Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 October 3

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.

October 3

Brucelee

Was Brucelee's death natural? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.88.91 (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See Bruce Lee. Dismas|^(talk) 01:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly mysterious and controversial - but I don't think it was "natural" - the most common theory was that he somehow had a strange reaction to a muscle relaxant he was taking - but he'd has all sorts of seizures and other problems for several days before that and the interactions of various treatments and the recreational drugs he was known to have indulged in could easily have been to blame. SteveBaker (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

White cultural clubs

What North American universities, if any, have had white cultural clubs? What have such clubs done, and how successful have they been? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonMerlin (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 October 2008

Umm, what textbook is your class using this term? hydnjo talk 03:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes you think it's for homework. I've wondered the same thing. I've also wondered what would happen if I created the National Association for the Advancement of White People. <-- wondering if we have an article... Dismas|^(talk) 03:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC) hmm, unfortunately it was a hate group... I should have suspected that... Dismas|^(talk) 03:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dismas: The phrasing of the question seems to ask for an essay response. In particular "...how successful have they been" seems to require a subjective rather than a factual response. I'm sure that lots of debate could be initiated with such questions but our policies discourage that. I'm not sure that its homework but it seems so. -hydnjo talk 04:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Most universities have a lacrosse team. Is that close enough? Plasticup ^T/C 04:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And some even have drama clubs. -hydnjo talk 04:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My point was not entirely facetious. It is rare to find a "black" society or a "white" society whose primary requirement is skin color. Often they are "cultural societies" which practice and celebrate cultural activities associated with a race or ethnicity, and often persons of any race are welcome. Polo may be as much a cultural activity as Djembe. Plasticup ^T/C 05:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The quiz bowl team at my school was pretty pasty. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about North American universities, but British ones have plenty of societies devoted to specific white cultures (such as French, German, Polish etc.), but not general ones. (That would be weird, and redolent of white supremacism) AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call these cultures 'white'. Being French doesn't imply that. Indeed, I don't see the point of mixing up what is culture with what is race. Even talking about black or African culture seems meaningless to me, since there is no unity in the definition.Mr.K. (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, culture is as culture does. White Americans tend (tend, mind) to group all blacks together, whether they've been in North America since the 1600s, came from Cuba during Mariel, or just got off the plane from Ghana. Since "visible Caucasians" have been the majority in this country, subgroups have tended to form around things like country of (ancestral) origin: "my family is Irish," when in fact great-great-granddad came over during the Civil War or the potato famine. This was reinforced during periods of heavy immigration; most large cities, especially in the eastern half of the country, had neighborhoods that became heavily ethnic -- people with roots in Poland over here, people with roots in Italy over there, in Detroit even neighborhoods of Chaldeans (Christians from Iraq). Various "white pride" groups endlessly compare themselves with the NAACP, but go on to stick the Confederate battle flag everywhere ("it's not hate, it's heritage...") or ranting about conspiracies. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Plasticup, I know what you were alluding to with the lacrosse reference but since you bring it up, I'm sure you're aware that in international lacrosse matches, the Iroquois compete as an independent team? Lacrosse was a long-time Native-American sport and was adapted as a handy way for natives and Brits to beat the crap out of each other. I'll leave for someone else to supply the ref where a fort was defeated because the "Indians" started a lacrosse game and lured the British soldiers outside to watch the action. Suffice to say that lacrosse is in no way emblematic of white dominance (which I know wasn't your point anyway :). Franamax (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I go to school in the UK, and we have no whites-only club but we do have an oriental club and an asian club.92.2.212.124 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The fort Franamax is talking about is Fort Michilimackinac. During Pontiac's Rebellion, a ground Ojibwe used a lacrosse game as a ruse to gain access to the fort and held it for over a year.

role of individual in conservation of nature

where do i find the appropriate information

John Muir might not be a bad start. --Sean 14:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt would be another, but more controversial, one. Rmhermen (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rosenstrasse protest

what happened to these people afterwards? did they continue to live in germany? if so how? if they left, when where to and how? what about the 25 men send back from Auschwitz, did they not tell about what they had seen there, this article is a bit lacking please provide me with as much info as possible and I will improve it vastly. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello 193.115, Auschwitz was a huge complex of concentration camps composed by three main camps with several satellite camps. One of these main camps - Auschwitz II (Birkenau) - was an extermination camp and therefore claimed more victims than the other two main camps and also more than any other extermination camp in Germany. These 25 men were condemned to forced labor in Auschwitz III (Monowitz), which served as a labor camp, where they served some weeks. It is probably not possible to know something "about what they had seen there." However, it is possible that they didn't know anything more than other contemporary witnesses.

It is believed that almost all of the 2.000 Jews houses at Rosenstraße were released. Protean Editor (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

sister city

it's written here in wiki that - san francisco has bangalore(india) as a sister city. but in sister-cities.org, there's no mention of bangalore... what is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.131.192 (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sister cities of San Francisco, California also has Bangalore and references the Sister Cities International website. This website is out of date (note the copyright notice at the bottom of the page ends in 2007), an up-to-date listing is available on the sfgov website. Nanonic (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, there may be other cultural exchange organizations that operate on a similar model to "sister cities" and the lists of exchanges may have been condensed from several sources... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is often a bit tricky to track down the details of twinning, with information changing over time and sources contradictory. An example I was involved in was this discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a "bit tricky" - one of the unreferenced swamps of Wikipedia. Many of these sections have the sole reference to SCI, which is only for US-->many. I say, look for the references first and {{fact}} tag the rest. For an example of what a "Partner Cities" section should look like, see Montreal. I added sources where I could for the Montreal article, cleaned it up, then added "fact" tags to the orphaned articles. This is a big dirty area, but probably best addressed on the individual article talk pages. Failing that, at the Village Pump somewhere. It's really not a RefDesk question, but it's an area of Wikipedia I'd be happy to see cleaned up. Franamax (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Namibia

I am trying to find info on a town called, phonetically, Eye-Ice i think it is located in Namibia. any info would be greatful. it contains natural springs and is a tourist attraction, I went there as a child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We have an article, Tourism in Namibia and also Towns in Namibia and there's a website http://www.namibiatourism.com.na/. I haven't found anything that looks like it would be pronounced Eye-Ice, but if you take a look you may see something familiar that could narrow down the search. --Tango (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're looking for this place? Laenir (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats it!!! Thank you soooo much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And the Ref Desk serves another happy customer. Plasticup ^T/C 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Landing a plane on Autopilot in emergencies

I seem to recall watching a movie starring Halle Berry as a stewardess, where a Boeing 747 was hijacked and the pilots all killed. The protagonist of the film, along with Halle Berry, neither of which are pilots, then goes through the intricate steps of attempting to land a 747 without experience. My questions is, could they not just through on the autopilot? I know most professional pilots choose to land the planes themselves because of their distrust of the autopilot system, but is the autopilot that bad? Surely in an emergency situation like this, it would suffice? Acceptable (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, that movie is Executive Decision. --Anonymous, 18:48 UTC, October 3, 2008.

Kurt Russell's character was a pilot, though not of commercial jets. Also, Mythbusters showed that it was quite possible for non-pilots to be "talked down" by a real pilot via the radio, though this has never happened. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Autopilot says "yes", dramatic license says "no". --Sean 15:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all aircrafts have a landing autopilot, not even all 747s. Besides that, not only the aircraft, but also the airport must be equipped properly to allow automatic landings. And pilot have to be trained for automatic landing, since they still have to perform some tasks like: extend flaps and gear when appropriate and deploy reversers. By the way, I don't believe pilots distrust the autopilot system. After each automatic landing - that has to be performed once in a month - the aircraft needs heavier maintenance than after a human landing. Mr.K. (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that some autoland systems also incorporate automatic application of brakes and thrust reversers (see also autobrake). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC) (link corrected TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Point taken about the aircraft's capabilities, but presumably in a no-pilot-aboard-but-plane-can-do-it emergency they would redirect the plane to a suitably-equipped airport. Also, why more maintenance after an autolanding? --Sean 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The autoland feature is only available on some aircraft - it doesn't work well in strong cross-winds and not all airports have the necessary systems to support it. But in such a drastic emergency - I think that rerouting to an airport that did would not have been a big deal. The extra maintenance is probable required by some anachronistic FAA regulation - I doubt that the computer does a worse job than the pilots. The tough part for amateurs trying to land big planes (I used to work in flight simulation - so we saw a LOT of bad landings and many more crashes when amateurs were trying it) - is getting both lined up and at the correct glide slope AND at the correct speed. All of that can be managed by just about any decent autopilot - without help from the airport and without a specific autolander. Once you're aimed at the right runway at the right height and speed - then almost anyone can land a big plane from few miles out. Pilots don't use the autopilot when they can reasonably avoid it - but it's not because they don't trust it - it's because they LOVE flying and they hardly ever get to do it anymore! SteveBaker (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Followup question: In the Nelson DeMille book The Lion's Game, terrorists kill the passengers and crew of an airplane using an airborne poison and the plane lands itself without anyone alive. Is that possible? Plasticup ^T/C 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say doubtful. I'm pretty sure most planes can't be remote controlled and that it's unlikely the plane would have already been set to land. Stuff like this has happened before albeit not caused by terrorists Helios Airways Flight 522 and maybe not with planes that have autoland anyway (er scratch that example, it wasn't everyone in the plane unconscious, I still think there's been at least one case though) Edit: Uncontrolled decompression, 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash may be the case I'm thinking of. Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To sum up all the recent autopilot threads; an autopilot is to flying as a calculator is to mathematics. It's a great labour-saving device, but you still need a clueful human pushing the right buttons for it to be any use. FiggyBee (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag of convenience

Are ships flying a flag of convenience required to ever visit their alleged home port, or can they stay for their whole duration in ports they are actually used in? JIP | Talk 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Some landlocked countries offer flags of convenience. Hard to dock there! BrainyBabe (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Time of bailout

Does anyone know the time the US bailout bill was passed? Because I saw that around 1:30 or so, the Dow starting falling pretty fast after doing well earlier in the day, and I was wondering if the two were somehow aligned, and why that would be. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it was passed at 1:22 PM EDT according to this page from the House of Representatives website. Laenir (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the why, nobody knows -- and anybody who claims to know is lying, or they'd be richer than Warren Buffett. No one actually understands why the market does what it does. — Lomn 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The unusable but seemingly true explanation, as far as I can see, is that everyone follows everyone else, leaving the market a chaotic system that doesn't really follow reason. You could consider that a sort of understanding...

Indeed what I heard was people bought stuff overnight (I guess expecting this to happen) so it went up. Then the bill was passed, and everyone was waiting for the market go up. But when it didn't people began to sell again because it hadn't gone up as they had expected. This was at least according to one economist, on Al Jazeera English Nil Einne (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, and I'm just speculating here, there could be other factors influencing the market other than this bill. Like, you know, today's abysmal jobs report. Plasticup ^T/C 22:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. People try to blame the market, which includes millions of trades by thousands of people every day, on a single event "Oh, the market went down, and there was this bit of bad news today, so they must be related". Except, there's bound to be something bad and something good every day, so all you have to do is wait for the market to do what it always does, and then say "It must be cuzza this bad thing". If it did the opposite, you'd just say "It's the good thing that caused this". The reality is that the market is very complex, and assigning any sweeping moves to a singular event is probably just pulling stuff outta ones ass. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The media in particular like to assign singular events being the cause when in reality things are always more complex then that. On the other hand, suggestion it had nothing whatsoever to do with the bailout (or whatever event) is even more silly when you consider the timing etc IMHO. Note also that just because you can't precisely predict what will happen in a certain situation doesn't mean you can't, by analysing what happened, predict why it happened. In other words, while you can't say 'if X, Y and Z happened, then the sharemarket will do A' you may be able to say 'the sharemarket did A and from my analysis the reasons were X, Y and Z'. It is alway much easier to analyse why something happened after the fact, then to predict whether something will happen before the fact. This doesn't mean your analysis of why something happened must be wrong... Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Long time later, but I should also say I'm not saying the analysis must be right. My main point was I believe that the fact you can't predict how something will play out doesn't mean you don't have some chance of understanding how and why something played out how it did when you have the information. And I think this is fairly common in other areas too e.g. the weather. There is of course a strong risk of confirmation bias, and without being able to make predictions, it's ultimately impossible to show you are right. Still trying to understand how and why something happened may be useful. Nil Einne (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an economist, but I presume the reason economists speculated it was connected to the bailout is because share markets rose after the jobs data was released [1] but fell after the bailout [2]. I guess it's possible that people randomly decided to wait until 3pm or whenever the markets began to fall to sell stuff because of the poor jobs data, but I have to admit, to an uneducated observer POV, it does seem much more likely to me that the economist suggestion that it was connected to the bailout in someway is much more likely then the random wikipedian suggestion it was completely unconnected to the bailout and people just randomly decided to wait until after the bailout before they started to sell their shares but yet the bailout had absolutely nothing to do with the timing instead it was just a random period they decided to wait (because if you're gonna sell your shares why not just choose a random period of time before you do it). I guess it's up to the OP to decide which one he/she agrees with. Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

why the day start at the hour 24???

why the day start at the hour 24??? Wouldnt make more sense (if we want to say that the they start at the our that we call 24) if we started to call as 1 the hour that we call 24, start to call as 2 the hour that we call 1, start to call as 3 the hour that we call 2............ 189.0.153.254 (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In what convention is the hour "24" used? Standard 24 hour clocks start at 0. — Lomn 20:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem known to software people as "the fencepost problem". You always need one more post than you have pieces of fencing - unless you are fencing an enclosed space in which case the number is the same. In this case, you have 24 hours - so you need 24 numbers. No matter where you start, there will always be a time when it's 24:00hrs and things get confusing because digital clocks want to call that 00:00hrs. So if we did as you suggest then the problem would STILL be there - only now at 11pm instead of midnight. Calling all of the time between 23:59hrs and 01:00hrs using 00:xx hrs does avoid the confusion - and if you follow military time - then there is no 24:00, it goes from 23:59 to 00:00hrs.

Actually, if you follow military time, it goes directly from 2359 to 0001. The time 0000 is never used, because it's ambiguous (or, at least, could easily be confused) which day is meant. A sentry changeover (or whatever) is unlikely to need to-the-second precision. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, what? I'm calling on this... FiggyBee (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The really big problem is with 12 hour clocks - nobody is ever sure whether 12:00pm on a digital clock is midday or midnight. We happily say "half past twelve" when we mean "half past midnight" - but that means that 12:01am is two minutes after 11:59pm. It's much clearer to have the clock never display a 12 at all and have 11:59pm, 00:00am, 00:01am which is completely clear and unambiguous.

Indeed, isn't the minute after 23:59 = 0:00? I've never seen hour 24... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that there is no such thing as "12:00pm", pm means post meridian, or after midday, it makes no sense to say that midday is after midday or the midnight is after midday. The correct form is "12 noon" or "12 midnight". --Tango (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the reason why technically 12:00:00.00000000000000000000000...pm is ambigious, I disagree that no one is sure what it means. From my experience, 12pm nearly always means 12 noon. This because anything after 12pm is obviously 12 in the afternoon so most people automatically assume or accept that 12pm is 12 noon regardless of whether it's an accurate usage of the term. The same applies to 12am. Remember also, as I hinted it is only exactly 12pm that is ambigious/meaningless. Even one picosecond after noon is still technically pm. Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people are sure what it means, but lots of people are not; this makes the usage problematic. Properly there is no 12 pm nor 12 am; there are 12 noon and 12 midnight, and that's how they should be written. (Confusingly, "12m" sometimes means noon, with the m standing for meridiem or whatever the nominative of that word is, so that usage should be avoided as well.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'd like better evidence for this... Evidentally some US government printing guidelines recommends the opposite 12-hour clock but that's about all I could find that suggests there is any real common confusion. While it is obviously still best practice to avoid 12pm and 12am, it's definitely not uncommon and at least where I live, appears to be used largely without confusion [3] [4]. P.S. I did come across one thing which mentioned some bus timetables and the like use 12:01 or 11:59 to avoid any confusion. P.P.S. As I said in my first post, I'm not denying what proper usage is and that 12pm and 12am are technically inaccurate/ambigious. I'm simply challeging the assertation that "no one knows what they mean" since from my experience, the vast majority of people do know what they mean and use them consistently regardless of the technical ambigiouty. Also, from a digital clock standpoint, it makes sense that your clock will light up the pm indicator the moment it reaches 12 noon rather then wait 1 picosecond before it lights it up. Indeed I'm pretty sure Windows does the same thing... P.P.P.S. Also see [5] & [6] (that's about the limit of my experience, so if things are different in the UK, the US or wherever else and the terms are commonly used interchangable I'd like to hear about that) Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly, all of this nonsense started before the invention of the zero - which (amazingly) really only reached the Western world in the 12th to 16th centuries. This problem of failing to count things like this from zero leads directly to the "fencepost" problem where you don't know how to number the posts even though the panels may be numbered unambiguously. This explains why we had problem at the turn of the millennium when people argued about whether the correct time to cheer was:

• At midnight on the last day of 1999,
• At midnight on the last day of 2000.

There were other options!

SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Convention. The same thing happens with peoples ages, in some places it starts with zero and others from one or it can be evn more omplicated. In some places the numbering of storeys starts at ground and others from one. Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Measuring time as we do only came about after the invention of clocks (which I think post-date the invention of zero, but don't quote me on that). Before that, time was much vaguer and inconsistent. Often, an hour was defined as one twelfth of the length of the period of daylight which depends on the time of year. I've also seen time measured by the time between when you get up and an hour later being "1st hour", then "2nd hour" and so on - counting the fences rather than the posts! --Tango (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A large part of this question is "Why are there twenty four hours in the day?" Once you've arrived at that number and then numbered the hours from 00 to 23 (and the minutes from 00:00 to 23:59), which I think follows on inevitably in a technological society, the day has to start somewhere and the logical point is at 0000, which can also be called 2400 but usually isn't. For historical reasons, 0000 is bound to be either at midnight or at midday, and of the two midnight makes far better sense, as it would be crazy for one lot of daylight to be split between two different calendar days. Coming back to "Why are there twenty four hours in the day?", see our article on Hour, which tells us something I didn't know: "The hour was originally defined in ancient civilizations (including those of Egypt, Sumer, India, and China) as either one twelfth of the time between sunrise and sunset or one twenty-fourth of a full day. In either case the division reflected the widespread use of a duodecimal numbering system." Strawless (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The media often seem to believe the opposite - that it's crazy for one lot of night to be split between two different calendar days. Events are often described as having occurred "overnight", as if that pins it down to a precise date - but it doesn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

IIRC correctly this is the reason that the Julian day (used mainly by astronomers) runs from noon to noon rather than midnight to midnight. --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the fencepost problem was avoided by treating 00:00 as the beginning of the day and 24:00 the end, so e.g. 24:00 on October 4 is the same as 00:00 on October 5. At least that's what Markus Kuhn claims on his page about ISO standard date/time formats. And the day needn't start anywhere. I'm fond of the system where you double-cover the times using hours from 00 to 47, so that any 24-hour period can be treated as occurring on a single day and any time can be stated without a fencepost problem. It combines the main advantage of UTC (unambiguous worldwide) with the main advantage of local time zones (no change of date in the middle of the working day, or night as the case may be). -- BenRG (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

how is babby formed?

how is babby formed

how girl get pragnent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See pregnancy. --Tango (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Tango, see xkcd. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Trovatore, see somethingawful [7]. Plasticup ^T/C 22:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Or this week's b3ta. Meme's eh? Nanonic (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So i herd u leik Memes? Fribbler (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing is that I actually read the question when it was out for answers. bibliomaniac15 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And Tango Makes Three. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

They need a way to do away with insane mothers, who kill their babies, because these babies can't fight back? It was on this news this morning, a mother in Arizona killed her two babies. They are taking the babies back to New York to lay them to rest- my prayers are with the father. I am truly sorry for your loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.252.174 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(Because nobody's said it yet) I thikn it's better if you talk with a parent or other respected adult about those issues. While it's better if such discussion comes slowly, learning bits over time rather than one long talk about the birds and the bees, there are times when more information than usual may be given at one time, too. 209.244.30.221 (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the contributions of the IP should reassure you about the seriousness with which they asked this question. Darkspots (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I treat all questions as serious, I find it the best way to deal with jokers and/or trolls. It's far more fun for them if people get angry at them, if someone just answers the question and moves on it rather spoils it. --Tango (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes (dog housetraining problem)

I got a puppy about 4 months ago and she has been housebroken for at least 3 months. Now all of a sudden she is pooping in the house everyday. I know she must be upset about something but I can't figure it out. We have a doggie door and she goes out when ever she wants.I am really baffuled. Thanks

(personal information removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.146.233 (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to take her to the vets and be on the safe side, it could be some kind of medical problem and we can't really advise you there. --Tango (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the no-medical-advice thing applies to dogs. Our liability is much, much less. The vet probably won't be much use unless it seems like her poop is different, that she's incontinent. You probably need a dog trainer. They are almost always very helpful, and they tend to charge less than human therapists, and work a lot faster. The dog trainer is key because it's really easy to misunderstand what your dog needs. A good trainer may be able to solve your problem in one visit to your house (plus you doing the training they tell you to do). Good luck! Darkspots (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No-medical-advice is not really about liability, and as you can see from 'veterinarian' being added to the 'no medical advice' thing at the top after many discussion of this subject, dogs are considered very much to be covered. If you wish to discuss this further, please do so on the talk page.

Person who asked the question! Please, don't listen to random strangers on the internet; take your dog to see a qualified professional. They know far more about these things, and can examine her. 79.66.115.246 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange—that's what I thought I had told her to do. :) (Dog trainers are qualified, certified professionals, you see). Darkspots (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

They make incontinence medicine for dogs. Ask your vet about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't vetical advice but it works for sure - next time your puppy poops in the house, rub its nose in it - and repeat the exercise every time until it stops - just don't let your kids kiss the poopy puppy. And if that doesn't work, take it to the Vet. 92.23.56.200 (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion flies in the face of all contemporary thought about dog training. Really, do yourself a favor and talk to a good trainer. Check the links in the article, they look okay. Darkspots (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You put it delicately. Our anonymous advisor has suggested not merely an ineffective and counterproductive training method: they've suggested animal abuse. It's like "training" your baby to use the toilet by smearing his face with his used diaper each time he fills it: in short, insane. - Nunh-huh 15:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

1. It's NOT ineffective. 2. It's NOT counter-productive. 3. It's NOT animal abuse - training a dog to defecate OUTSIDE is unnatural as that doesn't happen naturally to the dog ie. it's artificial behaviour, but that's the price a dog pays for being a human's pet. 4. It's nothing like smearing faeces on a baby's face - at 4 months old a puppy is developmentally equivalent to a 3 year old child and should NOT therefore be crapping around the house - with or without diapers. 5. I have trained dogs and have loved them and been loved by them in return - for over 40 years - and that doesn't happen if you abuse them. 6. In short - it's not insane - but a very sensible, effective, well tried and tested, and productive cure for the problem. The puppy is having obvious psychological association problems and needs to be reminded she is the junior partner in a human's kennel - not to be abused nor to abuse. 92.23.56.200 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

People with actual names and actual reputations have come to conclusions that differ from our anonymous contributor's assertions. Again, our questioner should be seeking out advice from a reputable professional rather than an anonymous drive-by dog-abuser. - Nunh-huh 17:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh woe is me and thrice woe- I am wounded - mortally wounded - what pray awaits me in in canine hell? Perish that I should be in the charge of a master (or mistress) who cannot control me, and I am left bereft in an unknown environment wherein I am cast adrift on a sea of canine psychologists (the underclass of Wall Street Masters (and Mistresses) of the Universe). Oh woe and thrice woe. Signed Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.134.220 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)