Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 March 7

= March 7 =

Speeking question
Is it possible to speak without your lips ever touching your front teeth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.196.132 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but certain letters would be difficult to pronounce. See ventriloquism for details - that is basically what you are talking about, except ventriloquists don't let their lips move at all. --Tango (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much mandatory if you have dental braces. --antilivedT 10:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ask this person to tell you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrialicWave (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm reminded of Joss Whedon's remark (in DVD commentary on "The Harvest") that it was cruel to ask an actor to say "Jesse was an excruciating loser" through vampire teeth. —Tamfang (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to speak "good English" (here left deliberately undefined) without the lips on the front teeth. It's needed to pronounce /f/ and /v/ properly. However, if you pronounce /f/ and /v/ as [Φ] and [β] instead of [f] and [v], it's possible, but will sound a little weird. As Antilived mentioned above, when you have dental braces or a dental plate, it changes your speech a bit to accomodate the difference (I developed a bit of a lisp). Steewi (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you speak a language with no labiodental consonants. ZigSaw 16:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Soap Opera
Why are they called soap operas? they rarley have anything to do with soap and rarley do they sing opera please explain. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to our article soap opera:
 * The name soap opera stems from the original dramatic serials broadcast on radio that had soap manufacturers such as Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, and Lever Brothers as sponsors and producers.

Intelligent  sium  02:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)These kinds of shows originated on radio, and were frequently sponsored by the makers of soap and other products that it was assumed would be of interest to their target audience. The "opera" part is just being funny - ascribing high class to something mundane. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Opera, generally, is not "high class", but extremely accessible, funny, and with storylines so ridiculous they put Neighbours to shame (the exception to this is Wagnerian opera, which is not to be wished on anyone). People who think it's some high-falutin' boring snobby business usually know nothing about it.  Likewise Shakespeare, whose works are actually full of your mom jokes, cross-dressing, and terrible puns. FiggyBee (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe "classical" would be the better term. Tony Randall was a big fan of opera, in part (as he once explained to Johnny Carson) because they have such racy storylines, or as he put it, because they are "dirty". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, radio shows frequently had the sponsor in the title: "The Johnson Wax Program, starring Fibber McGee and Molly." The Lux Radio Theater, which was sponsored by Lux soap. That kind of thing. One of the last vestiges of that approach was the TV anthology series called the Hallmark Hall of Fame. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I read they were called "operas" because of their reputations for being overly emotional and dramatic. (In the US they were -- and are -- aired in the early afternoon, so their primary audience would be housewives.) Although I believe the prevailing European practice is to air soap operas in the early evening (18:00 to 20:00), the term is still used in British English and most European languages (with the exception of Spanish and maybe German, which prefer "Telenovela"). Xenon54 / talk / 02:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Was? See Hallmark Channel (International).  Woogee (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The soap part comes from the misogynistic male view that only women would enjoy a soap opera and they'd be enjoying it while washing the dishes. It's an extremely dated, offensive term which should not be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrialicWave (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We've had a statement of the source of "soap", thank you, which is nothing to do with your claim, TrialicWave. Or was that intended as a joke? What we haven't had (nor does Soap opera give, on a quick scan) is a documented source for 'opera'. --ColinFine (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I googled ["soap opera" origin] and a number of entries came up. This one, about Procter & Gamble, might be considered at least as trustworthy a guess as the others. And many of them seem to be using the "opera" part as a somewhat humorous synonym for "drama" (maybe you'll recall from the movie Tootsie how the producers insisted that their shows be called "daytime dramas" rather than "soap operas"). I wouldn't say the explanation is definitive, but something to keep in mind is that western movies were often called "horse operas", i.e. basically the same joke, humorously dubbing those works with a high-falutin' connotation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

gallileo, io, thor
there is or was an article on the main page stating that gallileo flew through a plume from the volcano thor on io and collected data, do we have an article on what data was collected and what we learned from this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You might wanna check out the Galileo (spacecraft) article for more info. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I did, and it did not give me the info i am looking for —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an inital report here, this looks pretty good, and some likely other (paper) sources appear in the refs of Volcanism on Io. Deor (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and see especially Thor (volcano). Deor (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

War Crimes
Has anyone been tried for War Crimes in the 21st century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhgi yostiba (talk • contribs) 11:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article List of war crimes may help you. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One current trial is that of Radovan Karadžić who stands accused of:
 * Five counts of crimes against humanity (Article 5 of the Statute - extermination, murder, persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, persecutions, inhumane acts (forcible transfer));
 * Three counts of violations of the laws of war (Article 3 of the Statute - murder, unlawfully inflicting terror upon civilians, taking hostages);
 * One count of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (Article 2 of the Statute - willful killing).
 * Unlawful transfer of civilians because of religious or national identity.
 * 131.111.248.99 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The ICC's first trial, of Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga, began on 26 January 2009. On 24 November 2009 the second trial started, against Congolese militia leaders Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are also ongoing trials of former Khmer Rouge leaders in Cambodia for war crimes, crimes against humanity etc under both Cambodian and international law . Sadly we don't seem to have specific articles on these. Saddam Hussein was tried for various crimes against humanity and he would likely have been tried for war crimes were it not for his execution Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Royal Mail -- Return to Sender?
I've just moved into a new flat. How can I get all the mail delivered to the former tenants returned? Can I just write 'return to sender' on the envelope and dump it in the post box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.9.247 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick Google turns up, which seems to advocate doing pretty much exactly that, albeit for junk mail. Obviously it'll have to have a return address on the envelope somewhere. You can do it unstamped - the recipient just has to pay the difference, as usual. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you just cross through the original delivery address and write "gone away - return to sender" on the front of the envelope, and stick it in a convenient post box. DuncanHill (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the "official line" from the Royal Mail - . DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You could also find out maybe from the estate agent where the previous people moved to and send it to them and ask them to get their addresses changed on their forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrialicWave (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You actually can write 'Return To Sender' (or even 'RTS') on the envelope and either put it in the postbox or take it to the post office. I did it plenty of times when I moved into my last flat. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Would "gone away - return to sender" mean the same thing over there as it does here in the US? When I read "gone away", I take it to mean that someone will be back.  As in, "They've gone away but will be back in a couple weeks".   To my ears/eyes, saying "Moved - return to sender" would be more clear that the intended recipient no longer lives there.  Dismas |(talk) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you knew where they had gone away to, you would cross through the old address and put their new one on, and the PO would redirect it for free. If you knw they were coming back, you'd hold on the the post for them. "Gone away", in Britain, does not (in postal terms) imply any potential for return. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, to me "gone away" in this context implies finality - they've gone, disappeared, we don't know where and can't help find them. I think it's actually a term of art used by Royal Mail in their own writings. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I put 'not at this address' on the ones that come through my door. They never come back to me (no idea whether they make it to their intendent recipient but i'm betting based on the envelopes 99% of it is junk-mail anyways). ny156uk (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It may take a while for all the databases to be updated. I'm still getting mail for the previous occupant 3 years later!! I write 'Gone away' above the address and repost it, nothing has returned. Richard Avery (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.12.100 (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Landlord
Is the landlord of a property responsible for the roof or is the person living directly below the roof (and thus having attic space) responsible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eisoser4 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This will be a matter of local law and/or the terms on the rental contract. It is not something that the Ref Desk can answer except in terms so general as to be near useless in any specific instance. Bielle (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the majority of cases, the landlord is responsible for exterior maintenance. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, in most cases the landlord is responsible for the functional systems of the house, so one would also include HVAC, electrical, and plumbing in what is usually the responsibility of the landlord as well as the structural integrity of the building. Usually, cosmetic maintanance is the responsibility of the renter, so they are usally responsible to keep the grass mowed, for example.  Depending on the specifics of the contract, other things like interior painting, fixtures, and furniture can fall to varying degrees to either the landlord or the renter.  -- Jayron  32  21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It may also depend on whether you are renting the entire house, or merely a portion of it (e.g. an apartment/flat in a house), and the time period for which it was rented (e.g. a month-to-month or yearly lease, versus a 30-year lease or a lease for life). In most of the apartments I've rented, the landlord was responsible for all routine maintenance issues of items which would stay with the apartment if I vacated, e.g. including ovens and refrigerators. I could not imagine that repair of a roof, which is a major financial outlay and would benefit the owners and occupants far into the future, would be the responsibility of a tenant who may be vacating the premise in less than a year. However, your local laws and rental contracts can vary significantly. I'll also note that if the damage to the roof was caused by maliciousness or willful neglect by the tenant (e.g. they tore shingles off in a drunken stupor, or held a party on it, damaging tiles) most jurisdictions would hold the person causing the damage, rather than the landlord, to be responsible. -- 174.21.235.250 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

American military
Has the American armed forces grown in size related to Americas population growth or has the number of armed forces personnel remained pretty much at a static level? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaKrunWn (talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It has decreased in size relative to america's population over the last 20 or so years--92.251.216.41 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I found a nice graph in this CRS report; see thumbnail to the right. That's active duty military personnel divided by 1000, so around 1952 it peaked at around 3.7 million.  By contrast, this BBC pic has a US population graph as the topmost graph.  As you can infer from the graph, it's the demands of US foreign wars that determines the military size; the two big peaks there are for the Korean War and the Vietnam War, both of which utilized the draft (see Conscription in the United States).  I would expect "armed forces growth = population growth" to be true in a place like Israel, with its mandatory military service.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the chart starts in 1950. The numbers would have been much higher during WW2.  Also note that modern fighting concepts tend to limit "troops on the ground" in favor of more use of air power and, recently,  drones.  Since those methods tend to be more expensive, the military budgets can go up even at times when troop levels go down.  Also, more use of contractors means that the budgets and total number of people (versus soldiers) deployed might both go up, despite what the chart indicates.  StuRat (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)