBaker (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am now convinced that these are the Thai analogs of the Chinese water torture. In the 1940s they used to leave the three sticks in a prisoner's cell, who would drive himself insane trying to imagine what purpose they could possibly serve. The blunt ends prevented him from using them for any nefarious purpose; the Willy mark is a (cunningly misspelled) clue. With the advent of the internets, simple photographs of the instruments suffice. That's my theory and I am sticking with it! Abecedare (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * &lt;drip&gt;, &lt;drip&gt;, &lt;drip&gt;...OK! I'll talk!


 * I took another careful look at the picture at right. Look at the rivets that hold the black parts together.  They are in totally different places on all three 'things'.  That suggests to me that these things are at least somewhat hand-made.  A machine would have put them in more or less the same place each time.  So I suppose it's possible that the reason behind the three different lengths is just that the guy who makes them is just a very sloppy worker.  Well...it's a thought. SteveBaker (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

One guess is that these were used to undo button boots, which were worn about a hundred or more years ago. See a picture here http://www.corsetsandcrinolines.com/timelineitem.php?index=191024 The clue is in the tapered neck near the end - this seems more complicated to make than just a straight wire, so it must have had a purpose. The neck may be to aid in levering around something - the buttons on the button boots. The end was not sharp to avoid damaging the leather. From what I vaguely remember of mentions of them in old literature, the boots were worn tight, and they took a long time and were difficult to put on or remove. While the plain items would have been thrown away when the fashion for button boots ended, the fancy ones were kept. Searching for "button boots" gutenberg on Google produces many mentions of them. Looking at the photo I imagine they were undone by levering a button away from the edge of the button-hole, so that it could be released, by using the lower button as a fulcrum. If that is the case, then the neck is in the right place. I understand that hooks were used to do up the boots, and these may have been quicker and easier alternative to undo them, and perhaps something of a luxury item. On the other hand as I cannot find an illustration of these and button hooks together, perhaps they were just letter openers, with a blunt end to avoid damaging the contents, and the thinner neck to help in ripping the envelope open. Or staying with the lever idea, perhaps they were for cracking open lobsters or oysters. The decoration may perhaps have something to do with a fashion for orientalism which occurred at some time after the re-discoverey of Angkor Wat in 1860; from the PDF here https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs103080200002 "The temple ruins of Angkor Watt, a Siamese possession attached by the French to Cambodia, became one of the most popular attractions for French artists and tourists alike. A mammoth replica of Angkor Watt was the centerpiece of the 1931 Colonial Exhibition in Paris, an event that drew several million visitors." The fact that "Siam" is on similar ones to them does suggest those ends were mass-produced by moulding, but assembled by hand, which more suggests a 1930s origin, and too late for button boots. The black parts might be teak, also from the East. I would like to see more pictures of the narrow end - are the tips cylindrical as I suppossed, or are they flattened? If flattened then they were made for inserting or poking in something, most likely letter openers as previously suggested. 89.240.40.4 (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC) --

So to add to the mystery.... I found a set of three of these at my dads house in the kitchen drawer with all of his other decorative stir sticks. Im selling my set of three on ebay as such. A rude person emailed me to inform me that they were hair sticks. I have very long hair and tried to use them as hair sticks. Because of the "NUB" on the end without the god/godess, it pulls at your hair. The end is not pointed like most hair sticks. It sounds more reasonable to me that they are drink stirrers because of the different lengths.I found another website that stated they were bronze not brass and bone. Shanendale 04/02/2013