Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2024 January 6

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

January 6

Unknown airline that goes to LHR

All i know is that they had black, green & blue. Could be asian or other airline? Serves lhr. 2.103.231.248 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Could be Saudia. An aviation nerd will be better placed to answer correctly if you could identify the shape and placement of the livery. Folly Mox (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No. IT HAD A GREEN AND YELLOW TAIL AND A GREEN ENGINE. HAD BLACK TEXT. 2.103.231.248 (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually YES IT WAS SAUDIA 2.103.231.248 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Was similar to saudi dreamliner livery 2.103.231.248 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No it wasnt saudia 2.103.231.248 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it is one of the airlines listed here: Airlines operating at London Heathrow Airport (LHR). Air Baltic has dark lettering and its tails and engines are a yellow-green. If it's not that one you could try searching imagery on some of the others listed. Modocc (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hard to say with just some colours. Even more so as seeing those colours is hard, given the difficult lighting conditions that often happen when observing something in the sky. It would be easier if you also knew what type of aircraft this was. Also, many airlines operate some planes in special liveries, instead of their default.

If you remember where and when you saw this plane, try finding it on Flightradar24 or some similar site. Without an account, you can playback up to one week ago. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

After searching the archives for yesterdays arrivals at 2-3pm gmt it was indeed saudia 2.103.231.248 (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Shampoo Expiration

For the first time ever, I finished off a bottle of shampoo today. I had a bottle as a child, but never finished it before leaving home. I had a bottle in the military, but never finished it before finishing two tours and leaving. I had a bottle in college, but never finished it before I got my PhD and went off looking for a job. I bought one ten years ago (almost to the day) when I got a job and bought a house. It is now, finally, empty. So, I've been searching and found that there are a lot of warnings that using shampoo that is over two years old is very dangerous. But, I cannot find any data on the actual rate of complications. I do not doubt that shampoo can expire, but I'm trying to see if I've simply been overly lucky through most of my life or if the dangers of expired shampoo are exaggerated. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Take a look here. My rule of thumb: If it's not stale, mouldy or dry, it's still usable. I guess shampoo can go stale just like anything else if the preservatives give in, but I guess it won't produce the best results because the chemicals that make up its advertised advantages could plain and simple break down and become little more than a mix of random simple substances. In other words, it will get you cleaner than you are, though the effect may not be as good as you'd expect and you probably won't smell your best on the next day. --Ouro (blah blah) 22:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Ouro, I'm sure you're right, but the OP is referring directly to the online mishigas about people coming down with infections from expired shampoo. I think it's absurd, but this kind of concern, namely that about expired products, came to the forefront during the height of the pandemic when people were having trouble finding inventory on the shelves. This is a good example of a pandemic urban legend that may be rooted in some kind of kernal of truth, but is mostly fearmongering. It's super interesting to see how the lockdowns spawned an entirely new level of discourse. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

In the newspaper the other day a man was discussing the rations his father received when serving in the Second World War. They included tins of meat carried over from the First World War. 2A02:C7B:228:3400:5558:2319:26C2:7300 (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas... well, all right, so I responded a little off centre, but it's still valid. I'd say that to get a disease from using old shampoo one'd have to be quite unlucky or immunity-deprived. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I think your response was great. What I’m saying is that the OP is talking about a meme that says you can get a bacterial infection from using expired shampoo. You and I think it’s baseless, but this kind of thing keeps making the rounds. There’s a lot of misinformation online and this is one of the more popular ones. It’s a huge problem in health discussion groups. For example, I can barely participate in vegan and vegetarian discussion groups (my chosen diet) because it is overrun by misinformation. There’s only so many times you can point out that people are spreading nonsense until they turn against you. These are the people that claim veganism cured their cancer and think that eating vegetables will solve every health malady under the sun. They have entire cults of supporters flocking to them. They are the same ones who think expired shampoo is the most dangerous thing in your home. Viriditas (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I get Your point now, and I appreciate You taking the time to explain this to me. The healthy thing is, I believe... to step back. If people don't want evidence-based information then it's their choice. I know this attitude is one of indifference but one can't be saviour to the entire world. Anyone looking for proper information, having doubts or just plain being attentive to how their body operates will strive to seek answers. As for the rest, well... umm... yeah, step back. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Nervous breakdown, what exactly is it?

For years, I've read about how psychoneurosis, or more popularly "nervous breakdowns" were responsible for the hospitalization of many of the biographical subjects that we write about. But for the life of me, in all this time, I've never quite understood the diagnostic criteria for what a nervous breakdown entails or why somebody would be hospitalized for it. For context, I'm currently writing about a monumental mural-like painting by Georgia O'Keeffe, completed in 1965. Much of the literature on this work expresses some wonder as to why a woman in her late 70s would even think about making such a piece. It turns out that it was something she had been trying to accomplish for her entire life. In 1932, at the age of 45, she was hospitalized for a "nervous breakdown", which was attributed to, in part, by her failure to complete a commission for a monumental mural that would have graced Radio City Music Hall, but also in large part due to her husband seeing another woman. So to conclude, in the 1930s, what would someone have to do to be hospitalized for a "nervous breakdown", and how and when did this fall out of fashion, and is there an equivalent to such a thing today? Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A family member of mine was hospitalised for a nervous breakdown in 1999, so it was still fashionable around the turn of the millennium. As to what someone would have to do to be hospitalised for it today, post-covid, I have no idea. Last I heard hospitals are still super short staffed. Folly Mox (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. So, I'm just brainstorming here, but do you think a "nervous breakdown" is a culture-bound concept that we use as a euphemistic umbrella for people who might appear suicidal or unable to care for themselves? I'm just trying to figure this out. Are there examples in non-Western countries of this kind of hospitalization occurring, or would we expect it to be almost non-existent due to the presence of extended families living together and taking care of each other? In other words, is a "nervous breakdown" diagnosis due to our western cultural approach to outsourcing and medicalizing problems to so-called experts to deal with? I'm thinking back to all the literature I've read and films I've watched where the character has a nervous breakdown, and I've never really understood what it meant. On one hand, it feels like people aren't allowed to be angry and unhappy in an acceptable social context; it's demanded that you be productive, happy, and contribute to society. On another hand, with the lack of extended families in the developed world, people are somewhat at a loss of what to do with someone who may be facing these issues. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

See Mental disorder#Definition:

The terms "mental breakdown" or "nervous breakdown" may be used by the general population to mean a mental disorder. The terms "nervous breakdown" and "mental breakdown" have not been formally defined through a medical diagnostic system such as the DSM-5 or ICD-10 and are nearly absent from scientific literature regarding mental illness. Although "nervous breakdown" is not rigorously defined, surveys of laypersons suggest that the term refers to a specific acute time-limited reactive disorder involving symptoms such as anxiety or depression, usually precipitated by external stressors. Many health experts today refer to a nervous breakdown as a mental health crisis.

HTH, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant well, but that doesn't answer anything. I gave a specific example of how the term was used in relation to an artist who was famously hospitalized for it. Nowhere can I find what this kind of thing meant or entails, and this is a pattern I find throughout the literature on biographical subjects. For me, it reads as a euphemism to protect the privacy of the celebrity in question and the family in general. For example, in O'Keeffe's case, it is perfectly reasonable that she would be upset about losing a valuable commission and having her husband cheat on her with another woman -- all at the same time. But what exactly leads to a person like her being hospitalized for a nervous breakdown? My guess is that she tried to kill herself. In other words, is "nervous breakdown" used as a euphemism for attempted suicide? Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Update: found a bit more.

NYT called it depression, and another source described O'Keeffe's symptoms as "racing heart, ongoing headaches, and crying...symptoms of both her anxiety and her depression...By early 1933, she had checked herself into a hospital for treatment. She was diagnosed with 'psychoneurosis' which is a fancy way of saying that her emotions built up, didn’t have the expressive outlet they needed, and manifested in physical symptoms. In other words: depression."

So, what was the hospital treatment for these things in 1933? Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Barbituates. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 07:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I see this entire topic as analogous to the use of the term consumption, which nobody uses anymore, since the modern term "tuberculosis" has completely replaced it. But when you read a lot of older literature, you run into the word consumption over and over again, and it’s kind of annoying. This is how I see "nervous breakdown". It appears everywhere in older literature but it isn’t an actual medical term, it’s some kind of an umbrella term for other ailments. It bothers me because it doesn’t make sense to use an ambiguous term when there are obviously so many more appropriate, narrow, and specific terms available. Even the modern term listed above "mental health crisis" is almost useless. What exactly is a mental health crisis? Sorry, but this kind of thing really bothers me. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Since you are brainstorming, I will brainstorm with you, Viriditas. A nervous breakdown, as I define it, is an acute and severe mental health crisis that renders a person who was previously able to engage in everyday activities and able to take care of themselves completely unable to do so. It may manifest in deep sadness, uncontrollable crying, extreme agitation and anger, serious sleep and appetite disorders, constant fidgeting and tossing and turning, refusal to converse with others, and lack of any apparent interest in getting their life back together. Unless almost forced, the person will not engage in routine personal hygiene, may refuse to get dressed, and may stay in bed for days on end. The important thing to remember is that "nervous breakdown" is not a formal diagnosis but rather a colloquial expression. Several types of mental illnesses may result in such an incapacitating breakdown, and treatments may vary depending on the unique circumstances of each case. Cullen328 (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a comprehensive discussion at suicidal ideation. 2A02:C7B:228:3400:5558:2319:26C2:7300 (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Neurosis (which psychoneurosis redirects to) is also interesting. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Compare also neurasthenia, in use as an officially recognized diagnosis until 2022. A century ago, hysteria was still a common medical diagnosis. A century from now, people may wonder how the medical establishment of the 21st century attached value to the diagnoses of the DSM-5-TR and the mental disorders section of the ICD-11. The neural and neurophysiological etiology and processes leading to specific symptoms are currently not understood. Once they are, this may lead to a completely different classification, much more precise diagnostic procedures, and hopefully a toolbox of targeted and effective treatment options.  --Lambiam 21:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that "fatigue, lethargy, stress-related headache, insomnia, irritability, malaise, restlessness, stress, and weariness" are a normal part of the human condition, and are commonly experienced by people as a part of their lives? Obviously, if these things make it difficult for someone to participate in society or complete normal, everyday tasks, there's a problem, but it seems odd to medicalize the human condition. This kind of thing reminds me of how homosexuality was widely considered a mental illness by the medical profession until very recently. Perhaps instead of making the human condition a disorder, we should instead teach people how to cope and deal with these things? Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

These things are all normal temporary features of the human condition, but are not normal when several are present at once and they persist to the extent of causing prolonged incapacity.

And why is it "annoying" to run into the word 'consumption' in older literature. That was the contemporary term for what we now call tuberculosis, and there was a lot of it about. Are you annoyed by encountering early 20th-century mentions of 'shell shock' because we now call it PTSD? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait until shell shock gets its own "steam punk" derivative. It stinks entering the mind of an author - I mean, his logic - using "consumption". What is it is to be expected with "shock" ? --Askedonty (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I find your second sentence puzzling. "Consumption" was (in English) a common name for (one manifestation of) the illness before "tuberculosis", which originally had a much wider medical application, was narrowed to specify this particular disease: it was called "consumption" because typically sufferers became thinner and weaker, as if they were being 'consumed' – it was sometimes suspected to be a result of vampirism, and some vampire fiction is thought to have been symbolic of it. Why would an author in the period when "consumption" was the everyday name, or a modern author writing a historical novel set in that period, use anything different?

Your first and third sentences are incomprehensible to me, even though I am a Science Fiction & Fantasy (and therefore Steampunk) fan. 51.198.104.88 (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware that the term had such a wide application. And that's true, with "consumption" it is not easy not to have the obsessive image of a candle burning low blurring the rest of the panorama. --Askedonty (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised that ataque de nervios which to me was just a translation of nervous breakdown is defined as a psychological syndrome mostly associated, in the United States, with Spanish-speaking people from the Caribbean, although commonly identified among all Iberian-descended cultures. and categorized in Category:Culture-bound syndromes. --Error (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Spanish Wikipedia, the blue link Ataque de nervios on the disambiguation page Ataque sends the reader to the page Crisis nerviosa, which is linked to the page Mental breakdown on the English Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 18:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)