Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
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 don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

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.

February 24

Samurai

So here I was talking to my karate instructor after class (or, rather, he was telling the whole class about Japanese history), and he said something along the lines that Japan under the shogunate was completely at peace for several hundred years -- and when I asked him if the samurai didn't sometimes fight among themselves (over money, over land, over women, etc.), he answered that they never did. I have trouble believing this -- I know that at the time Japan had essentially a feudal system of governance, and under such a system there's definitely bound to be at least some internecine warfare at least once in a blue moon. Can anyone verify his incredible claim? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:A09B:C22:D57D:D076 (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the entire span of time under the Shoguns (1185 to 1868) as peaceful is completely ridiculous, just looking at List_of_conflicts_in_Asia#Japan. Your teacher may have been thinking specifically of the Edo period (about the last 250 years of Shogun rule), which was indeed free of major military conflicts. Our articles don't discuss smaller scale spats between individual Samurai, but to say that they never fought sounds similarly ridiculous. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some Edo period conflicts, see the Jōkyō uprising, Shakushain's revolt and the Menashi-Kunashir rebellion. There were also assassinations and similar - see for instance, Tanuma Okitomo and Tokugawa Tsunayoshi. See the 1754 Horeki River Improvement Incident for example of an inter-clan conflict over work, although rather than violence that ended in mass suicide. In general, the Edo period was very centralized, and the daimyō lords were kept under control through peaceful methods like the Sankin-kōtai system, where daimyō were obligated to keep their families as hostages in expensive palaces near the shogun's castle. Smurrayinchester 09:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say I generally don't go to karate instructors for my history lessons. As noted above they probably meant the Edo period. The actual meaning of "completely at peace" is completely up to whoever's saying it, since there's always some cutoff where you decide that crime, unrest, etc. below that level doesn't qualify as "not being at peace". For instance, it's often stated that Europe had a "century of peace" between the Napoleonic Wars and World War I, it being decided that all the European wars and uprisings that did happen during that time, like the Revolutions of 1848, Crimean War, and wars of unification of Italy and Germany, don't count since they weren't big enough. See also the recent question on the Miscellaneous Ref Desk that centered around debating the definition of "war". --47.138.163.230 (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Excepting the disturbances linked by Smurrayinchester above, the Tokugawa shogunate (1603 to 1867) is widely regarded as "a time of internal peace, political stability, and economic growth". [1] "Life in Tokugawa Japan was peaceful but heavily controlled by the Shogunal government". [2] Certainly it was peaceful in comparison to the preceding century which is known as the Sengoku period "the age of civil war". As to samurai fighting amongst themselves, it was discouraged but not eradicated. Samurai were encouraged to study art and literature as well as the traditional martial arts, which themselves tended to evolve from purely practical fighting techniques into more philosophical systems, for example the move away from kenjutsu to kendo. The Samurai Warrior: The Golden Age of Japan's Elite Warriors 1560–1615 by Ben Hubbard has more details. Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all! So, even in the relatively peaceful Edo period, there were occasional turf wars between samurai (or rather between rival daimyo whom the various samurai served), right? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three linked above, one was a peasants' revolt and two were by the Ainu people, the oppressed aboriginals of northern Japan. The daimyo were kept largely in check by the "alternate attendance" scheme, Sankin-kōtai, which required the feudal lords to spend every other year in Edo under the watchful eye of the government. Alansplodge (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the samurai behaving badly during the Edo period were usually ronin, who didn't serve a daimyo. If you're a fellow consumer of Japanese pop culture you'll be very familiar with the ronin highwaymen/bandits/etc. that are stock antagonists in period pieces. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like the mercenary soldiers from the 30 Years War? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the Forty-seven rōnin for example. Alansplodge (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wetsuit Advice

I live in the UK and I am looking to buy my first wetsuit so that I can compete in my first - open water - triathlon. Whilst I don't have a formal diagnosis on Raynaud's phenomenon, I believe I suffer either from this or from something similar, as my hands and feet often feel very cold when I know they shouldn't. This obviously makes swimming in open water a bit of an issue. Does anyone here have any advice on this situation? Has anyone been in a similar situation? Is it common and easy to rent wetsuits? Thanks for your help. 2A02:C7D:A0E:4100:4892:E235:4C85:298B (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I linkified your post. I believe there's also a normal reaction to limit blood flow to the extremities (peripheral vasoconstriction) to preserve core body heat, when exposed to cold (does anyone know the name of this or have a link ?). The cure, for me, is to avoid getting cold to begin with. For example, I put my gloves on before I go outside, not waiting until my hands get cold, because once they get cold, it's difficult to warm them up even with gloves on. In the context of diving/swimming, you might consider a dry suit instead of a wet suit. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once you put your wet suit on, piss in it as much as you can. Well-known anecdotal way of keeping warm, to start with at least. And in keeping with the other "users" here, no references required, just personal opinons. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the OP is looking to swim, rather than dive, it may be better to determine first if a drysuit would be suitable for this purpose. I know Quora is not quite a reliable source, but the users (or "users"?) responding to this question seem to agree that a wetsuit is preferred for swimming.

As for renting a wetsuit, a Google search for "wetsuit rental in the UK" finds links to several stores that provide this service, so it appears to be a common practice. Hope this helps! --FlyingAce (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't give medical advice here but can tell you from personal experience that in my late teens (how old are you?) and was 'slimly built' ( are you too?) and fast through the water, it was just my hands that became so painful – so do I empathize. This is well recolonised. Have a read of this, and contact them Triathlon for advice on open water swimming. P.S. With me, the problem diminished and faded as I grew older. But I still remember that agony where I couldn't even join in snow-ball fights.

Of course a wet suit is what you need. StuRat is talking rubbish to suggest a dry suit. And piss in it. That's "REALLY HELPFUL" to stay warm. But as usual, no references required! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlyingAce, dry suits aren't just for diving, as the first sentence in that article states: "A dry suit or drysuit provides the wearer with environmental protection by way of thermal insulation and exclusion of water, and is worn by divers, boaters, water sports enthusiasts, and others who work or play in or near cold or contaminated water.". A triathlon is a water sport (or rather 1/3rd of it is). StuRat (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP said he wanted a "wet suit". Start listening. And then start using some references!! I think reminding us that a triathlon is a water sport (or rather 1/3rd of it is) is completely and utterly patronising when the OP is actually competing in the event. What the hell? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hi StuRat – I understand it can be used for swimming, but my point was that it does not seem to be too efficient for this purpose; or at least that's what the thread I linked above suggested. I would imagine that efficiency matters when participating in a triathlon. ⁽^{[citation needed]}^{, before anyone asks)} --FlyingAce (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but if his hands and feet go numb, that may lower his efficiency even more. Note that I am suggesting the type of dry suit which also covers the feet and hands, as for use in toxic water. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some internet opinions on drysuits for open water swimming:

"Swimming in a dry suit is generally difficult. With fins and scuba gear, it isn't too bad, but you would be hard pressed to swim very far on the surface".
"Don't even think about a dry suit, you won't be able to swim at all in one of those, no matter how cold the water".
"You're not going to get very far in a dry suit so a wetsuit is your only real option". [3]

And from me (not an open water swimmer but some thrashing around in English and Welsh cold water doing stupid kayak rescue tests): those who wish to pre-warm their wetsuits and don't wish to smell of piss can always bring a Thermos flask of warm water for the purpose. Alansplodge (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and to answer the question directly, go to a shop that sells wet suits specifically for triathlons and talk to the staff; they're usually only there because they're obsessed with the sport and will happily talk through the options. Alansplodge (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if swimming off the coast of the UK, attempting not to smell of piss, shit, used condoms, oil, plastic bags etc, is a waste of time, a noble pursuit but ultimately flawed. Go for the piss, it works just fine. And once you're skilled, it's on demand. Citation needed. But not at the Ref desks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe that's old news, see Water at England's beaches is cleanest on record. Alansplodge (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't give medical advice here but can tell you from personal experience that in my late teens (how old are you?) and was 'slimly built' ( are you too?) and fast through the water, it was just my hands that became so painful – so do I empathize. This is well recolonised. Have a read of this, and contact them Triathlon for advice on open water swimming. P.S. With me, the problem diminished and faded as I grew older. But I still remember that agony where I couldn't even join in snow-ball fights. --Aspro (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There a wet-suite bootees and gloves - a good dive shop will sell them. They will help keep your hands and feet warm. However, you would be well advised to check if the competition authority will let you use them, and if changing in and out will take too long. LongHairedFop (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If your hands are well recolonized, you may have coral growing on them. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

When I played football, I taped chemical heating pads to the inside of my wrists. It helped keep my hands from going numb. Unfortunately, it didn't make be about 2 inches taller, so I never got past blueshirt. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

Media attacking Donald?

see talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 05:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is there a concerted campaign to attack the president by the media? It seems like all the major establishments have gone out of their way to criticize Trump. Like non stop. Trump has even said him self that he's the target of false news. Yet, he's only been in office barely more than a month. Clearly, the situation has gotten so out of control that his team has had to restrict which media outlets his team can engage with. Is it because he's an outsider, or some sort of establishment in the shadows genuinely feels fearful and threatened by him. Sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.85.27.76 (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every politician gets attacked by the media. In Trump's case, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any politician who lies as often and as badly as Trump does will get attacked. For example, his claim that he had the highest electoral vote margin since Ronald Reagan, when everyone since Reagan has actually done better, in at least one election, with the exception of the last Bush. His claim that there were 5 million fraudulent votes for Hillary is just as bad. If he really believed this, he would launch an investigation. Then his claiming that anyone who points out his lies is "fake news", when he is actually the one generating fake news, isn't going to endear him to the press. StuRat (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't answer loaded, leading questions obviously intended to advance an opinion or viewpoint. However, to humor you, the media is calling Trump out because he's a pathological liar. WaltCip (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All politicians are liars and are accused of lying. They're a lot like salesmen. And it's not new to Trump at all. I'm thinking back to 1993 or so. You've heard of the "first 100 days"? One magazine (Spy (magazine)) had a picture of Bill Clinton on the cover, with the caption "Clinton's first 100 lies". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a historical context, see There's history behind Trump's press attacks. Alansplodge (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One job of the press is to keep government honest. Every president has been called out on various fishy statements. The other job is selling ad space. The previous presidents may have been fine statesmen, but lacked the starpower of the WWE Hall of Famer/reality TV heel whose name has adorned giant buildings for decades. Millions of news consumers/voters have seen Trump as a big deal for about as long as they've known Santa (or Satan).

Also consider how most candidates run again one party, not two. Each party has its friendly voices and straight-up employees in the mainstream media. Trump still leans red (if you have to put him somewhere), but prevented quite a few influential Republicans from officially running the country, or even running to run it. That won't be forgiven for a while yet, despite how politely those losers conceded on their podiums.

Finally, Americans are online more than ever for this president (probably a coincidence), and the Internet has a way of making raving like a lunatic about celebrities, religion and politics way more acceptable and rewarding than doing it in public. If a story harnesses and stimulates that rage, it makes more money than if it doesn't. Since the Web took off, Americans have had a war president and a black president. Raging too hard against either could make a person or company seem unpatriotic or racist, even if the complaints weren't. Donald Trump is made entirely of fair game, so the floodgates can finally open after sixteen years. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

But how can they keep government honest when they themselves lie all the time??? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've bought into the Trumpist propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give us some examples of the press "lying about Trump", and we will tell you if those really were "lies". More likely, it's just something true that Trump didn't like. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Donald Trump is a spider monkey fighting tortoises." InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a good metaphor [and a good prediction]. He vanquished every foe in the Republican primaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And "driven by pure anger". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

Note that the press wasn't particularly kind to Richard Nixon. See Woodward and Bernstein. When the press sees lies, they go in for the kill. That's what they are supposed to do. StuRat (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the media were after Nixon long before he became president. Likewise with Trump. He's been lampooned for at least 30 years. A 1987 Doonesbury series about him had him saying he would be running for president. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before there were Muslims, before there were transexuals...there were Indians. Fun Fact: During Election '88, that writer shot an unarmed and undressed stoned teen in his pool. With an illegal weapon. Nobody's perfect. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

And he was on Nixon's list, too. Small world. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

Note that Trump doesn't just say the media is out out get him. He also says the courts are, the political system was rigged against him, millions voted illegally to deny him the win in the popular vote, then there's the women who accused him of sexual misconduct, the students who accused him of fraud at Trump U, the people and businesses he refused to pay, etc. See paranoia. StuRat (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and the latest, Trump now accuses Obama of leading a conspiracy against him. StuRat (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This, from a guy who insisted Obama was born overseas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

Question copied from other forum

[4]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.91.88.210 (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some possible causes and solutions. --Jayron 32 22:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She may 'feel' caught between a rock and a hard place. Look at it from her point of view. On your property she had the run of the place – she is the Queen of her domain. Then you take her to another place and she doesn’t understand what was going on with all these other queens. Horse are herd animals, they grow up understand the hierarchy within their own herd (which included you -the rider). Got to ease her into the bigger herd. At the same time letting her know, that the two of you working together can beat the competition. Trying to calm her down, just reinforces her suspicions, that maybe she is doing something wrong and/or other horses are become a potential threat to her herd instinct of her position. At the same time, you may come to appear in her eyes, not to be the leader she respects. One has to let them follow their nature at times. Don't waist money on horse-whispers unless they have a really good proven track record. --Aspro (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe see also "The Old Gray Mare". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they make her miserable, I wouldn't send her to the shows. Her mental health is more important, isn't it ? StuRat (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OP - why are you re-posting posts by other people made on horse forums? This one was on horseforum.com recently and from the wording seems to be made by an American. The question on the Computing page about hacking was written by a British person and was posted to the Horse and Hound forum a couple of days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.15.246 (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question removed as likely copyvio of above link. Last time we had this happen, the OP kept posting questions from different people on the forums strongly implying they aren't the original author which seems to be repeated here. I have left the replies as I don't want to get into an argument with those who argue against deleting good faith responses. Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

website for survey questions

Is there a website that allows you to make a survey with questions to people for your sociological projects? Please and thanks. Donmust90 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used it for make a survey but I've had a few people ask me to take surveys on SurveyMonkey.com. †dismas†|^(talk) 18:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, surveymonkey is a popular choice. You may also enjoy skimming the reddit forum "samplesize" [5], which has some information about surveys, and is a place where people post their surveys looking for participants. (NB, posting in such a place potentially skews your sample, but if it's just for fun/casual usage you may not mind.) SemanticMantis (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouGov.co.uk for sociological and political surveys. Despite the name, it is world-wide. LongHairedFop (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use Google Forms which marries well with other programs on the Google Drive platform. That is, you can create a survey in Forms, which collects data in Google Sheets and then you can use sheets to do data processing on the results. --Jayron 32 20:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

Why is a "cup" sometimes 5 fl.oz. and sometimes 8?

Why are 60 fl.oz. (~1800mL) coffee makers sold as "12-cup" coffee makers in the US and Canada? That implies that a "cup" is 5 ounces, but every reference site I can find says it's 8 ounces. Neon Merlin 08:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've just hit on one of the reasons why the US habit of using volumes, rather than weights, is such a flawed concept. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally greatly prefer using weights for most things, including liquids I'm not convinced this is an example of that. As I said below, this problem seems to arise because a measuring cup has a certain definition of volume, but cup can also mean different things, e.g. a cup of a drink which may not use that definition. This problem will arise in any case where you have differing possible definitions, for example if a I define one serving as having a standard definition of 250 grams when it comes to cooking, someone may still resonably define one serving of a drink of coffee as being 180 grams. Even when it comes to measuring cups, the cup still has definition problems since the precise volume depends on the definition. Normally if the recipe uses US customary units you can assume it means 8 US fluid ounces and if metric 250 ml, but that isn't always the case as some do use 200 mL. But again, these problems only arise because of differing definitions and they could arise if we used weird weight measures as well, even if weird weight measures are less likely for various reasons. If you use a volume measurement with a precise definition and almost no disagreement, which applies to millilitres but not exactly unqualified fluid ounces (although in most cases the difference between imperial and US customary and US nutrition labelling is well within any margin of error anyway) you don't have this problem. This isn't to suggest that using volume doesn't have problems, as our article says with certain dry ingredients density of packing can vary quite significantly and most of the time you care more about weight. Then there is the oddity of using volume for non granulated solids like butter and the difficulties this imposes if you can't rely on packaging markings.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At the former Fretter Appliance store 'The company's founder and spokesman, Ollie Fretter, became known in the Detroit area in the 1970s and 1980s by humorous TV commercials in which he promised, "I’ll give you five pounds of coffee if I can't beat your best deal. The competition knows me. You should too!" (When occasionally he had to make good on the whimsical offer, Fretter gave away one-pound cans of coffee that had been relabeled "net weight — 5 pounds".)' When asked about this, they just said those are "Fretter pounds". Good thing they went out of business, with this deceptive practice. StuRat (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help that a fluid ounce in the USA is not the same as a fluid ounce in Canada or the UK, where the Imperial system is still used. Wymspen (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the same, but close enough for this discussion. The US fluid ounce is about four percent larger than the Imperial one. The big difference in the liquid measures is that the Imperial pint is 20 ounces, whereas the US pint is only 16 (and proportionally for quart and gallon). --Trovatore (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An 8 fluid ounce cup is a measure used for cooking etc. It's not necessarily the same thing as a cup of a drink. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the general subject, one item that comes up is this coffeemaker instruction set,[6] where they specifically say that their idea of a cup of coffee is 5 fluid ounces. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This site[7] says that a coffee cup can vary in size. However, if a mug holds exactly 8 ounces, how likely are you to fill it to the brim anyway? If the machine dispenses 5 ounces, that would allow for cups that are rather smaller than the typical 8 ounce mug. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick read of Cup (unit) will reveal that there are half a dozen legal definitions of a cup as a unit of volume (from 200 to 284 millilitres) - varying from country to country. None of them have anything to do with the size of a cup as a physical object used in drinking (unless it is specifically a measuring cup), which can be any size the manufacturer wants it to be. Wymspen (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cup" is too flexible a term. Consider the Chinese teacup, which is quite small compared to a coffee mug. Or the Stanley Cup, which is quite large compared to a coffee mug. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My foot is not 30.5 centimeters long. It still doesn't mean that the unit known as a foot is inconsistent. In the context of a unit of measurement, a cup is 8 fluid ounces. In the context of a vessel, the object we call a "cup" can be any size at all. --Jayron 32 14:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that ads don't state whether they are using the legal unit or some other def. They could very well say something is 2 feet long, then show somebody measuring it out with their small feet. I suppose somebody could even say something is X meters long, then show a series of voltmeters laid out end to end to justify that length. The desire for deception on the part of retailers has no end, so unless there are laws against it, it can't be stopped. StuRat (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that ads are purposely misleading? That is cray talk! 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For further reference by the way, coffee manufacturers use the Tasse à café as the standard size coffee cup; it appears in reporting the serving size they've thrown in a bit of a fudge factor. --Jayron 32 14:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serving size is a bit different, as that's supposed to be how much a person consumes at once. So, more potent drinks will have smaller serving sizes. However, ounces would be more honest way to report them. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several posters mentioned coffee mugs. For those not accustomed to drinking coffee in the USA for half a century, the size of coffee cups has increased over the years. When I fill a coffee cup from a 60+ year old china set to a level that isn't likely to spill, it holds about 6 fl. oz. (around 160 ml). I suspect the size used by manufacturers of coffee making equipment was set back in those days. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mugs are indeed getting bigger. --Jayron 32 18:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an actual 100 ounce coffee mug sold in the US: [8]. I own one. Useful for long road trips. Or perhaps you need 2, one for input and one for output. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I would describe as a coffee "mug" is as small as 8 ounces. Pulling a couple standardish mugs from my cabinet and trying them out with a measuring cup, they seem to be around 12 to 14 ounces. I have smaller coffee cups, but I wouldn't call them "mugs". --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Sessions

Hi. This morning Jeff Sessions said he cannot remember (recall) about the meeting with the russian Amb. . Now (this evening) he says he spoke with him about terror..and....blabla ?? Or am i wrong, that nobody noticed that (yet) ?? regards. 2001:7E8:C08C:1401:3CC0:2F2D:BDE2:F8B0 (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What sorts of references can we help you find? I'm afraid your request for information is not well formed, you appear to be making a statement (with a question mark) rather than asking for more information. Please restate your question in a form we can find answers for, so you can help us help you. --Jayron 32 02:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may come as a huge shock, but sometimes politicians aren't entirely honest or straightforward. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 3