Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 December 16

= December 16 =

Buying gold
As I understand it, when investors buy/invest in gold, they do not actually physically receive the gold. Rather, the gold, which is kept in a bank vault, merely switches in ownership. However, if an individual is so inclined, can they in fact contact, say the bank, and obtain the physical bullions of gold? Acceptable (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What you refer to is paper gold, i.e., a sale that does not involve physical transfer. Depending on your location, a bank, pawn shop, coin dealer, etc., might well sell you whatever quantity of gold coins they have on hand (and, order more for you if you’re interested).DOR (HK) (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But that paper traces back to a physical bar of gold, doesn't it? So what I think OP is asking is if they can take that paper and go to the vault that it's held in to "redeem" it for their bar of gold.  I don't know why you wouldn't be able to.  It's your bar of gold.  Though if you were to want to re-deposit it, you'd likely run into a lot of paperwork in trying to prove that it's the same purity as what you removed.  Dismas |(talk) 11:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the physical gold may be quite distant from you, and it's not advisable to just mail you a gold bar, plus it may not be exactly 1 bar, but some fraction. So, you'd need to make special security arrangements to have it delivered by armored car, etc., and, unless you want millions of dollars in gold delivered, these arrangements are likely to cost more than the value of the gold. StuRat (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Acceptable -- A lot of national governments don't have physical possession of the gold they own, but have it stored in a central gold vault under Manhattan (see Federal Reserve Bank of New York)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It varies by investment method whether you actually own gold or somebody owes you gold. See for example Gold as an investment, London bullion market, http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/erik-townsend/so-you-think-you-own-gold. When you invest in gold without taking physical possession, you agree to a contract specifying the terms. It may be impossible or expensive to take physical possession later (of course you could sell the gold and buy other gold instead). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging into middle lane accident
In US and specifically, New York State, traffic laws, suppose I am driving on a 3-lane highway. The middle lane is empty and I am on the left lane. There is another car on the right lane. We both merge into the middle lane at the same time. Neither one of us is ahead of the other. We collide in the middle lane. Who is at fault? Acceptable (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Per the notice at the top of this page "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice". AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Legally I have no idea, and can't comment on that aspect, but common sense says both are at fault. If you don't know what other cars around are doing, even when you're about to collide with one, you're not driving well at all. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Same legal disclaimer here, but if you're in the left lane, presumably you're going faster, so I would non-bindingly venture to say theoretically that you'd be slightly more at fault, but the other driver wouldn't be blameless. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You would be best off consulting your state's Rules of the Road, and see what they have to say about how those for-turning-only middle lanes are supposed to be used. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bugs, I think you're reading this incorrectly. OP is not referring to roads with a middle turn lane.  The fact that they said "Neither one of us is ahead of the other." leads me to believe that they are actually referring to a road where all three lanes are traveling in the same direction.  And, presumably, there is another set of three lanes on the left going in the opposite direction as the OP.  Dismas |(talk) 11:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. That's actually a six-lane highway. The answer is still the same: check the rules of the road and see who's supposed to yield to who. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that in Texas, the driver on the left has the right of way, and this is a logical principle on a multilane road in a jurisdiction where driving is on the right. However, I could not find any evidence of such a rule in New York.  According to the only relevant New York law I could find, both parties would be at fault, because neither ascertained that it was safe to change lanes before doing so.  (In the situation the OP described, there is always the possibility that the driver two lanes over could move into the middle lane, and that driver's actions must be monitored almost continuously when moving into that lane.) I am assuming that this is merely a request for information about the law, and not a request for legal advice, which I am not qualified to give.  I am not a lawyer and not versed in New York's law code, and there may have been something I missed. Marco polo (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Both parties may be 100% liable for any civil damages, see Joint and several liability. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That would be appropriate if a third party had a claim against the two negligent drivers. One would hope that observant drivers would notice the other vehicle indicating and beginning to change lane, and abort the manoeuvre before a collision occurs. ( This has happened to me on the M6 in England, but no collision occurred.  I just put my foot down and pulled ahead, then changed lanes. )  I don't know of any rule about right of way for either driver here in the UK.   D b f i r s   18:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes these people get their comeuppances. I was on the NJ Turnpike during a blizzard, going about 20mph in the left lane.  The road was almost void of cars, but a "gentleman" I was about to pass moved for no reason from the center lane to the left, without a signal, cutting me off.  I went into a spin when I braked the car, doing about three and a half revolutions while still sliding forward at 20mph.  I assumed I was going to be rear ended or hit the median barrier and die, but I just ended up in a stop facing backwards against traffic.  The closest headlights lights were in the distance.  I turned around and went on my way.  About an hour later, not too much further down the road, I saw the car that had cut me off on its roof, overturned in the ditch along the side of the road, with its passengers standing in the snow.  I kept going. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Karma can be a real bitch some days. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 16:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * An important point missed here. If both parties had their turn signals on, both parties are at fault, as both parties ignored the other's signal. Otherwise, the fault belongs to whoever did not signal. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Why blue?
Why is the liquid used in sanitary pad/tampon/nappy commercials usually blue? 114.75.186.44 (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What color would you use? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Blue has an antiseptic vibe to it, presumably why it's often used for mouthwashes and toilet bowl cleaners as well. You certainly wouldn't want to use red or yellow. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) They never have any problem with using (what looks like) rich red blood in scenes of murder and violence. And they'd be laughed out of existence if they used any other colour in those contexts.  But menstruation is apparently off-limits to this paradigm.  It's not that they're hiding the fact that there's some liquid present.  Admittedly, they never actually acknowledge that the liquid is blood, so I guess they think that means they're allowed to pretend it's not.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In scenes of murder and violence, they are not trying to sell you something you're going to wear - just something you're going to watch. You may want to watch something visceral, but you'll probably want to wear something clean. Although it does seem kind of silly - not wanting people to associate with blood a product for soaking up blood. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, advertising of tampons and the like was itself off limits just a few decades ago. So we've progressed to advertising them, and showing liquid. It may be just a matter of time before we see red. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In the early 80's in the U.S., as far as I remember, such commercials never showed the actual product, but instead showed women in pure white clothing playing tennis, riding horses, etc., while an announcer orated vaguely uplifting-sounding text; if it wasn't for the product name being shown at the end of the commercial, you might have had a hard time figuring out what was being advertised... AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As it is now in the UK, you can't get through a meal without a tampon, panty pad, or vagiclean, etc advert, since they run all day. The last thing i'd like to picture is period stained underwear at that time or a bleeding flesh wound from one of those murder porn dramas at that exact time.
 * The strange thing is that condom adverts are non-existent before 9pm (the watershed) even though i'm sure they're not banned before that time. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 09:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On TV, at least, shootings and stabbings are likewise not realistic. Not nearly enough blood, and they die too quickly and "cleanly". To do it realistically would be too gross for the audience. And regarding "intimate" products, the audience knows what they're for, you don't need to draw them a picture. The blue is nice and neutral and its purpose is to demonstrate absorbancy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Why stop at blue? Why not green? Or red, white and blue for the Americans? Green at least, is a "sterile" looking colour. And i'm sure toilet duck is or was green. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Green liquid looks slimy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * About the above comment on condom advertisements, there's no time cut off on cable TV in the US. I learned this when I had to stop my nephews from watching a Star Wars marathon one early afternoon on Spike network whose sole advertisers seemed to be for Trojan condoms designed for her pleasure and yours. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Certain to raise some questions. You could just tell the young'uns that those are a special type of party balloon (which isn't far from the truth). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And how would I explain when their grandmother said the boys were asking for Trojan party balloons for Christmas? I am a libertarian, but I pretty much freaked out when I saw this advertising in a kid's show during the day. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a trans-Pacific phenomenon, if in reverse sometimes. I've lost count of how many times I've watched a movie or TV show preceded by prominent warnings about strong violence, sex scenes etc, and viewers are advised they are not suitable for children, but in the middle of which are ads for kiddies' toys, little girls' pretty pink tea sets, ponies, fairy god mothers, magic wands, Barbie dolls, party dresses and so on.  Sure, I know it's the parents who buy these things for the kiddies, but it just seems so incongruous to be advertising them in high-violence and sex-charged presentations.
 * Back to condoms: what about ones designed for his pleasure and yours? To omit a major part of the condom-buying audience, and an audience to whom safe-sex messages have been particularly targeted since the arrival of the AIDS era, seems rather discriminatory.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "His"? Why, whatever do you mean? μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, someone had to say it. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe there's a common myth that turning ribbed condoms inside out works well for the wearer. No idea if it's true or not, but there are condoms designed for this purpose anyway. Surely all the adverts for crap toys do more harm to a kid than seeing a condom advert...Not to mention the harm to the wallet of the parent... Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 00:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Wish the OP had not asked this, as a full explanation could get very gross. Short answer: Blue is used for medical wast of all types (think bio-hazard). The the waiter, bring you your Lobster Thermidor will more quickly spot a blue plasters that has fallen off the cordon bleu chef's finger  and into the  source than a brown plaster. Hospitals place bio-hazzard in blue sacks.  If you spot a large lump of blue ice on your lawn -then bets are- that it fell from a passenger aircraft- the loo water is blue, et cetera. Blue makes it stand out from other types of stuff, all to disgusting  to talk about.--Aspro (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * TV Tropes has an entry about this phenomenon with a short explanation.--Pacostein (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * About a year ago the sanpro manufacturer Bodyform produced a video "coming clean" about its use of metaphorical imagery. The CEO, played by an actress, starts out with a glass of blue water and switches it to some blood-red juice. This piece of YouTube viral marketing was allegedly in response to a facetious Facebook post by a man, complaining about the tropes identified above; some suspect that this post was a plant. Be that as it may, the video went viral and generated discussion, including in the trade press here. The company would not have been able to screen this on British television. (Also, re a previous reference in passing to aviation-sewage "blue ice" - WHAAOE.) BrainyBabe (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Are Guantanamo Bay Detainees allowed to receive "food parcels" from the outside world?
User:Primo Sindone as an indefinitely blocked sock puppet, surprise, surprise. μηδείς (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Federal prison
I would like to expand the article over at Federal prison but it's extremely difficult to find any sort of credible sources that specify the differences between state and federal prison. Without these sources this article will forever remain stagnant (like it is). Skarz (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What else do you think needs to be said? A federal prison is #1) A prison that #2) is managed by a federal government.  Knowing that not all countries are federations, and that every country (even those that are federations) runs their prisons differently, there isn't anything else to be said beyond directing people to individual countries that have federal prison systems.  -- Jayron  32  18:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see my edit here. It was reverted for "original research' yet the lead in its current state still constitutes OR. Skarz (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you asked the person who reverted you for a clarification? Work together with him to arrive at a better version of the article.  Only that person can tell you why they did what they did.  -- Jayron  32  19:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There has already been a pretty intense discussion that isn't really getting anywhere. I thought this was a reference desk where I could get assistance with finding information / sources? Skarz (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't getting anywhere because some people are stonewalling with a misunderstanding of what notability is, and has an odd sense that the article should be deleted, which seems like a bad idea; since people may be searching for the concept rather readily. I think the article is just fine the way it is, as it serves its purpose well, directing people to federal prison systems in countries that have them.  But I'm also not getting involved in that particular debate because my tolerance for stonewalling is low.  I'd recommend using WP:DR to bring outside opinions in.  There are people who are good at resolving conflicts like you are having.  It simply isn't a notability issue, the concept of a "federal prison" is self-evidently something people would be looking for, and the article serves a great purpose in directing people to the correct place.  It's ridiculous people would want to delete it.  -- Jayron  32  05:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1971 indo pak war
it is just shameful to read your article about the fact that the war started on 3 December 1971 once PAF attacked Indian air bases. everyone knows that in east Pakistan, the war has started on 22 November 1971 when Indian army crossed over all across east Pakistan. Indian field marshal manekshaw has accepted it. sharmila bose says the same thing. Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial but it is a real shame to be reading a pro India article on wiki. tipooawan@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.238.84 (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Not my specialist subject, but the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 article does seem to be a bit selective with the facts; there is no mention of the Battle of Garibpur on 20-21 November which seems to have been fought by Indian troops inside Pakistan (the latter article is written from an Indian perspective and seems to ignore the Neutral point of view rules). Ditto the Battle of Boyra which was fought on 22 November 1971 by the Indian Air Force in East Pakistan's airspace. Perhaps somebody with a better understanding of this conflict could comment? Also, might it not be better to conduct this discussion on the article's Talk Page? Alansplodge (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the answer (partially) is that the eastern events are covered in the Bangladesh Liberation War article. Rmhermen (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rmhermen. I have posted a query at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and asked for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Now we wait and see. Alansplodge (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Damion Scott soccer
Here is a credible link to games played http://hlsz.hu/index.php?tid=7&Jatekos=hPLf_da06d07, how does the page get restored after deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer2323 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As this page states, you need to contact the person who deleted it, in this case User:GiantSnowman. --Viennese Waltz 22:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)