Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 March 23

= March 23 =

Predator cavalry
I was browsing the Wojtek (soldier bear) and thought why no one has employed predators such as bears and lions for warfare (yes I know the bear cavalry meme). Armies did use more resource hugging mounts and other Military animals for various purposes but no large predators.--121.54.2.188 (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Training bears or lions would take a large amount of manpower for the work gained. As far as hauling equipment, there are better choices when it comes to the ability to be trained and the amount that they can carry.  Draft horses would be easier to train and you wouldn't have to worry about the horse eating your men.  As far as attacking the enemy, bears are fairly slow when compared with dogs or lions.  And again with lions, you'd have to concern yourself with making sure the lion didn't turn on you in the heat of battle.
 * Then there's the hogging (not hugging) of resources as you mention. Large predators such as the lion need a high protein diet which means meat.  Meat is heavy, has to be kept pest free, and is expensive.  Meanwhile, grains for horses is cheaper, less likely to spoil, and rather light on a mass per mass basis.  Dismas |(talk) 08:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's the difficulty of capturing large numbers of lions/bears. Users of war elephants tended to run out of beasts quite quickly, and I can't imagine it's much easier to catch a lion.  Rearing them is not practical on long campaigns.  I'm not sure if you would be successful setting your predators on the enemy: lions typically kill and eat when hungry but spend most of their time asleep and don't respond to orders, so you would probably have to keep them starved, dropping them in the middle of the enemy at the time of battle and running away very quickly to ensure they did not eat your soldiers. --Normansmithy (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, most predators do not commonly attack humans unless provoked, ill, or deprived of usual food (see man-eater). --Normansmithy (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Large predators are a pain in the ass to feed (sometimes literally!) and care for - all just so that at the moment of truth, they decide to up and die or run the wrong way or something. You might be interested in Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs by Adrienne Mayor. It's all about the use of biological and chemical weapons in antiquity. Think a bear on the battlefield is scary? Try getting knocked over the head with a clay ball filled with angry hornets. Matt Deres (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Equally, try being the slave required to stuff hornets into clay balls... --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How could they bake the clay without killing the hornets? Googlemeister (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have to bake it, just let it dry. I'm sure they would tunnel their way out eventually, but maybe you could toss it at the enemy before then. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe they used pre-fired pots and then just stuffed a cork or other stopper in the hole. That's going by my memory, though. Matt Deres (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See military animal. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also consider that bears or lions aren't that dangerous in a frontal assault on a well-armed enemy. 10 people with spears can easily dispatch a lion or bear that tries to attack them.  So now all you've done is provide the enemy with fresh meat to eat. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore most large cats sleep most of the day and are typically only capable of running short bursts before running out of energy. Not to mention the problem whether their backs would actually be physically strong enough to carry a rider and usually his very heavy equipment. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the OP's question has been largely answered. I could summarize it as this: Predators are too unreliable. The basic problem is that you can explain a battle plan to the most simple-minded soldier, and he'll probably get it. You can't "explain" anything to an animal - it has to be trained in some Pavlovian way, because it doesn't really understand why it's being asked to do what you want it to do. With beasts of burden, the problem is much less. You feed them, and they're willing to haul stuff. They don't know why, but they go along with it. Soldiers may not understand all the higher-level ramifications of why they are in a war, but they know what to expect and how to defend against it. As StuRat suggests, the predators wouldn't have a clue, so they could easily be defeated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Awww :( Well I hope that Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs is available here in my country. Looks like a good read.--121.54.2.188 (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From the Philippines, I see. I don't know about where you might get it locally, but it's available from Amazon and other online booksellers. I highly recommend it. Some of the chemical and physical substances used in wars past are quite astonishing: catapulting a dish of red-hot sand onto the enemy so that the tiny grains would burn straight into their flesh, poisoned wells, poisoned wine, poisoned honey, booby-trapped clothes that self-ignited. Cringe-inducing, but fascinating. Matt Deres (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Like these ones? Exploding trousers  Googlemeister (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Vatican soccer teams
Can anyone tell me the names of all the soccer teams involved in the Vatican soccer championship? The teams represent the different services working for the Vatican State. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinvillier (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Italian Wikipedia's article on Campionato di calcio della Città del Vaticano only lists the champions between 1973 and 1994, claiming that the championship ceased to exist after that year (meanwhile the Clericus Cup has become quite popular). This list, however, lists Cup winners for 2007-2009 as well, with the gap of ten years (1995-2006) marked as "unknown". (One German site I found stated the Cup was secret and not open for the public). Anyhow, the 9-10 teams (out of a total of 16 or 17, according to various sites) I was able to glean from these sites are: Astor Osservatore Romano and Tipografia Osservatore Romano, Fortitudo Governatorato, Malepeggio Edilizia, Hercules Biblioteca, Hermes Musei Vaticani, Virtus Vigilanza, Teleposte, Servizi Tecnici, Ariete APSA, Servizi Economici, and Dirseco. ---Sluzzelin talk  18:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not well-advertised but the Clericus Cup folks do have a website: []. There appears to be a break in the schedule over Easter. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Identify this breed of dog.
I saw a very large dog the other day and I'd like to know what breed it was. It was almost, but not quite as tall as a Great Dane, and much more thickset. Its coat was mostly black with maybe some brown and white lower down, and slightly shaggy. This was not a smooth-haired dog. Any help much appreciated, thanks. --Richardrj talkemail 13:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wild guesses: A Leonberger or a Bernese Mountain Dog? Do you remember more about what its head, ears, or tail looked like? ---Sluzzelin talk  13:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great guesswork, it was that Bernese one. Thanks Sluzzelin. --Richardrj talkemail 13:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Horse with toes
As an off shoot of a prev question I was reading several articles about military animals and came across a mention of Ceasars horse that had toes. ??? I would like to know more about this, any help would be appreciated. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Caesar's "toed horse" story comes from Life of Julius Caesar by Suetonius (, paragraph LXI). He doesn't go into much detail, and bear in mind that Suetonius lived 150 years after Caesar, so whether it's true or not is anyone's guess.  Apparently horses can be born with odd vestigal toes, but I don't know much about that. FiggyBee (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. I have seen other pictures in books where the "toe" is more like a wart on the heel.If you look at the evolution of the horse ,you can see how the toes shrank back into the leg,forming the splint bones.Obviously,occasionally,like other polydactyl animals,oddities occur..hotclaws 21:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is prostitution such a taboo?
Considering that money permeates every aspect of our life, and that we can pay a psychologist to listen to us, a cook to cook for us, a driver to drive us, and much else. Why do people often have such strong feelings regarding prostitution?--ProteanEd (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Our History of prostitution and Prostitution articles are relevant. The former speculates that the hardening of attitudes against prostitution in 1500s Europe may have been related to a big syphilis outbreak.  (This doesn't directly answer your question about the strength of the feelings, but it's a start.)  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Which explanation do you want for this? the religious one which starts from the position that out-of-wedlock sex is an evil?  The feminist perspective which holds that it's a means of disempowering women (marriage limits women to having sex with one man, prostitution enables men to have sex with multiple women, the illegality of prostitution prevents women from taking control over their sexuality)? the sociological perspective which holds that promiscuity among women endangers paternal inheritance lines (mama's baby, papa's maybe...)?  The 2nd generation Marxists (Engles & etc) had lengthy discussions about female sexuality, since it was a biologically determined form of production (both in terms of procreation and pleasure) that made for a troublesome gender-class distinction.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You could also posit, in a pre-condom age in particular, an epidemiological explanation. Such arguments were used extensively as parts of social hygiene programs. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note the prostitution isn't taboo everywhere, or at all times. ("What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas".) StuRat (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Far as I know, prostitution isn't actually legal in Vegas, but only in one Nevada county not far from the county Vegas is in. I gather the law in Vegas is not vigorously enforced, though. Part of the answer to the original question is that many societies tend to group women into "good" and "bad". This is hardly a new concept, as it's all over both the Old and the New Testament. I could elaborate, but the words written on that subject (the status of women in the world) already could fill a library or two, and retyping all that could take awhile. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In Nevada prostitution is legal by county option in regulated brothels, except in counties with populations above 400,000, which leaves Vegas and Reno out. There is, or was, a usenet group posting reviews of them.  There is also a very profitable taxi business hauling horny customers the hour drive to the next county.  There are also a whole lot of pages under escort service [what a crap article] in the Vegas yellow pages. I suppose that visitors to Vegas usually bring money. PhGustaf (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just one comment: the stereotypical prostitute is a woman, but men engage in the practice too. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true. Maybe the simplest answer for the OP is that societally speaking, prostitutes are generally considered to be lowlifes. I think his "taboo" premise is not quite correct. Prostitution is not exactly "taboo", it's more like lowering oneself about as far as possible. Hence the metaphor of artists "prostituting" themselves by placing money above their art. I'm not saying it isn't hypocritical. But it's the way the world seems to work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think people have strong feelings about prostitution because subjects connected with sex and/or reproduction tend to evoke strong feelings in many people. Gabbe (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that's only part of it. The purpose of moral codes in general is to enforce some order in society. The theory would be that prostitution undermines the institution of marriage. Note I said that's the theory. In practice, I suspect a spouse would be a lot angrier about their spouse having a true affair than about visiting a hooker. But the spouse wouldn't likely be happy about it either way - unless it was permissible in that society. Wasn't there some deal about how one of the French presidents wife and mistress both showed up at his funeral (and, presumably, did not slug it out.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but then we're sliding into the question "Why are people against prostitution?" That may have been what the OP was really asking, but for that question I think the answer lies above. Gabbe (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of taking this off on a tangent, Gabbe, "above" where? Bielle (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the two first posts following the original question. Gabbe (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The second post is asking a bunch of questions that it would be nice if the OP would address and clarify. However, his initial post here was his most recent post, as of the moment: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, not everyone is against prostitution, or there wouldn't be any. I recall an economics teacher talking about the supply-and-demand argument as regards prostitution, and he said the trouble with that argument (which is kind of the one being posed by the OP) is that there can be a "moral cost", which is what I'm trying to say in my fumbling way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Margo St. James, and her organization COYOTE. PhGustaf (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an implicit chicken or the egg angle to the OP's question. Part of the strong feelings are based on the fact that a proportion of prostitution is based on sexual slavery. For sources, see Sex Slaves: The Trafficking of Women in Asia, A Crime So Monstrous: A Shocking Expose of Modern-day Sex Slavery, Human Trafficking and Urban Child Markets, Sex Trafficking: Inside the Business of Modern Slavery, and so on. I picked up one of these just yesterday, and I found it a subject worth educating myself about, not least for the mechanics of how organised crime is entwined. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Back on about February 14th, there was a program on one of the cable channels, about the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Part of the rift between Al Capone and Bugsy Moran was that Moran was an Irish Catholic who had moral objections to prostitution. Capone supported prostitution. That's not the reason for the Massacre as such, but it's an interesting take on things, as Moran apparently considered prostitution to be more immoral than murder. Hard telling how either of them would feel about COYOTE, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are religious reasons for banning prostitution, but equally there are religious reasons for banning the lending of money at interest (the banking industry), and there's been a lot of religious debates about whether alcohol and gambling are evil. Therefore there are almost certainly social reasons behind the ban.  The traditional Catholic opposition to sex (frequently glossed as misogyny) may be involved; but equally the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) disdain for worldly pleasures.
 * On the other hand, while prostitution has long been regarded as disreputable even when not illegal, there has been widespread acceptance of European/American men using prostitution as long as it was discreet: whether in Victorian times, in military/seafaring settings, among men working in frontier areas with few women (e.g. Wild West), or as already mentioned in Vegas. Therefore it may have been the case that preserving the impression that prostitution was sinful was more socially important than actually combatting prostitution.  I doubt this is a question that can be answered here, though. --Normansmithy (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Catholic church has never been opposed to sex. Quite the contrary; they encourage it, within marriage, where it's considered a sacrament; cynically speaking, "to maximize the number of Catholics". What they oppose is "recreational sex", outside of marriage. "Procreational sex", inside of marriage, is just fine. Which is at least in part the issue with extramarital sex and same-sex: The former violates the marriage rules, and the later by definition is recreational. So why was prostitution tolerated? Probably on the theory that an "affair" is adultery, whereas "paying for it" is just a business deal. Does this all seem rather hypocritical? Maybe, but that's another question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sex is a Catholic sacrament? That's news.  There's no mention of sex in Sacraments of the Catholic Church.  There is mention of consummation, which presumably means one occasion - but once that's out of the way, I can't see that future couplings are part of the sacrament of marriage.  The Church forbids most forms of contraception, which naturally leads to more babies being conceived.  But that is not the same as saying sex is "encouraged".  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   03:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the main one is the spread of sexual diseases. The lack of a cure for syphilis explained Victorian prudery and no pre-marital sex. If cures for all veneral diseases were found, then prostitution would become OK. Perhaps that the reduction in rates of marriage is due to there being cures for veneral diseases, except AIDs, in modern times. As well as contraception. 89.243.43.75 (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In some modern secular societies brothels are treated as any other legitimate businesses - they pay council rates, are regulated by local laws, and are inspected by local authorities, much as restaurants are.   Many of the workers are union members.  To quote from the front page of the local paper: "Centralian Advocate, 23-03-2010, Ed: 1 -, Pg: 001, 597 words, NEWS  ALICE Springs will have a new escort agency to cater for increased demand for sex services from the booming mining sector. And interstate investors are looking at establishing a "Shag Bus" service with a refurbished Winnebago travelling between "(Mr Murdoch wants some $ to see the rest.  There were no photographs).  The soon to close former agency in town contributed to many charitable organizations: [] Weepy.Moyer (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Block Font Suggestions
Can anyone suggest to me a font with the least amount of curves? I'm looking for something very plain, kind of like the LCD numbers on a plain digital watch, with no curves in uppercase letters.

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)




 * Well, there are dot matrix fonts, like this one: . There's no actual curves, but there is the appearance of curves. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Or there are plenty of pixilated (OK, "aliased") fonts to be had (and not just in bitmap format!) ... Alto Mono, or the Commodore 64 font, or the Palm OS font, or the HaxrCorp fonts. Alternatively, there's a font called Toothpix, which isn't what you want but has no curves. 81.131.36.119 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This page has a lot of fonts with no curves &mdash; and it's page 1 of 19 pages of such fonts. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are any number of LCD fonts you can use. --Carnildo (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lucidia Console has no curves.---92.251.193.104 (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Mosquitoes and flies
During my almost annual trips to Finnish Lapland, I have noticed the copious, and rather irritating, amount of mosquitoes in the wilderness. I have also encountered flies, but they are less irritating, because they don't suck blood. Now my question is as follows: I have noticed that mosquitoes are pretty much a doddle to kill with one's bare hands. Simply wait for a mosquito to sit somewhere and slap your hand on it - instant kill. With a little practice you can kill mosquitoes in mid-flight. In contrast, flies are much, much more difficult to kill. You can pretty much forget about killing a fly with your bare hands, and even with a flyswatter, this is very difficult. Why is this so? J I P | Talk 21:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think flies have amazingly fast eyesight and instincts and 'mechanics' which means they always see you coming, always dodge if they don't and are actually knocked away from being hit by even a small buffet of air in front of a projectile at them. Mosquitoes presumably haven't evolved to survive as a priority, maybe they reproduce more efficiently? 130.88.162.46 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The most effective way to kill flies that I've found is to clap my hands just above them when they're resting, they normally take off straight into the closing hands. As to mosquitoes, they're generally rather stealthy, I suspect that humans are by a long way their most difficult targets, I doubt that anything else that they bite fights back with quite the same ferocity, so there's not been enough selection pressure to change their behaviour. Mikenorton (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Other than the larger set of compound eyes that flies have, flies are also highly adapted to flight, see Fly, also Insect flight. --Kvasir (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What Mikenorton says is a good way to kill flies if they're resting on something. They seem harder to smack in mid-air because they fly all over the place, seemingly at random, whereas mosquitoes are small and don't cover as much ground as quickly, plus they seem to "hover" a lot, so it's easier to zap them. Flies are good at flying, as Kvasir notes. This is why people hang flypaper, because eventually the fly is liable to land on it, and then he's cooked. I think Mikenorton is also right about evolutionary pressure, or the lack thereof. Flies and mosquitoes both are near the bottom of the food chain, and are consumed by birds and other critters in great numbers, so their genetics are primarily focused on prolific reproduction. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are also flying insects far easier to kill than mosquitos. Some beetles, like ladybugs/ladybirds, seem to just sit there and wait to be splattered.  (Call me a softy, but I don't actually kill them, I cover them with a glass, then slide an index card under them, then take the glass with the index card top outside and release them.  So, maybe being easy to catch saves their lives, in this case.) StuRat (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Especially if they come back inside. There's a fair chance you've taken the same bug outside several times. Maybe he just thinks it's a game. Where bugs in general are concerned, prolific breeding, probably more than intelligence or stealthiness, has been their genetic focus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I do the same thing as Stu. Except I'd put the jar upside down in a sink and let the water suck the bug down its watery grave. --Kvasir (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And if it's a waterbug, it serves them right, for having that name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it'd be a big flood before I need to catch (and dispose) waterbugs from within my house. Kidding aside, drown bugs are much cleaner than squashed bugs. --Kvasir (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Provided they get filtered out at the treatment plant. Otherwise, you might end up drinking them someday. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Many Westerners drink bugs quite often without realizing. See cochineal. Rmhermen (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Eek. All of a sudden, raspberry yogurt seems enticing by comparison. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

One further thing that flies have to help them escape is the large sensory hairs they have on their bodies. Some of them detect the air movement caused by an approaching hand, which causes a jump and flight reflex. -- Flyguy649 talk 01:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just took a quick look at your user page. A most appropriate username. :) Perhaps you've heard this quote, attributed to Groucho Marx: "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not the most creative... or original, apparently. There are something like 100 Flyguys registered now. Meh, I'm not going to bother changing! One of my coworkers loved that quote. I find they (edit:the flies) really love the dregs left in beer bottles! -- Flyguy649 talk 07:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It took me a second to realise that the pronoun in your last sentence referred to flies and not coworkers. :) FiggyBee (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not the best sentence construction to be sure! Grad students + beer = inseparable (until its all gone). -- Flyguy649 talk 13:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is Scotland still the home of Golf?
Scotland is famous for 2 things, whiskey and golf courses. I get whiskey, they have lots of space to grow whatever is needed and lots of lochs and so on for pure water for it. And I know golf was invented in Scotland, but why is it still the home of it (it has the most golf courses per capita according to the article)? The reason I ask is that it rains there a huge amount of the time, something like over 200 days a year (according to an advert I saw while visiting Edinburgh once). Doesn't this kind of make it a poor location for golf, since rain would seem to stop play? Also, Scotland is massively cold, why hasn't golf taken off somewhere more suitable and overtaken Scotland as the heart of the sport?

Cheers, 130.88.162.46 (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just 2 things ? How about kilts, bagpipes, and cheap bastards like me ? StuRat (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And don't forget the outrageous accent. As with a bit Robin Williams did, as a Scotsman explaining the game of golf. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Like this one. Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the "per capita" part, keep in mind that the USA is a lot larger than Scotland, so the golf courses tend to be clustered. There are probably a lot more golf courses per capita in south Florida than in, say, the north slope of Alaska. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But in Alaska you can use the blow holes of passing whales as your targets. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeh... You've heard of "summer rules" and "winter rules"? That would invoke the "Seinfeld rules". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Royal and Ancient is based there. Now in its incarnation as the R&A, it is the authority on golf everywhere except the US and Mexico. It sets the rules, and if it sets the rules, it can dictate where the home of golf is I guess! --TammyMoet (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is worth pointing out there is a difference between whisky and whiskey. Scotland is famous for the first of these.  Astronaut (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty rare to use the whisky / whiskey alternative spelling distinctively. To be sure, if you're discussing Scotch whisky or Bourbon whiskey in isolation, quite likely you use the spelling more associated with that style.  But they aren't that different; both of them are whiskeys, or if you prefer whiskies, and you can discuss whiskeys in general and include Scotch, Bourbon, Irish, Canadian, and corn, using either spelling consistently across all of them. --Trovatore (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is actually a distinction in the spelling. One should never refer to Scotch whisky as a whiskey.  Astronaut (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. If I'm talking about whiskeys, I include Scotch; if I write about whiskies (which is unlikely as it's an unintuitive spelling for me) I would still include Bourbon. --Trovatore (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Contra the OP's contention that rain would stop play: I lived in St Andrews for several years (though, sadly, never took up golf) and know from personal observation that rain, unless heavy, does not stop play. In any case, St Andrews is on Scotland's east coast, and due to the prevailing westerly winds enjoys a degree of rain shadow from the higher western side of the country, which is markedly wetter (and where they also play golf in the rain, as in the second round of the Open Championship at Turnberry last year). Nor is it (or Scotland in general) "massively cold": a little colder than other parts of the (Gulf Stream/North Atlantic Drift-warmed) British Isles, yes, but not greatly so, and for much of the year it can be pleasantly mild. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And it is a universally accepted fact that rain NEVER falls on a Scottish golf course. Instead, it falls where it can readily be diverted to the streams and lochs whence it is re-diverted to the many distilleries to become the legendary, "Angels' Breath". So you see, the 2 phenomena are indistinguishable and inseparable, dry golf courses and the 19th Hole to sample the diverted and reconstituted raindrops. Simple. 92.30.74.248 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the original poster needs to check their facts. While it rains a lot in western Scotland, eastern Scotland (where St Andrews is) is considerably drier, with around 800mm and 150 days rain per year.  By way of comparison, Augusta, Georgia, one of the main venues of American golf and home of the Masters Tournament, gets 1100mm and 104 days rain per year.  They do play golf in much drier places like Dubai, but conditions there are not ideal for growing grass. --Normansmithy (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In my defence, I did reference my fact as being off the side of an Edinburgh bus. Thanks everyone for your responses. 130.88.162.46 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking more generally, people who live in places with what appears to be inclement weather often don't notice the, um, inclement-ness as much as someone not native born. If you live in a place where it rains every day, getting rained on is just not as big a deal as it is for someone from the Sahara. Matt Deres (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely Scotland is the Home of Golf because that is where it was invented? So the question of whether it is still the home of golf doesn't arise.  The game can't subsequently be invented anywhere else.  I concur with other posters too that St Andrews is not desperately rainy. Ismith (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hansel and Gretel kids club
I've seen mention of this on both The Bernie Mac Show and Everybody Hates Chris, where it's portrayed as a club for upper-class black kids and their parents. Is this a real club ? Do we have an article on it ? I'm particularly interested in why they would pick a name from German literature for their club. StuRat (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We have no article on it, nor does it appear in a Google search. It is a curious name. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Add: it is possible that this is a parody of Jack and Jill (organization), which is a real club that fits your description. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention that name, I think I was mistaken in the case of The Bernie Mac Show, and that was the name used. However, I'm quite sure Everybody Hates Chris did, indeed, use the name "Hansel and Gretel".  And, based on what Bugs found below, I'm wondering if there wasn't a similar organization with that name, perhaps a copy of "Jack and Jill" ? StuRat (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I googled ["hansel and gretel club"] and a few entries came up, including this one which appears to be an African-American organization that at least existed at one time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good find ! Now, if we can only find some text to go along with that pic. StuRat (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Further searching turned up other references in papers to the Hansel and Gretel Club, Inc. Searching the New York Division of Corporations records turns up this record which suggests it was incorporated in 1960 and is still active (although it lists no address or agent). I wonder if this is something that petered out. 94.168.184.16 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info, all. StuRat (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hansel and Gretel Club, Inc. was founded in the mid-to-late 1950s and was chartered May 2, 1960, according to the same New York state incorporation records already cited here. An October 22, 1966 article in The Afro-American Newspaper mentions Marguerite Easterling of the South Ozone Beach section of Queens (near JFK) as Membership Committee Chair and one of the founders of the organization. The article is important because it signaled the beginnings of a chapter of that group in Richmond, Virginia. The organization was one of several smaller groups that patterned themselves after Jack and Jill of America, Inc. in that the membership consisted of families who conducted educational, cultural, civic, and recreational programs for the children of the parents who were members. Most of these groups were operated by the mothers of these families, but a couple of them included the fathers as participating, active members of the organization.