Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 June 12

= June 12 =

Star Trek
What city is the capital of Earth in Star Trek? --75.25.103.109 (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Answered at the Entertainment desk. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed? [RefDesk statistics]
how the volume of questions on the REFERENCE pages has dramatically fallen since the QUESTIONS button was removed from the MAIN PAGE? 92.30.43.128 (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't noticed a drop in the volume of questions on the reference pages, and I'm here every day. Also, I didn't know that any 'questions' button existed or was removed. -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To be fair, the usage or knowledge of the questions link by regulars isn't particularly relevant to whether it's demise has made it significantly more different for random people to find the RD (which must be the OPs point) Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Nil, I did understand that. That's why my reference to the questions link came after another sentence with more relevance to the original question. The point was, whether there was a button or not, or whether said button has ceased to be or not, I have not noticed any drop in questions on the refdesks. -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a link that was removed, we've discussed it before. I had thought you meant agreed it existed but felt it was relevant to the discussion that you weren't previously aware of its existence (which is more of an aside then of any relevance to the discussion IMHO) not that you weren't sure whether it really existed (which is obviously relevant). Personally I have no idea if the volume of contribs has dropped off (although I somewhat doubt it's done so dramatically) but I would like some more statistics then the personal feelings of random editors (no disrespect to anyone but as 82 emphasises people of feel something that actual statistics show are wrong) however since the OP is the one who made the claim in the first place, they do of course have the responsibility to back up their claim. However I don't know if it's been long enough for meaningful statistics unless there really has been a dramatic drop (which as I've said I doubt) and the world cup would potentially complicate things even if we wait a few more weeks. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've personally noticed a drop in overall activity on the Reference Desk compared with 2008/09. However, apparently the archive statistics don't support this; they show activity has been pretty much steady all the time. 82.43.89.11 (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, but apart from all the foregoing verbiage, particularly from Nil, who seems to be re-enacting the scene which depicts Lady Macbeth repeatedly washing her hands - in denial - I am not hearing anything in support of NON-WIKI-Regulars who may not be aware that they have the opportunity to actually ASK a question, without trawling through all the T's and C's of Wikipedia. In other words, why was the decision taken to obfuscate the previous ease of access to the Reference Desks for the uninitiated? I don't expect to successfully influence a reversal of that decision of course, given that Wikipedia has become the domain of the intelligentsia, as witnessed by the foregoing responses, and their incognito honour guard, who in some instances, seem also to be in total denial that a QUESTIONS button even ever existed. But I do hold fast to my view that by hiding the previously well-displayed QUESTIONS facility from the general and uninitiated visitor, Wikipedia has cheapened itself and lost a lot of its claim to be an open reference site for EVERYONE. 92.30.42.229 (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But there is a handy link to the Ref Desks at "Other areas of Wikipedia" on the main page. It's highly visible, and anyone can click on it and then ask away.  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   07:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an inappropriate place to soapbox. You can register your opinion here and if you can do it without a lot of wild accusations, someone might actually listen to you. This non-question is now closed. Matt Deres (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No don't post there, it's the wrong place. The disappearence of the links was unrelated to the skin change. Try Talk:Main Page instead. I do find it somewhat ironic that 92 is complaining about me when last time they asked Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 May 31 I was the one who directed them to the discussion pertaining to the change, suggested they take part in that discussion and then when they completely failed to, I noted their comment in that discussion in the hope that the people who made the change would see it since it seemed it would be the only way they would given the OP wasn't apparently going to. And as I noted in that discussion I did feel the change didn't have enough discussion (and in fact as is clear from the tone of some of my responses I didn't entirely agree with it but didn't really care that much either way). Beyond the soapboxing, even if this was a genuine question it isn't the right place as the very Questions whose disappeared link they've complaining does of course note "The Reference Desk is like a library reference desk where you can ask questions on any topic apart from Wikipedia itself" and "Help Desk is the main place to ask a question and also where to turn when all else fails." Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Team in the World Hockey Championships

 * I have added a title. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

How can I find the player roster for the Canadian team that won the World Hockey Championships in Prague in 1938? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.250.195 (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The players are listed near the bottom of 1938 World Ice Hockey Championships. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Fans blowing horns in the soccer World Cup
I've been following some of the games in the soccer World Cup. It seems that there's a constant background sound in the broadcasts, like thousands of spectators blowing in horns of some kind. I don't remember hearing this kind of noise in any other games in other major soccer tournaments I've watched. I mean, people singing and chanting is normal, but this constant horn sound seems to cover everything under it. Can somebody tell me what's going on here, or is this just business as usual in the World Cup? Zigorney (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Vuvuzela is the answer to your questions. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I thought it might be something cultural, since we're on a whole new continent. :) Zigorney (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is interesting, isn't it? I was interested to note there's been much less vuvuzela noise in the current England/USA match than in the games yesterday, at least at the beginning. There were more air horns, and it's possible that the England fans were blowing rhythms with them like with air horns rather than the constant 'buzz' the locals produce. The buzzing was higher at moments of high tension, which is almost the opposite of what seemed to happen yesterday (I assume they all stopped blowing to watch closely during attempts on goal). 86.164.69.239 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I could definitely hear 'God save the Queen' at some point, and 'USA! USA! USA!' as well, so it wasn't completely overpowering. I'll have to watch the next South-Africa team's match just to see how crazy it gets. Zigorney (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And 'Rule Britannia', and 'The Great Escape' and that rhythm that I forget the name for... But yeah, the first South Africa match, you could see the players and referee were really struggling to hear each other over the buzzing! 86.164.69.239 (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why cant they all shut up and watch the game?--Artjo (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There was the same sound - and the same complaints - during last year's Confederations Cup - again in South Africa. --Магьосник (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is designed to dispel the stereotype that Africans have rhythm. Yaris678 (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that's not the culture around football. The culture is that the crowd makes noise in support of their team, as a form of involvement. In England, that noisy support takes the form of songs, chants and rhythms: there's even a band that plays during England matches. In South Africa, it seems to be the vuvuzelas. I can see the argument that they're noisy and annoying, but they're also a distinctive part of South African football, and an opportunity for South African businesses to make money from the visiting supporters. To ban that without a really good reason would be a little perverse. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this report, "South Africa's World Cup organising chief Danny Jordaan may ban vuvuzelas from inside stadiums after complaints from broadcasters and supporters."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, the South African goalkeeper claims they only tied the first game because they couldn't hear the vuvuzelas http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/795314/ce/uk/&cc=5901?ver=us. Simeon  24601  (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Bronze Star Recipients
How do I add my name, Robert T DeFriese, to this catagory? I wil gladly send my DD-214 as Verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defrieseartee (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia category of Bronze Star recipients would only include those who were in general notable enough to have their own biographical encyclopedia article. Every recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor is considered notable pretty much automatically, but not necessarily so for lesser medals for valor. That said, I certainly respect your heroism and the contribution you made. Edison (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: OP indef'd as an Elsie sock. Not deleting the question and answer, because the answer is useful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes the Football Association official?
How come this organisation gets to choose England's team for international sporting events etc.? Is it authorised by the British government? Where do its powers come from? (And I guess a parallel case for cricket and other sports – who authorises 'governing bodies' to so be?) ╟─TreasuryTag► Woolsack ─╢ 21:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it is responsible for organising football in England, and is affiliated to FIFA which organises international competitions like the World Cup. It is funded and organised independently, so far as I know.  Organising sport is not a government function - enabling it to happen may be.  Why should the UK government have anything to do with it - other than recognising its role and responsibilities, and liaising with it when appropriate?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because what would happen if another organisation claimed to be the UK's football body, put up its own team and demanded that they be allowed to play in Britain's name? Surely this is a government function, to determine who gets to represent the country on the world stage? ╟─TreasuryTag► duumvirate ─╢ 21:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it is responsible for organising football in England. And how is this responsibility conferred? ╟─TreasuryTag► estoppel ─╢ 21:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There might or might not be a government agency involved. Major League Baseball is the top dog in baseball in America simply through custom. Someone else could start a baseball league if they wanted to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it is not a government function. The Football Association in England is one of the founding members of both UEFA and FIFA. The members are not countries but football associations. The associations pick teams and may be suspended if their governments interfere with the association. See FIFA. See also 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) and http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/releases/newsid=781993.html?cid=rssfeed&att=. To confirm the official FIFA status of The Football Association, see "Association Information" at http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=eng/index.html. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How can another organisation "demand that they be allowed to play in Britain's name"? First, they would need to be recognised by FIFA, and the FA, SFA etc. de-recognised.  Why would FIFA do that?  I'm sure it's a hypothetical possibility, for instance if the FA defaulted on its responsibilities, but no more than that.  In any case, it's nothing to do with the government.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, UEFA stands for Union of European Football Associations, and FIFA stands for Fédération Internationale de Football Association. See also El Salvador national football team (government interference) and Ethiopian Football Federation (I don't know whether the government was involved). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, UEFA stands for Union Européenne du Football Association, or in English European Soccer Union. Sussexonian (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the French and official name is Union des Associations Européennes de Football but that doesn't match the letter order in UEFA. Your Union Européenne du Football Association has a few Google hits, possibly by people trying to match the abbreviation, but it isn't used anywhere on the official site. I don't know whether they chose the abbreviation UEFA to match the English name Union of European Football Associations which is the html title of the French version of the offical site http://fr.uefa.com. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * One country that did have a bunfight over who got to pick the team was Iraq, FIFA told them to stop mucking about and then banned them from all competitions. Nanonic (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * At one time in the U.S., there was a dispute between two organizations over which one was in charge of football in the country. See the "History" section of the North American Soccer League. —  Michael J 22:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ... and for other examples of disputes and challenges to governing bodies of sports/games, see World Series Cricket and Professional Chess Association. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been different soccer leagues in the U.S. but the United States Soccer Federation has always (since 1914 and it was founded in 1913) been the FIFA member and selected the national team for FIFA tournaments. See http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=usa/index.html. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There were competing organisations in Sweden too in the early 20th Century and I think things like that has happened in many countries, more or less open. However, they usually come to terms with things eventually and the government has nothing to do with it, at least not in democracies (it was another thing in Nazi Germany or in the old Communist countries of Europe, and there are accusations of the same towards some countries even today, all more or less un-democratic of course, like China and North Korea). It is however more complicated if there are multiple international bodies claiming to represent the sport, as in pro boxing, but that has never been the case with football (i.e. soccer). The Great Cucumber (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Irish Football Association and the Football Association of Ireland both put up teams named "Ireland" and selected players from the whole island between the 1920s and 1950s, when they finally recognised that Partition had taken place. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a huge amount of inertia in sports, such that once one organization takes control of a sport in a given nation, it would be very difficult for any other to compete. See Arena Football League (1987–2008) for an example in the US of an attempt at creating a new variant of American football.  So, it's really only during the early stages of a sport in a given nation where multiple franchises might compete.  Then it's up to the world body (or regional body) for that sport to decide which franchise to back. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Improve memory
I've done a google search for "improve memory" but there are so many results and different, sometimes conflicting approaches. What is the best way to improve my memory? I'm often forgetting things 82.43.90.93 (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The best way to improve memory is probably to practise using it. There are many associative techniques that memory experts use.  You've probably read about them in your search.  Just try some and see what works for you.  I assume you've read the articles on Memory and Mnemonic.   D b f i r s   22:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Remind me of the associative techniques. I used to know some....  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)  ... ... What associative techniques?    D b f i r s   15:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And, if you can't improve your memory sufficiently, make notes, instead. Can't remember what to buy at the grocery store ? Make a list ?  Can't remember what you needed to do today ?  Make a list ?  Can't remember your kid's names ?  Make a list !  (Digital voice recorders are helpful for those who don't like all that writing.) StuRat (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Making a list is very good for improving memory, because the action of writing reinforces the memory. If you say the words while making the list, you're using three different senses (sight, touch, sound) to get the words into your memory. If you "make a mental note" what senses are you using? No wonder you forget! --TammyMoet (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Driver's license
citizenship? ==

There's one facet of the Arizona immigration law that I fail to grasp, and I'm hoping that someone here understands the fine print better than I've been able to so far.

Suppose that I, being brownish of skin and black of hair, am rounded up for some reason, and required to prove my citizenship. I don't have naturalization papers, my birth certificate is a faded and torn copy of a copy that stays in my file cabinet at home -- how does an American citizen actually prove that they're a citizen? Is a Driver's License really sufficient?

(What if I'm a kid who doesn't drive?)

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * from Identity_document (scroll down a little to "United States"): Individuals who do not drive are able to obtain an identification card with the same functionality from the same state agency that issues driver's licenses. -- 109.193.27.65 (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you might (probably) have a social security number which can be verified. Though it's a bit longer process to do that than to have the cops check for an ID from the DMV.  Dismas |(talk) 23:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea is that the state department of motor vehicles – along with certain other state agencies – will verify your citizenship or legal immigration status before issuing you with a drivers' license (or other state ID). That said, the law means that if you go out for a walk without carrying your wallet – and you're not white – you can be arrested and detained, whether you're in the country legally (or even a full citizen) or not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OP here: OK, at this point my question is answered. Thanks, Ten. DaHorsesMouth (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the colour of one's skin got to do with anything? --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   00:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Legally, nothing at all. It is possible police are more likely to run spot checks on non-whites, but I don't think they do spot checks for immigration status anyway (I can't see how that would work). I'm not sure about the US, but in the UK you can be detained by the police for the purposes of identifying you, but they wouldn't bother doing that without some reason. --Tango (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One complaint about SB 1070 (which is the bill referenced above) is that individuals can sue a city if they believe that they are not checking the immigration status of people whom they may have a "reasonably suspicion" of being here illegally. So the cops are stuck between being sued for alleged racial profiling and being sued for not checking papers... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 02:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically, according to a recent article in one of the weekly news magazines, the population is stabilizing in Mexico and more jobs are turning up. And when they stop coming here because they no longer need to, it will be interesting to watch what happens, or doesn't happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Jack &mdash; see driving while black. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm aware there's endemic racism wherever you care to look. But I was querying whether the law itself discriminates against non-whites in the way TenOfAllTrades suggests.  Anyone can be arrested and detained if the police have a sufficient reason to do so.  Non-whites might stand a greater chance of detention in some circumstances/places, but the law itself is not written with that end in mind.  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   07:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The law requires a 'reasonable suspicion' before someone without papers can be asked about their status. Given two individuals – one Caucasian, one Hispanic, otherwise identical – which do you think will be more likely to be questioned about his immigration status, and which do you think is more likely to end up detained pending proof of citizenship?  Because the majority of illegal aliens in Arizona are from Mexico and are Hispanic, it is Hispanic individuals (legally in the United States or not) who will be the predominant target of checks.  Effectively, this imposes an ID requirement on non-Caucasian residents of Arizona.  Jack &mdash; while the letter of the law does not explicitly spell out that non-whites (and, perhaps, non-middle-class individuals) will be harrassed and detained in greater numbers, you can be quite confident that it was indeed 'written with that end in mind'.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you're confusing the practical effect of the law with its intent in principle, but I can see what you're getting at. However, I'm confused on another point now: you were originally talking about "non-whites", which would include people of African descent but not hispanics.  Now you're talking about caucasians vs. hispanics, as if hispanics are not a sub-set of caucasians, which would be news to most hispanics.  They are both caucasian and white, so I'm not sure what your argument has been about from the beginning.  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   19:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hispanics being Caucasian would be news to most Americans. In the US, Hispanic = Mexican = non-white. Matt Deres (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * . That surprises the heck out of me, Matt.  What about Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and other non-Mexicans?  Many of these people have no indigenous heritage but are of purely European (mainly Spanish) stock.  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   20:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The facts matter little, I'm afraid. Consider the case of baseball before Jackie Robinson broke the colour barrier. The "All-White" teams obviously had no blacks, but they also didn't allow Hispanics, unless they were sufficiently white to pass as "light skinned Cubans"... because obviously a light-skinned Cuban is vastly racially superior to a slightly darker skinned fellow from the Dominican or something. Insane. Of course, those all-white teams also sometimes had Native Americans on them, though they almost certainly would not have allowed an Indian (i.e. someone from India) on the team, despite them being racially closer to the whites. Double insane. Hell, my wife is a Filipina and she's been told to "get back to Mexico" before. I don't even try to make sense of it. Matt Deres (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * White people tells me that, in the USA, white and Caucasian are interchangeable terms. White Hispanic and Latino Americans tells me that American hispanics are not necessarily white, but 62% of them are (leaving 38% who are not). Hence, a random hispanic is almost twice as likely to be white (= Caucasian) than not. I acknowledge your counter-examples, but they don’t seem to disprove the general situation. --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus"> ... speak! ...   10:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a federal case some years ago that decided that failure to produce an ID - while not engaged in driving, or any other activity that requires a license - was not in itself sufficient evidence of criminal behavior to justify an arrest and / or search. Does anyone know the case I am thinking of?  I'd like to look it up again.  The idea that a citizen can't be detained merely for failure to produce ID seems very relevant to the recent changes in Arizona.  Dragons flight (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would note that this is quickly becoming a discussion instead of a chance to answer the poster's question. This is not a forum. I believe the question has already been answered: a state-issued ID card, such as a driver's license or non-driver ID card, should be more than enough proof of citizenship. Will it be double-checked? Quite possibly, yes, but that double-check should only verify what is already known ... that the bearer is a legal resident. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't see mention of a passport. Although most native-born Americans don't have one, a U.S. passport is also proof of U.S. citizenship.  The OP asked about proof of citizenship, but there are few federal documents other than a passport that can confirm citizenship.  I believe it's possible to serve in the U.S. military without being a citizen, and so a military ID isn't necessary proof positive.  There's nothing else I can think of for native-born Americans similar to a certificate of naturalization or a certificate of citizenship.
 * Admittedly, there's a fair chance the cop asking for proof might never have seen a U.S. passport.
 * I was born in Canada, had a green card (back when they were still green), and derived U.S. citizenship through my parents, who became naturalized citizens while I was a minor. I was able to register to vote in three states by affirming (truthfully) to the registrar that I was in fact a U.S. citizen, though those cross-checking-free days are long gone.  When in my 30s I finally applied for a certificate of citizenship, the immigration attorney strongly advised me to apply that same week for a U.S. passport.  The certificate of citizenship stays in the safe deposit box; the passport's with me whenever I travel, even domestically. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-citizens serving in the US military can become citizens though.--178.167.161.51 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012084722_chandler11.html and Chandler Roundup. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And driver's license is not proof of citizenship or residency. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You would have to wonder if an Arizona policeman might not accept Barack Obama's birth certificate as proof of citizenship. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

When I lived in Belgium, there was a law that anyone found on the street without photo ID (Belgium has a compulsory national identity card system) and at least 10 euros in cash, could be arrested as a vagrant and held overnight in a police cell. Unsurprisingly, the only times I ever heard of this being enforced were against people of a darker complexion... 86.138.72.175 (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)