Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of miscellaneous.

Welcome to the miscellaneous reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers,
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.
    • We are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
Choose a topic:
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

June 18

How many treaties with Native Americans has the United States broken?

The book, 'Custer Died for Your Sins," states that the United States has broken over 400 treaties with Native Americans. Thanks! (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Our article is at List_of_United_States_treaties and there are lots of references to follow up on. Matt Deres (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a hard question to answer because it assumes that there is universal agreement on what it means to break a treaty. While there are instances in which the U.S. clearly broke a treaty, there are others where it depends on how you read the treaty. For example, what does "west of the Appalachians" mean? Then, you also have treaties signed that were not represented properly. At best, those are broken promises, not broken treaties, but it makes sense that some view them as broken treaties. In the end, the count of broken treaties is a matter of opinion. (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The "instances in which the U.S. clearly broke a treaty" must provide a lower bound. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Another "grey" case is where a subsequent treaty (possibly a result of a war) superseded the first. If the new treaty was "signed under duress", it could be argued that the original, more generous treaty should still be in force. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
There is an exhibit at a Smithsonian museum [1] that features many original (broken) treaty documents. Unfortunately you have to pay for a full catalogue of items in the exhibition. NPR says "More than 370 ratified treaties have helped the U.S. expand its territory and led to many broken promises made to American Indians." SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
That wishy-washy language makes it hard to nail down if a specific treaty has been broken. If I promise you something verbally and then we sign a treaty for something else, then I broke my promise, but the treaty is not broken. Broken promises were common. But, it wasn't just the U.S. government. When it best suited the government to treat a group as individuals, they did that. When it best suited the government to treat one person as the head and decision maker for a group, they did that. So, if we have a treaty between me and a large group including you, then I pick one person in that group and ask, "Can you make a decision for the group?" He says, "Yes. I can." Then, I work with him to change the treaty. In my opinion, I didn't break the treaty, but since you weren't part of the decision making process, you see it as breaking the treaty. More wishy-washy language. (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure, probably because NPR also knows this is hard to put an exact count on too. Mainly I wanted to put out some actual references on the topic, rather than provide OP with (yet another) list of people earnestly discussing the question and how it is hard to specify and hard to answer, without anyone providing references.
Honestly, I don't know the book OP mentions, it's probably a fairly reliable source on its own, though if it had good footnotes and references, they'd probably not be asking here. This book [2] may be a good resource, it discusses Trail_of_Broken_Treaties and land agreements between the feds and natives up to about 1985. I don't think there's going to be a reliable list online saying "here are 327 specific treaties explicitly and clearly broken by the USA". If anyone wants to help OP further, I respectfully suggest that finding good books and reliable sources is the best way. I think that we've already done a great job at pointing out why this question is subtle and complicated, and that there probably won't be an easy and obvious reliable answer. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest, SM, that the relevant distinction is not "specific treaties explicitly and clearly broken by the USA", but "specific treaties unilaterally and clearly in bad faith broken by the USA". μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There were plenty of cases of outright confiscation or abrogation by the US. The problem area you run into from the Indian side is where an attack on settlers, (whether real, as pretense, or by impersonators) was used as grounds for saying the Indians broke the treaty. A large number of the 400 treaties number will fall under that second category. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Lisa Simpson: "My favorite Rose Bowl Parade float is the Native American one, where all the paper flowers are made up of shredded, broken treaties." StuRat (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
From this website, and which James Whitmore used to cite in his one-man show as Will Rogers: "[President Andrew Jackson] sent the Indians to Oklahoma. They had a treaty that said, 'You shall have this land as long as grass grows and water flows.' It was not only a good rhyme but looked like a good treaty, and it was till they struck oil. Then the Government took it away from us again. They said the treaty only refers to 'Water and Grass; it don't say anything about oil'... Now they have moved the Indians [again] and they settled the whole thing by putting them on land where the grass won't grow and the water won't flow." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22

What did Jay Sekolow mean when he said PreidentTrump wasn't under investigation?

Sekolow said one thing and then said what sounded like the opposite. But he said he wasn't contradicting himself, so what is the explanation? (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Are up referring to the Fox News interview? If so this has a transcript [3]. If that doesn't work, try [4] (about the middle of the page). He says "He -- Chirrs, let me be clear, you asked me a question about what the president's tweet was regarding the deputy attorney general of the United States. That's what you asked me. And I responded to what that legal theory would be." I'm not aware that Sekulow (correct spelling) has commented more on the Fox News interview so it's unlikely you'll get any more explaination of what he means. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from unsourced comments and speculation regarding (multiple) WP:BLP(s)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(1) He's been exposed to too much Agent Orange too soon. He hasn't had time to acclimatize yet.
(2) The TV signals were crossed with broadcasts from Bizarro World, where BTW World President Trump has been reelected for life in a bigly landslide. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
(3) It was fake news. Didn't happen.
(4) As others have speculated, the interview was conducted in Schrödinger's box and Trump's status is in a state of quantum superposition or maybe quantum superconfusion.
(5) It's all Obama's fault.
(6) It's all Crooked Hillary's fault.
(7) It's all Obama and Crooked Hillary's fault. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the confusion. The order of events: The Washington Post reports that President Trump, himself, is under investigation for firing FBI Director Comey. Next, Trump tweets that it investigating him is a witch hunt. Next, Trump's lawyer says that nobody has told Trump he is under investigation. Next, Wallace tries to get Trump's lawyer to say that the President isn't under investigation. Next, Trump's lawyer says that they haven't been told his under investigation, but that doesn't preclude someone from doing an investigation without telling them. Next, someone jumps on Wikipedia to ask what Trump's lawyer meant. (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
This kind of thing might be why Trump's lawyer has hired his own lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The comments above are guesses, much bordering on snark, with no citations, and violate WP:BLP μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
μηδείς, how does any of what you've hidden violate BLP, which is about "adding information about living persons". What information has been added? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems clear cut BLP violation to me. Yes it may have been a joke but a fairly pointless one and given the BLP violation there was no reason for it (although deletion would have been better than hatting). Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I see Clarityfiend's comments as a joke, but mine were not. The Washington Post did report that President Trump was under investigation for firing FBI Director Comey. They claimed that they had unnamed sources to back their claim. It wasn't just one line in one article, it was a series of articles with titles such as "Trump is now under investigation and he has no one to blame but himself." So, it makes no sense that that claim is considered guesswork or a joke or a violation of any policy. Next, Trump did tweet that he was under investigation after reading the Washington Post article and he claimed it was a witchhunt. His exact tweet was: "I am being investigated for flying the FBI director by the man who told me to fire the FBI director. Witch hunt." So, that is not guesswork or a joke or a violation of any policy. Trump's lawyer, Sekulow, then was interviewed by Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Wallace tried to get Sekulow to say that Trump was under investigation, but Sekulow repeated that nobody has told them they are under investigation. Not being told about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Wallace went on to ask other questions. That is not guesswork or a joke or a violation of any policy. Finally, someone did ask here on Wikipedia what Sekulow meant. It is just a little higher up on this page. So, that is not guesswork or a joke or a violation of any policy. It appears that my comments are being hidden for political reasons. Since my comments don't support or attack Trump, I'm not sure what the person who hid them found that offended his personal political leaning. (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Clarity's comments were on the border between political satire and BLP violations. I say that because it's the same kind of thing that the late-night comics say. The difference is that they are expected to be satirists. Wikipedia is supposed to be serious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Questions & Answers

Is there a Doctor Who website/site to ask questions and get answers? (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many fan forums. Here's a Doctor Who wiki:[5]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Try this - Or just put "Doctor Who Forum" into Google (other search engines are available) and pick one from the long list that comes up. Wymspen (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

shoe size

a mans shoe size of an 8 EEE what is the womans size equal to that size — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

According to Shoe size. In the U.S., a men's size 8 will be either a woman's size 12 or a women's size 9 depending on method. RudolfRed (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23

Why Shavers or trimmer blades comes under consumable items?

Generally Shavers or trimmer blades comes under consumable items – I just wonder why these items are comes under consumable.

I got this reply from one of the shopkeeper in Mumbai – he was giving logic that we don’t know how many times you are using these blades / which condition you are using blades hence it comes under wear and tear.

But my question is same can be applicable for motor used in trimmer – I can use the motor long period but companies are giving warrantee for it.

Can anybody guide me on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetan sk (talkcontribs) 12:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Because the blades are designed to be replaced quickly and easily, while leaving the rest of the product intact. They are disposable. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The fact that the blades can be replaced is only part of it. The motor is a sealed unit - it is either on or off, and it is therefore possible to test it and know how long it should work for without failing. That makes it possible to give a warranty for a certain period, knowing that if it fails before then there must have been something faulty. However, the blades can be used in different ways, and can be abused as well. How long blades last will depend on what type of hair is being cut, whether the blades get wet or greasy, whether they are cleaned properly, etc. They could also be damaged if used for the wrong purpose - I have known someone use a trimmer to try and remove the bobbling on a woollen garment. That makes it almost impossible to work out how long they should last - so no warranties. Wymspen (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Rutland, England

Rutland is a county in England, but does it have a WikiProject template, like Dorset does? See {{WikiProject Dorset|class=FA|importance=Top}}.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a long list of WikiProjects at Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes though it isn't kept up to date. There is one for Dorset in the list, but not one for Rutland. Wymspen (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA