Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 June 19

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 19

Rice

Yeah I'm the only man you'll ever find interested in that white grain. Why do westerners like their rice not clumped, but Easterners(I hope that is what you call most Asian cultures and whoever else likes their rice clumped) like their rice clump? Personally, clump rice is the best there is no mess to clean up. How do I clump rice the way Easterners do?Cardinal Raven (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

After cooking, stuff the rice in a cup then tap the cup lightly to put the rice in the plate. Now you have a measured and clumped rice.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well more or less I mean sticky. Cause the moment I began to eat the measured clump of rice it will just fall into a nice little pile. Also I want to eat my rice with chopsticks and just measuring won't do much when you want to eat it with chopsticks.I guess I'm asking how do I get my rice sticky enough to eat with chopsticks?Cardinal Raven (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh... we don't use chopsticks here. Glutinous rice or malagkit is usually too "tasty" accompany vegetables or meat. Filipinos prepare it differenly as a seperate dish such as bebinca, suman and champorado.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to "sticky rice", which you can roll into a ball (such as in Thai or Lao cooking), then see Glutinous rice. It's a specific type. (That article also has many links that you mind find useful in tracking down types of rice.) Gwinva (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why. But, I'd have to agree. I don't like my rice sticky, but they do in the Philippines were I have spent a considerable amount of time. Useight (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of it is for practical reasons. Glutinous rice - as hinted at above - is far easier to eat with chopsticks than other rice. And there's nothing better than a hot place of satay beef on a bed of rice, eaten with chopsticks. Yum. Grutness...wha? 02:04, 19 June 2008 (UTy

Glutinous rice, such as you'd have in a Thai restaurant, is one way to eat sticky rice. Another is the way Hawaii locals like it, which is to start with medium-grain calrose rice. If you have a rice cooker, use about 1.5 parts water for every 1 part rice. Perfect sticky rice-ball quality rice almost every time. If you're cooking on the cooktop, cook in a small pot on low, and use about twice as much water as rice. Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally Long-grain rice is the loose type generally used for fried rice, which absorbs the least amount of water. Then you have the Medium/Short grain rice which clump and can be eaten with chopsticks, but not sticky like glutinous rice. This is the type I (south Chinese) normally eat, and it's also used in Sushi's. Then there's glutinous rice, which is very very sticky and leaves much more a mess than the other 2 types of rice, and generally only used in special dishes in Chinese cuisine. Westerners may be accustomed to the fried-rice style rice and thus like them more. To the OP: depending on what you're eating you don't necessarily need to eat rice with chopsticks. In Chinese cuisine the chopsticks are used as a scoop to scoop it up in bowls. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure OP didn't mean glutinous rice, but trying to cook long grain rice to be sticky, or short/medium grain rice without it being so dry, so I think only Antilived hit the mark. If you're cooking with long grain, switch to short/medium grain, and if you're using short/medium grain, try adding a little bit more water (like in a rice cooker, I add 1 parts rice with 1.5 parts of water, and it comes out not too hard and not too sticky). But if you're preparing it in a pot, I have actually never made rice in a pan other than boxed rice. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot. In some rice cookers, it's better to let it sit even after it's done for awhile (like 30 minutes), and it usually dries the surfaces and leaves the rice itself moist and sticky still. But I'm not sure if this only applies to old style rice cookers. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In almost ALL rice-cookers is it better to let the rice sit for twenty minutes or so (depending on how much rice you've made). The rice cooker knows when to shut itself off based on the temperature of the pot (when most of the water has steamed off, the pot itself gets hotter). The manufacturers of rice-cookers count on your allowing the rice to sit. The original poster has specifically used the word onigiri, and I submit that the rice he or she is looking for is most definitely medium-grain calrose rice, such as I described in my first response.Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First off I was thinking of buying a rice cooker. Second off I wanted clumpy or sticky rice because not only do I want to eat my rice with chopsticks I wanted to make certain things such as onigiri and other stuff that requires my rice not to fall apart. Maybe I should have asked in the very beginning do I have to have special rice to do that? Because even that question is answered. Personal reminder, add all questions. All well I like my answers so its okay.Cardinal Raven (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As to your question about why Westerners don't like their rice clumped: the types of rice grown in the West before trade opened up were naturally less prone to clumping, because they had less starch in their outer layers. Westerners also associate clumpy food with poor preparation, especially with respect to savory food: sweet food can be sticky, but clumpy rice is up there with lumpy mashed potatoes and stuck-together pasta - the texture was simply "wrong". And so many Western (or westernized) rice dishes like paella, pilaf and casserole require rice that doesn't glom together. --NellieBly (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just soak the long grain rice in water for 10-20mins and drain, add more water (more than you usually would) and cook slowly until the water is just about evaporated. It will then be 'sticky'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.19.4 (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not all Asian cultures have equally sticky rice. For example, Indian Basmati rice is waaay less sticky than Japanese. 74.14.117.135 (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of Continental exceptions to fluffy and free also exist in dishes using arborio rice, such as paella and risotto

Wikipedia Hierachy

I've always been curious to know the hierarchy of WP. From what I understand, the account hierarchies goes like this, increasing status:

• Banned user
• Unregistered user
• Registered user
• Bot
• Administrator/SysOp
• Checkuser and Oversight
• Bureaucrat
• Steward
• Developer
• Autoconfirmed/founder

Is this correct? Are Checkusers and Oversights on the same level? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No user is "above" another, however, I suppose if you wanted to sort by number of rights each account type has, I definitely wouldn't put a bot "above" a registered user. Bots don't think for themselves. Bots can't comment in discussions. It is true that bureaucrats, stewards, checkusers, and oversighters can do things that an admin cannot, they don't carry more weight in a discussion to find consensus. Useight (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You've left off autoconfirmed (and founder, I suppose). Algebraist 06:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In terms of who carries more clout in a discussion, in between "Registered user" also breaks down, in my experience, into "Registered user with more than a handful of edits and a user page" and "Registered user with a handful of edits or no userpage". Also you left Jimbo off the list—he is sort of his own category, in terms of policymaking and clout in discussions. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of edits certainly counts. I once saw a bunch of admins refuse to acknowledge the vote of a user because he/she had fewer than 500 main-space edits. I thought it was ridiculous but the fact that it counts remains. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has more "clout" in a discussion, though naturally you can expect admins etc to have more common sense (Well, maybe not :-p), though there are plenty of people, like say, User:SandyGeorgia who are just noraml users and are very well respected, more so than many admins (I suppose admins make a lot of enemies...)--Serviam (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is supposed to have more clout in a discussion. Unfortunately, many Admins pretty much ignore anyone who isn't at least an Admin. This is because, if they piss off another Admin they can be blocked, but they have nothing to fear from pissing off ordinary users. Really just another example of power corrupting. I've had an Admin outright tell me my opinion meant nothing an AN/I, because I wasn't an Admin. This inequity could be resolved if we got rid of the concept of "Admin for life", which means, as long as an Admin never upsets another Admin, they can engage in behavior which would have prevented their election to Admin, violate promises they made when the vote occured, etc., and still remain an Admin. If they had to periodically stand for election they would show more respect to the users, or they would be gone. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I can say from my own experience as someone who has an admin account, a few non-admin accounts, and often edits from an IP, that who you officially "are" does matter in most discussions. If I post concerns with something about how Wikipedia is run from an IP address, no matter how wonderfully worded it is, it has significantly less impact than if I do it from the admin account. If I apply "normal reasoning" to a problem it has less impact than if I "reason through specific policy decisions"—lots of acronyms and other signs that I am "in the know". Is it a problem that such inequity exists? Not in my opinion. Yes, it goes against the digital populism ideal of Wikipedia, and it in many instances seems to me to calcify the Wikipedia bureaucracy, but I think it is fairly unavoidable, and in the end things basically still work.

Additionally, as StuRat says, banning policies can be rather draconian. Slip up as an admin or an established user, and you'll be given a little time-out, a few reprimands, etc. Slip up as a brand new user or an IP, expect to be banned permanently. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This page lists out the different privileges and indeed shows bots as having more privileges (well, kind of) than standard users. Matt Deres (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying To Find a Pair of Glasses Frames Like These

50's-style scientist glasses. Like #6 on this page:

http://www.propspecs.com/glasses/rocknroll.htm

Unfortunately, that site is just for "prop" frames, so I can't really get them from there. I need to either find actual vintage frames or a modern version that looks pretty much the same. E^robson (T^alk) 04:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to stop you replacing the pane with prescriptions. On closer inspection, they're an actual frames company using that name for their marketing niche. My messy post, Julia Rossi (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Second hand, vintage or charity shops, garage boot sales and antique fairs will be time consuming but you will end up finding them. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Dare I suggest... eBay? Search for "horn rim frames" there. Warning: vintage frames like that ain't always cheap. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Velpeau’s Law

I recently came across the term “Velpeau’s Law”, which is apparently used to describe the experience of a doctor seeing a patient with a very rare condition, then a short time later has another, entirely unrelated, patient with the same rare condition. This was in a book about synchronicity. I can’t find anything about Velpeau's Law on the web, and the only Velpeau we have an article on says nothing about it either.

Then, a few days later, I was reading a different book, on the subject of things people said that they might have wished they hadn’t said, and I found this quote: "The abolishment [sic] of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it." (Dr Alfred Velpeau, 1839). Our article confirms he did indeed have scepticism about pain-free surgery, so I can nail that one down.

I thought finding these 2 references to the previously unheard-of (by me) Velpeau in a short space of time was a nice example of both synchronicity and Velpeau’s Law in a non-medical context. But that aside, is the term “Velpeau’s Law” generally used by the medical fraternity, and does it originate, as I assume, from Alfred Velpeau, or from another Velpeau? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Until a Velpeaunik drops by, I'd call it occult. You're a spooky possum, Julia Rossi (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard the term, but I only work with MDs—I'm not one myself. I can find only one web reference to Velpeau's law (in this blog entry) where it is defined exactly as JackOfOz describes.

Really, though, the phenomenon can stem from a number root causes. It can arise purely through a combination of psychological priming and a misunderstanding of statistics. Consider that there are some thousands of different diseases which are known to modern medicine. Over the course of Doctor X's career, he sees thousands upon thousands of patients, most of whom have quite common ailments. A small group contract rare and unusual diseases. Let's say that Dr. X sees fifty patients with rare diseases; for simplicity's sake, let's say that among them they contract twenty-five unique ailments, with two cases of each.

Sprinkle those cases randomly over Dr. X's career, and most of the pairs will end up years, even decades, apart. A few, by pure chance and coincidence, will end up very close together in time—almost certainly the same year, possibly the same month or week. (The odds of a coincidence are actually quite a bit higher than one's intuition might suggest—see birthday problem.) Dr. X says to himself, "Well isn't that odd...two such unusual cases just a month apart, and I haven't seen any others in twenty years of work." Of course, he doesn't think about the twenty-four other rare diseases which were evenly distributed over his career.

That leaves aside the effect of cases that are related in a way that the doctor doesn't know about: two strangers who sat next to each other on the bus; the mailman who passed a genetic defect on to the lonely housewife's son. This analysis also neglects the possibility that there were other cases of the rare disease in Dr. X's career, but he missed the diagnosis, the diagnosis was made by a specialist but the paperwork was lost, or Dr. X forgot about the case after ten or twenty years. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That blog is more significant than you know, Ten. The book I referred to above, where I first came across the term, was in part a collection of contributions from people from all over the world about their experiences of synchronicity. (For those interested, the book was ‘’Soul Moments: Marvelous Stories of Synchronicity- Meaningful Coincidences from a Seemingly Random World’’. It was put together by Phil Cousineau, with a foreword by Robert A. Johnson). This particular story was written by one Roberto Takaoka, a doctor working in Sao Paolo, Brazil. The blog you located is written by Walter Whitton Harris, who lives in, you guessed it, Sao Paolo, Brazil. Takoaka's story was dated 16-22 November 1993, and the blog was written December 2007: so unless Takaoka and Harris know each other, "Velpeau’s Law" seems to be term used by Sao Paolians and not much elsewhere. How odd. Yet another bit of sychronicity. I agree with everything you say about the scientific/rational analysis of these coincidences; but from the metaphysical angle, they are indeed meaningful. Just what they mean, though ...... -- JackofOz (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For a related adage named after a person, I only found Littlewood's law on WP. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

South Africa + Restaurants + Take-aways etc.

Please please

I need some help?

I am trying to do some Market Research and I need some information as follows:

How many Restaurants are there in South Africa? How many fast-food outlets are there in South Africa? How many liquor stores are there in South Africa? etc

please could you put me in the right direction?

Thank you thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.40.15 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Yellow Pages at http://www.yellowpages.co.za/search.jsp?query=Restaurants&location= may give you some idea on the numbers of these types of commercial enterprises. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, not everyone is in the Yellow Pages. I would guess a search on the CIPRO page would give you a more accurate result, as everyone has to register at the DTI. Otherwise give Markinor a call and I'm sure they would be helpful in guiding you. Sandman30s (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Insects

Are all insects attracted to light, or is it just some families/genera, or just some individual species? Thanks in advance. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Some, for example Woodlice and Cockroaches, move away from light because they have negative phototaxis, and some for example moths and flies are attracted to light because they have positive phototaxis. D0762 (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question though... If I'm following correctly... Why then would one species have negative phototaxis and another have positive? Dismas|^(talk) 16:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The behaviour of moths is discussed at Moth#Attraction to light. Woodlice live mostly in the dark, so I assume their light-aversion serves to keep them in their habitat and away from the eyes of predators. It might also stop them drying out. Algebraist 17:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Woodlice need a damp environment because they breathe through gills. They are also detritivores which means they mainly eat dead plant matter that would need dampness to decompose well. In fact, Woodlice are not insects at all but crustaceans (they have seven pairs of legs, whereas insects have three). Generally, insects which move away from light do so to keep cool, damp, and out of view from predators, while those that move towards light do so to keep warm or for navigation. D0762 (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Becoming a microbiologist.

Let's say I want to become a microbiologist, but I don't know how. Where do I start? What degrees and/or studies would I need? How can I become a good microbiologist? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Caitlyn Johnson (talk • contribs) 09:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Become a biologist, then get a mad scientist to use his shrink ray on you ? StuRat (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But seriously, first you will need a good background in science and math, with, of course, the emphasis on biology. Then, in your later years at college, you can narrow the focus of your studies to microbiology. StuRat (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you want to be a proper researcher and not just a lab technician, then you pretty much have to get a PhD. I am not sure which country you are in but the general idea is the same, I'm in the UK and I'm not a microbiologist but I am a biologist which is close. At high school you will want to specialise in science subjects. I did Maths, Chemistry and Biology at A-Level (16-18) add Physics if you want. Do an undergraduate degree in Biology, it needn't be Microbiology specifically as you will probably get to pick the modules that interest you. A 2.1 (the second top grade roughly a B) or better is generally required if you want to do a PhD. I personally think that if you are certain you are going to do a PhD then a Masters is a bit of a waste of time and money so I would recommend to go straight from undergraguate to PhD. Find a poject and a lab you think you will enjoy enough to stick at it. Once you have your PhD, get a job, hey presto! you are a microbiologist.Franmars (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify Franmars, I think when he/she says go straight to a PhD I believe he/she means that you need to apply to a PhD program. That is the way it is in the US and I don't think the UK is that different. After your undergraduate education you can apply to either a terminal Masters program or a PhD program. Terminal masters programs tend to be for people who have not distinguished themselves in the undergraduate career and will need a bit more time to develop their skills/recommendations/resume before applying to a PhD program. At the terminal masters program you will work towards your masters only. Whereas in a PhD program you will first get your masters then work towards a PhD. I know that information about terminal programs is true for the US, but it may be less true in other countries, so be sure to verify this if you are in another country.

If you have not started your undergraduate education I would highly recommend you go to your local library and try to find a book that deals with "careers in biology" or another related book (or buy one from Amazon or local equivalent). They tend to explain what is generally required before you apply to graduate school, the types of courses you need to take, the GPA requirements, any standardized tests, what you should expect from the PhD program.

Also you may want to try to find a mentor of sorts at the school you do your undergrad work at. Ask them what needs to be done before you apply to school. Often times professors are willing to help students out who show an interest. And one last recommendation, again this is true for US universities but I don't know how widespread this is, you may want to try to work/intern in research labs as an undergrad, even if it is grunt work (cleaning slides or equipment, setting up basic equipment). There are several benefits: experience doing actual science, vivid examples of how to operationalize a question, a good recommendation, maybe (if you're lucky) your name on the tail end of some paper.--droptone (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)--

I think things are somewhat different in much of the Commonwealth, including I think the UK. A PhD is a PhD and it is rare you will start off with a Masters. However to do a PhD in the UK and in a number of Commonwealth countries, you will usually need to have either done a Masters, or a (probably first class) Honours degree as part of your B.Sc. In the UK, an Honours is fairly automatic provided you do well enough. In Australia and NZ it isn't for most science degrees, you have to do an extra year which usually involves some postgraduate study and research. Note that in a lot of the Commonwealth, PhDs are intended to be completed within 3 years (even if few achieve that). You are therefore usually expected to have some idea of what you are doing when you start your PhD and will likely have a problem coping if not. This is I believe unlike the US where as Droptone mentioned, you often start off with a Masters which becomes a PhD hence you are not really expected to have much experience in a real lab (although it doesn't hurt) and are usually I believe given up to 5 years to complete your PhD. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That isn't necessarily so. In biological sciences in the UK, the lower threshold for acceptance to a PhD-track program is usually a 2:1 Honours degree, not a first class degree. Moreover, in the UK one almost always actually registers for a MPhil, then after one year transfers to a PhD. For most PhD-track students this a mere formality, so its often assumed one registers immediately for a PhD. But that is rarely the case. Rockpocket 00:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As Franmars said (at least in the U.S.) it is often not necessary or desirable to get a Master's on the way to getting a PhD - just do the Phd and get on to the post-doc work. Rmhermen (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, often at a certain point in your Ph.D. studies, they'll give you a Master's just for filing the appropriate form. For me I think it was "complete 11 (quarter) classes and pass two quals, one of them being Algebra". Couldn't see any reason not to file the form. It struck me that if what you really wanted was the Master's, the quickest way to get it was to enter the Ph.D. program. --Trovatore (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

New Olympic Sporting Events

How many countries does a sport like say lacrosse need to be played in before it can become partof the Olympic Games? 71.231.122.22 (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's at the discretion of the IOC and its subcommittees. There is not fixed requirement of the sort you suggest. — Lomn 13:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It also isn't just a matter of number of countries, but also how widespread the sport is. If it's only played on one or two continents, but in few other places in the world, the IOC will generally not consider it. I've often wondered why roller skating competitions haven't been made Olympic sports. They're big in the Pan Am Games, and I can't imagine roller skating isn't big outside of the Western Hemisphere. Corvus cornix_talk 17:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sports need to be widespread and there has to be a well developed international competition calendar, including world championships, etc. This is where Women's ski jumping had issues with getting into the Winter Olympics. - Eron^Talk 19:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of countries is but one of many hurdles a sport has to go through. part of the problem is that, for logistics reasons, the IOC has a strict limit on the number of sports played at the Olympics. even sports played in many countries with well-developed international competitions struggle (cricket, for instance, is played at international level in over 100 countries and in all continents bar Antarctica - from Estonia to Afghanistan, Brazil to Japan - and has had world championships since the 1970s, but it consistently fails in its bids to be adopted as an Olympic sport). Because of the limit, a sport has to be dropped before a new one is adopted, and that causes massive lobbying among both sports. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC) (Roller skating is an organised sport? Who knew?)

This link [1] from the article Olympic Sports. Shows that baseball and softball were voted off the Olympic programme after the Athens 2004 Olympics. There was a consequent vote to nominate two sports to fill the spaces, Karate, Roller Sports, Rugby, Squash and Golf were the options and Squash and Karate won. However, neither succeeded in a subsequent vote to add them to the summer games. So it seems for the 2012 games there will be two fewer sports. Franmars (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Roller skating has speed events and artistic events just like ice skating does. Corvus cornix_talk 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Polska

I wish to ask a question on the Polish wiki ref desk, and thus get replies from Poles. Can some one please give me a link. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The sidebar at Wikipedia:Reference desk has an interwiki link to pl:Wikipedia:Pytania merytoryczne. I don't read Polish, but that appears to be the right place. Algebraist 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bull ring stunt

What are the origins of the stunt where a person stands inside a bull ring blind folded and smoking a cig? I've seen this stunt pulled in one of the Jackass movies and in a Tom and Jerry cartoon. --Endless Dan 15:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bull games go back through history. The cigaratte stunt is just a gimmick. Unless sacrifice is involved they operate much as an American rodeo with catchers (or whatever they are called) monitoring events. In the south of France the bull games are not lethal. Ribbons and cockades are tied to the bull's horns and young men leap to secure them. A cash value is placed on each. The bulls play more often than the individual men and so get very skilful at avoiding. Sometimes a man is injured, but very very seldom a bull.86.209.154.30 (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)DT

Of course, the blindfold and cigarette is the standard protocol for someone executed by firing squad, hence the joke in Jackass is they're acknowledging that it's suicidal. That movie is the only time I know of it being paired with a bullring stunt. --D. Monack | talk 04:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sport gender question

Watching the Germany-Portugal game in the football European Championship 2008 and thinking about my earlier question about samba carnivals made me realise something. Why are the players in these sports championships always invariably all men? Surely women like to play sports as well. Why are not half of the players men and half women? Of course, given that football is a contact sport, mixed men and women would not probably work out. But why are there not separate men's games and women's games in the championships? Why do only men play all games? Is it because women are generally not interested in such tough contact sports, or because the longer history of men's sport has made the men's teams better players and more famous? I was just thinking about how I still had not got a real answer to why samba carnivals only feature women, and then I realised the opposite is true for sports championships. JIP | Talk 19:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Women do play these sports, and they have their own championships; see FIFA Women's World Cup for example. Women also play competitive ice hockey, rugby union, basketball, etc. Your question may more be about why the women's events are not as popular or well-known. - Eron^Talk 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that certainly helps. If there are women's championship games too, why are they not played in combination with the men's championship games? Why do people get all excited about the men's games and only pay attention to the women's games for the explicit sake of equality? On the other hand, I still haven't got an answer to why samba carnivals only feature women. But that is another question. I have realised I have all this time subconsciously been thinking it's all right when only men do something, but when only women do something, it raises my curiosity. This is bad for gender equality and I must try to be more objective. JIP | Talk 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are essentially describing the phenomena of gender roles and expectations. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just about gender expectations. In most sports, the top male players are enormously better than the top female players. Thus, the top male event is the top event in the sport. It's natural for this to be the thing people are most interested in. The first example that comes to mind of a sport where this is not the case is eventing. Here women are at no particular disadvantage, and compete alongside men (in the Olympics for example). Algebraist 21:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tennis is an exception to that. Men are infinitely better but women still get a relatively large share of the popularity. I wonder why that might be. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

First off I have to say how much I hate sports. Its just a couple of guys chasing after a ball on nice green grass...whoopy!(no offense to you.) Part of the answer to your question has to do with history. Woman in history were only viewed as property.(I don't know how to phrase that better.) Certain cultures and religions in modern time still believe woman as nothing. One of the religious groups that believes woman aren't part of society are the Muslims.

www.thenoor.org/muslimwomaninsociety.htm - 35k

Now I'm not sure if those historical views carry on today even in sports. So I looked up some stuff. I don't want sound like an expert when I only know half of what I am saying.

www.womenssportsfoundation.org...Equity-Issues...Values-and-Sports.aspx - 31k

www.accessmylibrary.com - 32k

So I help all the links work, they help, and I at least answered some of your question correctly.Cardinal Raven (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to side track this into a debate, but surely you could have provided your views on the question without making an overly generalized criticism of one religion. Many religions and cultures, to this day, fail to accord women equal status with men. - Eron^Talk 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "women used to be viewed as property" thing is a factor so much as the physical fact that men tend to be stronger. So much of competitive sports depends on muscular strength of one kind or another that people expect the top male players to automatically be better than the top females. And spectators usually want to watch the best players.

Of course, there is also a stereotyping issue as mentioned above, i.e. the belief that doing sports and watching sports both are or should be things mostly done by men, which is somewhat self-perpetuating.

I can certainly think of sports where women's championships are covered in much the way that ment's are: curling, figure skating, gymnastics, and tennis come to mind for starters. But all of them are non-contact sports and some are the kind where the score involves artistic judgement, which may be considered a different kind of endeavor altogether.

--Anonymous, 21:30 UTC, June 19, 2008.

Beach Volleyball? Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues has to do with the depth of the field. For a variety of reasons - cultural, social, psychlogical, physiological, who knows - there still seems to be a broad-based mindset that certain sports are appropriate for boys, and certain for girls. Pretty much all of the contact sports, and many of the physically active team sports, are still considered boys sports. More agressive or demanding individual sports are also seen this way. Parents who choose a sport for their child gravitate towards the sports that are considered gender-appropriate. Children participating in sport also tend to express interest in the sports that they see are gender-appropriate. As a result, there are many more boys playing sports like ice hockey, American football, or rugby union than there are girls. If we assume that only a tiny fraction of the children who take up a sport have the capacity, skill, and drive to succeed at the highest levels, then this effect is multiplied as they progress through the ranks.

For example, If 0.01% of children who take up ice hockey have the potential to be national team players, and if the sport is taken up by girls at 10% the rate at which it is taken up by boys, then for every 100,000 boys who start to play ice hockey, we will see 10 national calibre eighteen year old men - and one woman. As a result, in many of these sports there are not sufficient numbers of girls and women in the sport to sustain high level national and international level competition.

These trends are changing, albeit slowly. In North America, for example, soccer is becoming more and more a gender neutral sport. I've also noted anecdotally that, in Canada at least, triathlon is a very equitable sport at the developmental levels. - Eron^Talk 13:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In the US, at least, women's figure skating and women's gymnastics are much more popular than their male equivalents. For example, the US Women's Figure Skating Championships are shown live in prime time TV, whereas men's and pairs are shown on tape delay, days later, and usually on Saturday morning or afternoon. Corvus cornix_talk 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)