Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

Physiology and common sense

Riddle me this. Someone stated a self-observed fact about his own body and asked for explanation. He got answers, apparently good ones. For some reason he wasn't immediately pilloried and censured as a vile seeker of forbidden medical advice. I would not have thought that possible. Am pleased with the outcome, but puzzled. Are the self-appointed defenders of whatever-it-is-they-defend asleep? –Henning Makholm (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a restriction on providing information about anatomy and physiology. As far as I read the question, Wnt was most interested in the mechanics of jaw movements ("the mechanics mystify me"). The best answer pointed out the article on the temporomandibular joint. This seems perfectly appropriate to me. If Wnt had asked something like "my jaw suddenly popped out of joint, what should I do?" or "what is causing the jaw pain that I'm having?" that would be different and subject to the usual restrictions on medical advice. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

But he did ask (only very slightly paraphrased) "what is causing the restricted jaw movement I'm experiencing?". If the first editor to respond had instead blanked the question and replaced it with "medical question removed -- go see a doctor if you think your failure to move your jaw in certain directions may indicate a medical problem", wouldn't the overwhelming consensus here be that the removal was proper, and that the OP's protestations of mere curiosity was just as "guise" for asking a medical question? –Henning Makholm (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Although he stated it in first-person, to me it reads like he's asking a more general question. Also, he's an established editor as opposed to someone coming in from nowhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The addition of personal details does raise the legitimate question of whether Wnt was asking an "is this normal" type of question, which would not be appropriate for us to answer, because it would require some type of examination or other evaluation of whether there was truly abnormal jaw movement involved. But I don't get the sense that Wnt thinks his jaw movement is "restricted" in any pathological sense but rather in the sense that any given joint has certain range of motion restrictions. If another editor had removed the question I would have thought it was a little excessive but I probably wouldn't have argued very strongly against it. In general, it probably would have been better phrased to say something like "in my understanding, the human jaw can move front to back and side to side but cannot rotate left to right -- can someone explain the biomechanics of the jaw to me?" --- Medical geneticist (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the usual criterion is not whether the poster himself thinks his observation points to anything pathological, but whether it is logically conceivable at all that his observations could possibly be symptoms of something dangerous, whether or not any real condition they could be symptoms of exists, or is known to anyone on the refdesk. The usual argument is that it doesn't even matter whether what he writes is or is not objectively abnormal, because he might conceivably have a real medical problem with his jaw and just have failed to describe his symptoms clearly enough for them to be discernible from the text he wrote. Therefore, if he were allowed to read on the refdesk that his description sounds normal, he might be deterred from seeing a doctor about the jaw and we could suddenly all wake up to headlines of "Victim Of Gnathal Agnotosis Sought Advice From Wikipedia, Was Told Not To Worry". I don't think much of this line of reasoning, but I sincerely thought it was so entrenched in consensus that it surprises me it's not being used here. I must have misunderstood the boundaries of its application. –Henning Makholm (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I see it as a question along the same lines as, "Why can't I bend my knee backwards?" which is not just him, but pretty much everybody, unless they've had their knees severely damaged somehow. In any case, Wnt is a frequenter of this page, so he might offer some clarification at some point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In the past, everyone else who asked such questions have been silenced with the argument that even confirming or denying whether it is normal for knees to bend backwards would constitute a medical diagnosis and therefore be verboten ... I'm not complaining that this rule has apparently changed, though. Or was it always the case that "I presume I'm typical" were the magic words that let the speaker get away with asking physiological questions that are off limits to the hoi polloi? –Henning Makholm (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think Wnt's question is in fact a request for medical advice as opposed to simply "How does the body work?", feel free to argue for its removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of us on here can tell the difference. Can you really not, or are you just trying to make a point? --Mr.98 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If I were going to break WP:POINT, I would have removed the thread and instructed Wnt to see a medical professional, rather than start a talk page thread. I really don't see what separates this from many other cases where a poster was also (clearly, to me) just trying to satisfy idle curiosity, but was told to go bother a doctor instead. –Henning Makholm (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to box the other editors' comments and advise the OP to see a doctor. ("Bother" does not compute. Doctors get paid for their services.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The question was clearly an anatomy question. If you replace "me" and "I" with "You" or "Someone" you still have the same question. APL (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes questions have been closed as medical, even though the questioner believed they were asking a generic question about a normal condition, and just trying to establish biological facts - I remember this happening at least once. Possibly it was a question a while back about cold wrists which was framed in this way.  Card Zero  (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think reference deskers agree that they share a very basic knowledge of what is medically normal, and are willing to make assertions to questioners about it, too, provided the assertions don't appear even slightly controversial (or especially knowledgeable) to anyone.  Card Zero  (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

removed a question

I have removed a question. Let it be known henceforth that I intend to take a zero-tolerance approach to any further pointless questions from that IP. Looie496 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As a question, it seems harmless enough, though a bit odd. What's the history with that Kansas IP range? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(See below first) IIRC they're the one who wants to go to India to get their braces (asked twice, claimed it wasn't them despite similar IPs same geolocations/ISP); really, really like bidets/Japanese toilets and feel the need to convince us/everyone else of that; all their friends are holding grudges; for this and other reasons may want to join the South Korean airforce (being part? Korean); are worried the US economy is going to collapse; for this and I think the earlier reasons may want to move overseas to escape their student loan; may become homeless some time in the future but will keep their laptop and brilliant skills so need to find ways to make money; need to find ways to make money anyway with their brilliant skills (or something); and I'm pretty sure plenty of other things I can't recall off the top of my head. P.S. I'm only mentioning what I recall them having said in the past, please don't presume I'm saying any of those things are true or false or that this is a personal attack on them. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Sounds all too familiar now. Good removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't check the diff until now. The IP I am thinking of was the 70.179.169.x one. They also Geolocate to Kansas (the other one is a uni IP) and they're asking similar questions at the moment so I'm guessing it's the same person but I haven't looked enough to link them myself and I don't recall having made the connection before. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so there may be some uncertainty. I'm hoping Looie will step in here and shed some additional light on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly the same editor as 70.179.169.115 (talk · contribs), whose last question was also some nonsense about fireplaces. Looie496 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit irked how much time we waste debating whether somebody's question is legitimate. Ultimately, our Reference Desk mission-statement says it all: we are a reference desk. So, let's template up something along these lines:

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. This is a resource to assist Wikipedians who are seeking encyclopedic references. Questions that do not fall into this category will be deleted.

This is very simple and polite; we don't need to waste time debating whether the OP is wasting our time. Nimur (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How would that change anything? The legitimacy of "I hope to find some objective stats on calories burned while doing various activities, including cleaning a fireplace. Also, links would help." doesn't have to do with whether or not the questioner is asking for encyclopedic references. Taken literally as written, it's asking for encyclopedic references. Looie's claim in removing it is not that the question wasn't asking for encyclopedic references, it's that the questioner was just wasting peoples' time and didn't actually care about the answer. Most of the "is it legitimate or isn't it" debate is similar situations - they hinge not on whether the question is seeking encyclopedic references, but instead on whether or not the questioner is trolling or attempting to waste peoples' time. From my point of view, most of the back-and-forth in such debates is due to the uncertainty of people trying to mind-read the intents of posters: "Is he or isn't he honestly looking for an answer?" (as well as "Is he asking about pathophysiology of boils out of general interest, or because he wants medical advice about his own boil?") Saying that we only answer requests for encyclopedic references won't change the fact that people will bicker over whether or not the request for encyclopedic references was genuine or not. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It could be worth a try. The worst that would happen is that it would be ignored, so we'd be no worse off, and someone might actually pay attention to it. Speaking of which, dealing with these trolls often depends on someone paying sufficient attention to patterns to realize when we're being trolled. In this particular case, if this had been the only question the guy had ever asked, it was at least in theory somewhat answerable, maybe by finding a chart about burning calories for various kinds of activities, although I have doubts that such a chart would include the activities of a chimney sweep. However, Looie recognized the pattern and tossed it into the bit bucket. And his reporting of it here served an educational purpose, in raising our level of alertness to that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying no to any proposal to add reasons for deletion. And a template isn't necessary - who will even remember what the name of it is? It's sufficient just to say what is said above, in plain language. Wnt (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not support the introduction proposed above. The reason is that although the reference desk is functionally a place to seek references for Wikipedia articles, most anonymous editors probably realize neither this nor the definition of "Wikipedians". Although I agree that the aforementioned series of questions seems pointless, we should refrain from removing any AGF questions even if deemed unencyclopedic as we do not currently have as strigent of WP:NOT restrictions for the refdesk as we do for article space, and it would be more productive only to remove questions deemed innappropriate trolling by consensus (except obvious cases). ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Even the trolls think they're doing the right thing. AGF is meaningless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF. If you disagree with a basic founding principle of a community you choose to spend time in, you might find it less frustrating to find a community that doesn't operate under or enforce that principle, rather than spending energy informing that community that a basic principle of all activities in that community is 'meaningless'. 212.183.128.14 (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Scsbot not working?

Hi. I've numerous times had to manually add the Level 1 Header for the current or a past date because the bot did not add the heading, leaving the section 20-something questions over a two-day span, and I suspect that the bot has a glitchlag. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

For various reasons, the portion of the bot that adds date headers is not quite as reliable as the portion of the bot that does the actual archiving. (The actual archiving, by the way, is not done based on the date headers.) And for various other reasons, this has never been a high priority of mine to fix, but I'll see if there's something I can do. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

removal.

This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Decided to be BOLD and nip a potential off-topic debate in the bud. I suppose it'll cause another debate here, but better here than on the "reader-facing" page. Diff APL (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC) I have also BOLDly removed the triggering comment, <redacted>. That comment is every bit as off-topic as my comments which you removed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC) ... and I was BOLD and removed an inflammatory (likely) mischaracterization of the comment. Let's keep it civil, people. -- 174.21.254.3 (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC) <redacted> OK, <redacted> OK, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC) I've been BOLD and removed part of Bug's previous comment. Partially because it's his usual bashing of Anon users, but mostly for comedy value. APL (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC) The usual double-standard among the ref desk clique - anon's can take shots at anyone and seldom suffer any slings and arrows. Maybe I should start editing via my IP so I could get the clique to defend me if I act like a drive-by. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC) If the IP had tried to start a political debate, or to "get in the last word" after it had been made clear it was inappropriate I would have deleted the comment outright, instead of deleting part of it for comedy value. If you take offense at my light-hearted attitude feel free to say so, but if your problem is that you weren't allowed to make tangential political jibes, then frankly I believe that, as a long-time named ref-desker, you are getting deferential treatment that an IP editor would not receive. If the number of politically charged snipes, off-topic remarks, and jokes that appear as though they might be legitimate answers to anyone who doesn't 'get' them, came from a consistent IP address, I'd be here advocating that it simply be banned and save everyone the trouble. I suspect you'd be right behind me on that. (Of course, I always advocate the Scientific Method. You've got your hypothesis. Now try an experiment! Anyone can log out for a week and edit as an IP.) APL (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC) The other editor chose to make an off-topic political statement, and I chose not to let it stand unchallenged. But don't be so sure of what I actually do take offense at, nor of what my complete views on capital punishment are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, I got even BOLDer and removed the rest of it, again partially for comedy value, but also because I'd hate to let Bugs provoke a political debate by trying to "get in the last word". APL (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Concur with APL's removal. Concur on the content of Bugs' counter-removal, disagree on Bugs being the one to make that removal, definitely not happy that it was a stealth edit to the comment. That misrepresents what User:Marco polo posted and is heavily frowned upon here, as I'm sure the participants are aware. — Lomn 17:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC) How does it misrepresent his statement? The factual part remains. The editorial comment has no relevance to the factual part. I could have removed the "proud" part and merely left the comment that he lives in one of the 14 (as do I, by the way), but even that has no particular relevance to the fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC) You did not note that you had altered his signed comment. However, I now find your repeated willful continuance of poor behavior and/or judgment during this issue to be the item of greatest concern. You should not have removed MP's words yourself (it looks bad, given that your comment had just been removed). You should not have removed MP's words without specific notice of having done so (per widespread RD and WP consensus). You should not have dragged your longstanding feud with IP editors into this discussion (see dead horse, thataway). You should not have continued your baiting comments regarding MP, who's not even in this discussion, below. And I shouldn't have to lay this out, because you've been here for years and shouldn't need this sort of babysitting. There was a very simple solution to all this when you saw MP's original comment, and that is to redact the "proud" bit and make a note of "let's please avoid the political aspects of capital punishment, thanks" or the like. You chose a course of action bearing no resemblance to a simple solution. — Lomn 19:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC) No one notified me, either. I merely happened to see it here. Nor did anyone else seem interested in removing the equally-off-topic comments of Mr. Polo. Thanks for demonstrating, once again, that the clique's double-standard is alive and well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC) This may sound like a radical idea, but how about if Marco himself speaks up instead of everyone here speaking for him? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC) What?!? You've tried to speak for him twice in this thread alone. It was deleted both times. APL (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC) < Three Times! --apl > I would like to hear what he has to say on the matter, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC) You keep deleting my comments. Do they hit too close to home for your comfort level? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC) No. APL (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Then there's no logical explanation other than the old "I don't like it" argument. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Cool out, guys. I have no idea what you're arguing about, because apparently somebody "redacted" all the context for this discussion. Frankly, I don't care what you're arguing about. Take a break, relax, and when you're ready to contribute to the encyclopedia, we'll be glad to have you all back. Nimur (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of comments

I removed these two comments, one from Bugs and another from an anon that simply said "lol". [1]

I usually avoid removals from a page like this, but the combined effect of these two comments, as a comment on the institutional raping of virgins so that they could be executed, actually made me feel nauseous. This is not the face we want to show the world.

If other's disagree, I won't argue it: I'll just have to take a wikibreak for a week, and we all take wikibreaks from time to time. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No hay problema. And the IP was a one-shot from Paris, so it's unlikely you'll be hearing anything from him. It's just that the premise of an executioner raping a virgin just so she wouldn't be a virgin and he could go ahead and execute her, seemed darkly funny, like something from a Monty Python sketch (as with the "Bring out your dead!" segment in Holy Grail.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm here, and I found the thought of a girl being raped so she could be executed funny too, which is why I posted "lol" to you comment. They were in small tags so I don't see the big deal, but if some people can't take a joke then fine remove it. Whatever. 90.10.246.125 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The sub-thread started by AnonMoos is close to being off-topic, it cites no source and looks like someone writing down something he has been busting to write down for ages. I responded - see diff. Dolphin (t) 03:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting point. It would be good to see a source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For what an anonymous IP's anecdote is worth (not much, I expect) I too have read of an example of the practice AnonMoos mentioned in an Ancient Roman context - it might have been in Graves' I, Claudius, and/or in other generally well-researched fiction set in that milieu. The particular instance I recall involved the pre-pubertal daughters of someone executed for treason or a similar (possibly trumped-up) crime. I'll skim the book, which I have to hand, but it may take some time and I may have mistaken the source. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.175 (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Me again. The event I had partly remembered from I, Claudius (Chapter 27) concerns the virgin daughter of Sejanus, and is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article on him, here, but I'm fairly sure there was a similar instance involving two girls who were publicly raped on the roof of their family house, which I have evidently seen in some other work. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.175 (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your contributions are worth just as much as anyone else's, don't forget that no matter what anyone else says. But when you decide to contribute anecdotes about medieval rape when the subject of discussion on this talk page is not seeking your completely unsourced and unreliable opinion, expect to be judged as an anonymous editor who likes talking about how women and girls have been raped in the past. That is the precise measure of your contributions here. In any case, I collapsed that part of the thread as it was wholly off-topic and wholly unsourced. Franamax (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"likes talking about how women and girls have been raped"? Bugs said he'd like a source for AnonMoos's contribution, which I recalled as being semi-relevant to the original topic, perhaps mistakenly. I provided a source, from a well known respected historical literary work (recently re-broadcast on BBC Radio 4, incidentally). I deprecated its/my reliability partly because I could not initially remember the reference with certainty, and partly as a tongue-in-cheek allusion to Bugs' well-known attitude to IP editors. That I happened also to remember a distasteful historical fact previously mentioned by one regular editor, and provided another regular editor with the corroboration of it that he had requested, does not in my mind warrant the highly offensive suggestion that I "like" talking about rape. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.175 (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fully support the removal. Those kinds of comments have no place on the reference desk. 82.43.89.63 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In an incredibly appropriate coincidence, the above IP's UK-based ISP is called "Virgin Media". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Another question removed

I have now twice removed a question posted on the science desk by an LC IP sock, in his usual M.O., obsession with the lower intestine. If anyone thinks that question should be re-posted, they can do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link [2]. As usual, I disagree with the removal of questions that can easily be answered with reliable sources, but I won't revert. Buddy431 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You enjoy feeding the LC troll, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We feed trolls by removing their questions and arguing about it [3]. We feed trolls by turning the reference desk into a general forum [4]. We feed trolls by making crude jokes about serious subjects [5]. We don't feed the trolls by answering simple questions with reliable sources. Buddy431 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Op here/ Why does Bassbal bug keep rubbing my question. Its important to me that i get an answer. my freind has just had her lwer intestine removed (serious op). She wants to know how much weight this will lose as she is also trying to lose weight with slimming club. I just cant understand why you keep deleting my question.--92.29.195.245 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a discussion group on this operation: [6]. From browsing through it, it seems like some weight loss is expected initially, but, in the long term, most patients gain weight. I suspect that this is because the food goes through more quickly, and this leaves an empty stomach, which triggers hunger. Here's an alternate explanation: [7]. StuRat (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem with the removal. I endorse this product and/or service. Why do things get removed? One reason is trolls. Sorry if you are being unfairly caught up in this, but we have an ongoing problem at the Desks and this is an adequate solution. There are many other places on the interweb where you can get this answer. Franamax (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

To 92.29.195.245: This is a dumb question - what is the weight of an adult colon! Being an organ from the human body the colon will vary in size, volume and weight, depending on the size of the adult. We can't tell you the weight of an adult colon any more than we can tell you the height of a human adult - we are all different! You will find your question will remain on the Reference Desk, and you will get a sensible answer, providing your question is a sensible one. To get a high quality answer you must first ask a high quality question! Dolphin (t) 02:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a "dumb" question. It could be answered in many ways, such as by giving the average for an adult male and female. The normal range could also be given, say between the 10th and 90th percentiles. I don't see anything wrong with this question at all. What's the proof that it's from a known troll ? StuRat (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)