I’m very curious about this media. Can you please explain on why educational programming, such as Nick Jr and Disney Jr are aimed at preschoolers and younger audiences, while TV shows and cartoons aimed at older audiences are primarily and mainly entertainment? What is the reason behind this? Why do shows like non-educational shows get more popularity and appeal than educational shows? 2600:387:F:5719:0:0:0:3 (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that pre-schoolers are by definition not necessarily receiving any formal education, thought they are at a stage of development when they can absorb a great deal of knowledge, so shows that provide educational elements are thought to be important for them; those that are older and now in formal education are receiving it there, often quite intensively, so may be thought to have a greater need for entertainment as a relaxation from their efforts earlier in the day. Note however that educational shows require some degree of entertainment to retain viewers' interest, and 'non-educational' shows may include educational elements, even if disguised or unobvious.

Educational shows are mostly (though not entirely, see for example the Open University which formerly made extensive use of TV broadcasts) aimed at quite young audiences; non-educational shows are aimed at both older and broader age groups, to the extent that even adults enjoy them, so they have larger appreciative audiences. Since ultimately program(me) makers are in part driven by the ambition to maximise their viewing figures (which attracts greater institutional funding, or advertising revenue, or both), they actively seek to maximise their shows' appeal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.251.148 (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, some TV output is specifically designed for use in the school corriculum, see BBC Schools and Channel 4#Schools programming. Other programmes for older children mix education with entertainment, especially on the BBC with its public service ethos; Newsround (current affairs) and Deadly 60 (wildlife) are examples, while magazine programmes such as Blue Peter have a great deal of educational content. Alansplodge (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naure and science shows are classified as educational and are usually aimed at older audiences. Overall, people don't want to learn. They want to be entertained. That is why the nature shows have to keep showing cute or silly animals to hide the educational value of the progam. Science shows have to blow stuff up to keep people tuned in. Any education is sneakily crammed beween the cute animal babies and big explosions. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me it would be PBS, a channel dedicated to educational programming and to serve all audiences. 2600:387:F:5719:0:0:0:3 (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, people don't want to learn. They want to be entertained. This is the point I was addressing below. This is an argument made by advertisers and marketing executives, not by people who study this subject at an academic level. Therefore, I'm not convinced it is true. Rod Serling touched on this subject in his interviews from the early 1960s. Serling took the position that the numbers showed that people were open to more educational forms of entertainment but the word had come down from the advertisers that such forays often challenged the very nature of the products that were being sold during airtime. Serling wasn't alone, this was a hot topic in the 1960s and many others came forward to challenge the idea that people didn't want to learn from television programs. I don't think you can separate this idea from the American anti-intellectual tradition, which began to attack the university system in the mid-1960s for "arousing" the imagination of the students and leading them to protest against restraints and limitations on free speech, political association, women's rights, the Vietnam war, and many other things. The US networks refused to air educational programming for this reason, regardless of the influence of the mighty Wurlitzer, etc. In other words, there was a gentleman's agreement between the government, the military, and corporate America to keep things light and avoid speaking truth to power. Science fiction and fantasy writers saw what happened and people like Serling, Roddenberry, and others began to speak truth to power in allegory alone, as the suits wouldn't get it anyway. Addendum: Having had several hours to think about this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the statement "people don't want to learn, they want to be entertained" is false. I came to this realization by looking around me and realizing that people are actively learning all the time within their different subcultures, often under the guise of entertainment. The most prevalent example is sports. Sports fans are obsessed by statistics and learning as much as they can about their chosen game, often in ways that crosses over into math, history, and cultural studies. The second example that comes to mind is music. Music is viewed as entertainment, but people who appreciate it find they are lifelong learners when it comes to the discipline that crosses over into a wide variety of fields, very often engineering and physics. Sports and music are some of the most viewed content on television. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do shows like non-educational shows get more popularity and appeal than educational shows?

It's a great question. For a while, it seemed things were changing from the 1980s onwards, as educational shows began to become more popular with adults (I'm not going to list them, if you're familiar with television history, you know what shows I'm referring to here). When the internet began to get more popular, the rise of nerd culture also led to increasing demand for this kind of thing, and for a while, platforms like YouTube seemed to be fulfilling this need in many different ways before the Great Recession. Now, before I continue, we should probably consider the 1960s, where discussions about this kind of thing first took place. The general consensus was that there was a need and a demand for adult-oriented educational television, but the networks were not willing to pursue it. Advertisers and other entities wanted mindless entertainment to best sell their products as a matter of marketing, and they couldn't really figure out a way to do this with educational television (or at least that's the argument). And you need to remember, like newspapers, television was merely a way for advertising to sell products, with writing and programming coming second. So, if it isn't yet obvious, this all points to the need for federally funded public broadcasting which is divorced from commercial interests. And while there continues to be a great demand for that kind of thing, the machinations of the business community from Reagan as governor to the Powell memo made it clear that they weren't going to accept criticism of any kind from a federally funded source. And it's that "debate" that we are still stuck in today, more than 50 years later. Summary: monied interests don't want adults educated, because then they will form unions, demand living wages, and want the government to pay for things like universal healthcare and cradle to grave social security. If, on the other hand, you cut the education benefits and only provide a path for the children of the wealthy elite, then the voting populace will be easily swayed and manipulated to vote against their interests. You are here. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The view that "television was merely a way for advertising to sell products" is, I suspect, a very American one. In many countries there are public service TV networks that don't have that commercial bias. Where I live we have the government owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Special Broadcasting Service. Since 1968 the former has produced Behind the News, described as an 'educational news program aimed at 10-13 year old kids'. There are naturally other examples, but I won't detail them now. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware. But, the OP is referencing American companies and is posting from California, so I only addressed the US. I apologize that you felt left out. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need for an apology. I see my role here as at least partly broadening the all-American perspective that sometimes arises in this global encyclopædia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess we agree to disagree. I see no need to globalize a discussion about American networks and educational programming unique to that specific country. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the initial post did it say we are only discussing the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain on why educational programming, such as Nick Jr and Disney Jr are aimed at preschoolers and younger audiences, while TV shows and cartoons aimed at older audiences are primarily and mainly entertainment? What is the reason behind this? Why do shows like non-educational shows get more popularity and appeal than educational shows? Nick Jr. is an American morning programming block that airs on American pay television channel Nickelodeon. Disney Jr. is an American pay television network owned by the American Walt Disney Company. However, having read your reply twice now, I think I have softened up to your approach. In spite of the fact that I don't think globalization is needed here, I want to now reverse my position. I think globalization is needed because it shows how backwards and out of touch the American position on federally funded public broadcasting is in comparison to the rest of the world. So, thank you for doing that. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the article about history of Native Americans and the present today. I’m motivated about their culture. Native Americans are diverse set of groups and have their own cultures. But would you please explain why do tribal nations or reservations, such as Navajo Nation, Pine Ridge Reservation, and Cherokee Nation not independent countries and are instead part of USA, despite having different cultures, languages, and traditions that are separate from each other and why would the USA won’t declare them independence? I know that the USA calls them domestic dependent nations. And I know that each of them can make laws. Don’t forget that they lasted for thousands of years before Europeans arrived. At least most can run casinos also. Additionally, why wouldn’t they have separate Olympics teams, engage in foreign relations, declare wars with each other, have their own passports, and issue currency? 2600:387:F:5719:0:0:0:3 (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are de facto under the control of the USA, for whom this would be disadvantageous. Granting them full independent nation status (assuming they wanted it) would open possible legal claims for compensation at an international level, which would be more difficult for the USA to ignore: see the articles Native Americans in the United States and Native American civil rights for details of some of their potential grounds, and for links to further relevant articles.

Currently these tribal nations have a great many* lawsuits proceeding and outstanding against US State and federal administrations, but many of these have effectively been delayed or suspended for many decades because nothing can force the government to let them proceed. (* There is, deliberately, no central consolidated list, so actual numbers are hard to quantify.)

Hope this helps. Doubtless others will be able to make more informed contributions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.251.148 (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they be under US control, after conquering lands of native? When will they become countries in future? (Late 21st century/early 22nd century) 2600:387:F:5719:0:0:0:3 (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean they are under US control now: the USA wants to keep it that way, so will (probably) not agree to giving them independence in the foreseeable future. This is a legacy of the US principle of 'Manifest Destiny' (which as a non-American, I do not of course endorse) and a policy of political pragmatism.

As to "when they will become countries in the future?" – See the notice at the top of the this page: We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. No-one can give a realistic answer: my own wild guess would be 'not while the USA continues to exist.' {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.251.148 (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A classic case of shooting oneself in the foot while kicking an own goal. Guesses are disapproved of as much as predictions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]

I called it "my own wild guess" to emphasise its lack of value, and phrased it in a way likely not to sound useful to the OP (or others). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.251.148 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Were they ever formally countries or just loose confederations of tribes/clans? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The European settlers (especially the European governments) did not recognize the Native American populations as being countries in any way. They were recognized as roaming bands of people, similar to the Roma. I am certain that some people have considered the populations to be countries (or even one large country), but there was no "formal" recognition. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The closest such situation is probably Nunavut, but it is no way separate from Canada. The creation of the territory did provide additional self-governance for the Inuit, however. You can learn more about its creation here. Matt Deres (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt Deres @JackofOz I agree, but what about the Navajo Nation? They have an office in Washington D.C. And they have their own government and laws, too. Fact is they served as code talkers in WW2. This reservation is the largest and larger than West Virginia. 2600:387:F:5719:0:0:0:3 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The population of West Virginia is an order of magnitude larger than that of Navajo Nation. Is it obvious that a sovereign Navajo Nation will be economically viable and politically stable? What is in it for the population if Navajo Nation gains independence? Unless a majority sees an advantage, proposals for independence from the USA cannot be expected to get much support.  ​‑‑Lambiam 15:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The population and surface area of Navajo Nation are similar to that of Iceland, which clearly is a viable and stable country. Iceland does however have a few advantages compared to Navajo Nation. Iceland has direct access to the high seas, so it doesn't depend on anyone to move goods in and out and can do so cheaply, whilst Navajo Nation isn't only landlocked (forcing it to use more expensive road and rail transport), it's even an enclave. The US will have complete control over what goes in and out. There're also the matters of fishing rights, cheap hydro-electricity and a strategic position on the transatlantic route. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Access to the sea also allows Iceland to have a major fishing industry, employing 7% of the workforce. Iceland has, moreover, an ample supply of geothermal power as well as hydropower, which makes it possible to operate no fewer than three aluminium smelting plants, also contributing significantly to the economy. The island has abundant fresh water, and, unlike Navajo Nation, is at no risk of desertification.  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please fix the source, to the references section regarding Michael Keaton's date of birth? It is number 3. Thank you. 37.159.35.223 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.  ​‑‑Lambiam 20:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, while the malls in United States are struggling, retail stores in airports are very successful. Since I visited the retail stores in airport and they look clean and innovative to me for sure. Why is this a case? 216.9.110.11 (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People who are in airports are, on average, wealthier than average (since poor people can't afford to fly).

Retail stores in airports generally sell costlier than average, even 'luxury' items (not everyday groceries and household supplies), charge higher than average prices (personal observations), and/or are able to sell items 'duty free', meaning they make higher profits.

Because they make higher profits, they can afford to spend more in good shop design and on keeping their stores clean. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.210.159.137 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Airport shops have thousands of potential customers funneled past their front doors daily without any effort of their own. It's a retailer's delight. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even better: many of those potential customers are forced to wait for several hours near the shop's front door for their flight. They might visit the shop out of boredom. PiusImpavidus (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the "D'oh! I forgot my [insert random item here]! I'll just grab one here since it's convenient" factor. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if any of them sell parachutes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen that yet (must keep an eye out), but naturally they do sell specifically travel oriented products such as travel pillows, pills/potions to reduce vomiting, entertainment packs for kids, etc. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I see out there, parachuting out of an airliner is not a good idea. Also, let's not forget they probably won't fit in the overhead compartment and would have to be stored in the hold. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some air crashes on record where parachutes and a good jump door (which most airliners don't have) could have saved lives: United 232, JAL 123, El Al 1862 (granted, that was a freighter, but this could have happened to a passenger jet too); cases where hydraulics failure or wing damage allowed to plane to continue flying reasonably well, but made it incapable of landing. Only in the first of those cases, the pilot was fully aware of the extend of the damage. Such accidents are very rare. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, according to this article on Seminole, as the culture section on libraries, this article says:

The idea of a tribal library originated in the 1940s at the Brighton Day School by William Boehmer and his wife with a book collection at the school.

What are the differences between tribal libraries and public libraries? Where could I visit tribal libraries? I know that Google Maps have an answer to this. 216.9.110.11 (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tribal library is a public library maintained and operated by a tribe. It will, relatively, hold more material that relates to this tribe than can be expected in a general public library. For more, see What Is a Tribal Library?. The map on that page does not work – it is a static screenshot – but an interactive map hosted on openstreetmap is found here. For a few randomly selected specific tribes:

• Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians: Absentee Shawnee Tribe Library;
• Chickasaw Nation: Chickasaw Tribal Library;
• Karuk Tribe: Karuk Tribal Libraries;
• Quapaw Tribe: Quapaw Tribal Library;
• Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe: Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribal Libraries;
• Seminole Tribe of Florida: Tribal Library Program;
• Tohono Oʼodham Nation: O’ohana Ki:
• Yakama Nation: Yakama Nation Library.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 06:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, When I searched Wikipedia for "Vine Deloria, Jr.," your article stated that he graduated from Kent School in Kent, CT. But when I clicked on that link and read about Kent School, I notice it does not mention him as a distinguished alumnus. Just wondered, why is that? BirdGirl1 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link Vine Deloria Jr. Knitsey (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's a;ready listed; see List of Kent School people#Writers, journalists and publishers, the sixth entry from the top. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the goal, you can see the crossbar resting on the posts after the end of the game. But during the game, it was fixed to the field with a net attached. You can also see a sort of “groove” at the base of the field, where the crossbar was fixed, which corresponds exactly to the shape of the crossbar. How was this groove made? Thank you. https://assets.spox.com/images/v3/getty-2218005446/crop/MM5DKMBQGQ5DEOBRGU5G433XMU5DAORSGYYQ====/GettyImages-2218005446.jpg 93.147.230.221 (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The actual crossbar is the upper round horizontal beam. The lower, square-section beam is part of a rectangular frame that during play lies on the ground to hold the bottom of the net in place. This frame hinges up by 90 degrees to rest against the back of the posts when not in use, simply to keep it out of the way. The 'groove' or channel in the grass, which accommodates the frame when it is horizontal, is probably cut by a groundskeeper with a spade or similar implement if the pitch is 'natural', or possibly built in to the pitch when it is laid if it is artificial turf, although this would require that it be filled in when other sports are played on the pitch. 90.210.159.137 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How unusual is the relationship between rowing and occupational homogamy? Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but I don't recall hearing about other soccer, basketball, baseball, football, hockey, golf, skiing, or any other sport in this regard. I'm reading about rowers, and many of them seem to have married other rowers. Is this normal or unusual when compared to other sports and rates of occupational homogamy? Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence and quite normal IMO. I'm sure I could find more figure skaters (than rowers) that married figure skaters. Madison Chock and Evan Bates, Jamie Salé and David Pelletier, Ekaterina Gordeeva and Sergei Grinkov, Eva Pate and Logan Bye. 196.50.199.218 (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also Christopher Dean, Kurt Browning, the Protopopovs, and various husband-and-wife coaching teams come to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A thing in tennis too; Chris Evert & John Lloyd, Steffi Graf & Andre Agassi, and Roger Federer & Miroslava Vavrinec for example. See also Tennis players who married each other for more instances. Alansplodge (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, the UK and, I suspect, many other countries, being a rower is a sign you went to one of the "right schools". Perhaps what you are seeing with rowers is that they marry people from their social class. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's at all unusual for people of same or similar professions to get together, and that's not just true of sports by any means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that until very recently (certainly in Association Football and Rugby Union), the women's game had a much lower status than the men's game, so male players might be unlikely to meet their female couterparts very often? Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me, or is our article Homogamy more air than substance? "There are three criteria with which people evaluate potential mates". Only three? What about compatibility of value systems? Would a dedicated fighter for social justice not consider that an otherwise eligible and attractive mate is a hardcore white nationalist? Then these "criteria" suddenly become "categories", which apparently "can heavily shape themselves around the secondary traits of ethnicity, religion, and socio-economic status." What does that mean? Categories that shape themselves? And heavily? Have they been working out in the gym?

As to the question, there is also the issue that (at least in societies in which arranged marriage, child marriage etc. is not the norm) a person usually has to meet another person before there is a chance that mating between the two will take place. There is a simple reason why there are more couples that are both professional musicians than you'd expect if mates were assigned by lottery. Such couples are simply more likely to have met in the first place. Longshoremen rarely meet professional musicians. Once you take this into account, I bet that most notable cases of occupational homogamy are not significant.  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that sports where men and women typically compete and/or train alongside each other are likely to lead to heterosexual occupational homogamy. Rowing isn't a mixed sport, but regattas typically include men's and women's races, and they all train in the same facilities. Tennis, skating, cycling and swimming would all be similar.

Playing in a big single-sex team sport like football (of whatever sort) won't put you in as much contact with players of the opposite sex.

Also, if you play a relatively obscure sport, finding a potential partner who plays the same sport is a more significant attraction factor. Chuntuk (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your penultimate paragraph; it is now common in the UK for professional clubs in major sports such as Association Football, Rugby Union and Cricket to maintain both men's and women's first teams (as well as others for younger players) whose members will likely have regular contact in both training and more social settings. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I had a entire paragraph of information deleted in the history section of the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps so I reverted it, yesterday I filed a request to prevent this from happening, it was denied but it went something like this (not 1:1) "Given the organization's focus on minors, it's plausible that children or inexperienced users are unintentionally adding personal, non-neutral, or unverifiable content. To preserve the article's encyclopedic tone and prevent further disruption, I am requesting semi-protection to limit editing from unregistered users." And just today this happened, so should I make a new request as this is currently being under assessment for B class and promotional text could threaten the article I believe this edit was by a person from the official organization further making me believe it could threaten its credibility I'm asking others so I don't get blocked by making the report. Tokeamour (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is not an appropriate venue for discussing the issue you raise. Perhaps the Wikipedia:Teahouse can provide you with some guidance.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Not all flakes are dandruff. For example, some can merely be product buildup on the scalp skin. This could result from the common practice of applying conditioner to scalp skin without washing. This would dry upon the scalp skin and flake off, appearing like dandruff and even causing itchiness, but have no health effects whatsoever."

I don't understand what this means in article can someone help me understand what it's saying?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_care#Breakage_and_other_damage 124.185.240.116 (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dandruff is a (usually very minor) health condition where dry skin flakes off the scalp. It's generally considered unattractive.

The hair care article says that if you put conditioner on your hair/scalp and don't rinse/wash it off thoroughly, it dries out into whitish crud. That's called "product buildup", and it also happens with other products like gels, mousses, and hair sprays if you don't clean your hair regularly and thoroughly. I guess under certain conditions, buildup can flake off -- giving the appearance of dandruff without being dandruff.

The article seems a little alarmist about conditioner to me. I can personally attest that leave-in conditioner does not cause this problem so long as you rinse it out in your next shower. Co-washing (using conditioner instead of shampoo to clean hair, rinsing thoroughly) can also be helpful for people with dry hair and does not cause buildup. Though washing with shampoo at least once every couple weeks helps is still important in that scenario.

I'll note that that entirely article is very poorly referenced, and the section we're discussing has no citations at all. I would suggest reading it with some skepticism. -- Avocado (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If conditioner is applied but not properly rinsed off, the wet film that is left will (under normal conditions) definitely dry up. It becomes a dry brittle film. If the hair is then rubbed, this film will start to flake. This is not an alarm call but simply an observation. The moral is that such flakes are not necessarily dandruff. Someone shedding flakes from their scalp should also consider conditioner buildup as a possible diagnosis.  ​‑‑Lambiam 14:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, as someone who uses regular-old conditioner as leave-in conditioner but rinses it out and co-washes daily, I've never had a problem with it flaking. The quote from the article seems to suggest you should never use leave-in conditioner or you'll inevitably look like you have dandruff, which is just plain incorrect.

If you keep adding more and let it build up over several days without washing, I could imagine it getting cruddy and flakey, tho. And I agree that what's being said in the article is that it's a possible cause for what looks like dandruff and should be considered as an explanation if you have that particular hair care habit. How true that is is TBD, especially as it's uncited. -- Avocado (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your entry for United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, shows four dissenting justices, Clifford, David, Bradley, and Hunt. The Westlaw report and a private publisher's report show only Clifford dissenting. What is your source for the other three dissenters? Judge Jon Newman Jononewman (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to the article United States v. Cruikshank. Pinging the user who added this to the infobox – the main text only mentions dissent by Clifford. This user is only sporadically active, though, and may not see the alert.  ​‑‑Lambiam 20:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find any evidence for concurrence to this "dissent" in either in the Westlaw case report or through Westlaw's AI (I don't know how accurate that system is for such things, though.) One would think there would be some evidence somewhere for such a concurrence in such a case. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a comment. I asked a question about Wikipedia's entry for the Supreme Court case of "United States v. Cruikshank." Your entry lists four Justices who dissented. I would liketo know your sources for their names.

Judge Jon Newman Jononewman (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The respondents on the reference desk are also curious about the sources of the editor who added this and has thus far not responded to being prompted. The most likely explanation seems to be some confusion with another, less famous case before the early Waite Court.  ​‑‑Lambiam 05:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the alleged concurrences to the dissent; they don't appear in any of the expected sources. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without the mess in Florida, would punch card ballots have remained in use in the states that adopted them or not? Thanks. 93.147.230.221 (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't speculate about alternative histories here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

looking for 5000–6000 Kelvin shop (grow) lights, I'm based in US, must be 3 foot long and chainable. Lumens should be around 2k–3k. Any help? Therapyisgood (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the type of thing you're looking for? https://www.walmart.com/ip/BoostGro-3FT-LED-Grow-Light-Full-Spectrum-with-Enriched-Red-Light-Linkable-Design-for-Indoor-Plants-and-Gardening-4-pack/393302318?classType=VARIANT&from=/search 196.50.199.218 (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Clancy (baseball) and Jim Clancy (journalist) supposedly have the same birth date, December 18, 1955, which makes me suspicious (though, of course, it is possible). The baseball player is easy to check, but could someone confirm or disprove the journalist's arrival. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The baseball player was reportedly born in Chicago, making it more suspicious. Our article on the journalist states, "Clancy joined CNN in 1981 as a national correspondent after an extensive career in local radio and television in Denver, Colorado and San Francisco, California." The earliest item under the heading Experience on his LinkedIn page is:

"News Director, Anchor / KCFR Public Broadcasting Univ. of Denver / 1970 - 1971 ... Lots of people go to University for a degree. I got a career. It was thanks to the news department at KCFR. I went in (hair over my shoulders) and suggested I would be a great spinner of rock tunes. They told me the list to become DJ was so long I would never get to the job before graduation. BUT, if I took a job in the news department, I could be pushed up the list. It was all a TRICK! I never got out of the News Department!  ;-) 50 years and counting!"

This LinkedIn page also has, under the heading Education, "University of Denver / 1967 – 1971". It is also not impossible but quite implausible an 11-year-old Chicagoan would go to study at the University of Denver, and even quiter implausible for news articles on the person to collectively fail to mention he graduated at the age of 15. The journalist was likely born in 1948 or 1949, in or near Denver, Colorado.  ​‑‑Lambiam 03:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrosheet confirms the ballplayer date and city.[1] That info has been in the article from the very first entry, in March 2005. The journalist info was added by a user named Barreto a couple of years ago.[2] He edits only sporadically, but it might be worthwhile to contact him and see where he got the info. My AGF hunch is that he copied it from the ballplayer page, somehow thinking they're the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures of the journo are totally channelling Donald Sutherland's character in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. --Trovatore (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

I've deleted the date and city from the journalist's article for now. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wager that WP contains more than a handful of similar cases of (well-meaning) addition of one person's details into the article on a different person with the same name. There must be a quicker way of detecting such things than manually checking all potential cases. I wonder how many potential cases we have; probably thousands. We have well over 300 articles on John Smith, for starters. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the Ancient Greeks devalue the visual arts as mere craft and lift up the performative arts? Didn't this prevent technology from advancing and hold them back developmentally? Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This question cannot be translated to Greek. While English has two words art and craft, Greek has just one word, τέχνη (tekhnē). We are not allowed to speculate, but I cannot help notice that in present-day society film actors and stage musicians tend to have a more extensive fan base than painters and sculptors.  ​‑‑Lambiam 04:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My question was brought on by my recent observation that there is no muse for painting. How I went through life never noticing this is a different question. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone call them the "performative arts"? The term I'm used to is "performing arts". I usually hear "performative" used as a negative value judgment, implying insincerity. --Trovatore (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to a more recent, pejorative usage. That's something that was invented post-9/11, likely around the time of the Tea Party. The usage I am employing is far, far older. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Performative arts versus performing arts.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that is really accurate as the two terms are used in entirely different ways. Google Books shows the term is used presently in an academic and historical context while performing arts is used in a current events, entertainment context. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If adjusting the scale by one factor more the curve becomes really interesting after that. What's happening with it spiking itself like hell during the nineties? The rehearsal of a huge global cross-millenia celebration.? --Askedonty (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate funding for the performing arts was huge in the 1990s. It was the first time I recall seeing major branding and marketing with corporate names attached. That became the norm in the 2000s. The funding in the 1990s in the US came about because the Republicans under Reagan cut NEA funding more than 10%. They opposed what they saw as criticism of religion, capitalism, and any kind of art that advocated for regular people, women's rights, worker's rights, etc. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we may wonder up to what point politics distinguishes itself from the performative. At any rate there's more and more technicity associated with stage performance ( mostly lights, laser play, so on.. ) and designers although so much praised as they might be will most of them satisfy themselves to be considered on the rigid side imo. --Askedonty (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am looking for an E-Mail address of the Bank of America, either for customer service in general, or for IRA distributions specifically. Alternatively, a contact page might be helpful, where one can write a note to them. The only possibly working e-mail address I have found is "customerservice (at) emcom.bankofamerica.com", but this seems to be a fake.

Phone calls are not an option, due to hearing problems and endless waiting loops.

Also, their virtual assistant "Erica" is not available for me because I live in Germany. Ratzer (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, you've looked at their contact page. Those will be the only ways of contacting them. If they don't provide an email address on their website, it's because they don't want people emailing them. --Viennese Waltz 12:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page says:

Log in to Online Banking and select the Contact us link in the Help & Support menu, then choose the topic you would like to discuss. The best ways to contact us will be displayed depending on the topic chosen.

If email agents are available for the topic you selected, you’ll see Email us as the last contact option listed on the page. Within 2-4 business days after sending us a message, you’ll receive an alert to inform you that our response is available in your Online Banking Message Center.

Since email is not available for most topics, we suggest that you contact us by phone, by making an appointment, by visiting us at a financial center or by reaching out on out on our Facebook page (select the Get Help link) or on Twitter @BofA_Help. You can also write to us at:

Bank of America / PO Box 25118 / Tampa, FL 33622-5118

Hope this helps.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In what year did Chicago and Cook County, adopt the Votomatic punch card voting system? Thanks. 37.159.42.248 (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick survey of Newspapers.com (pay site) indicates that it was introduced to Cook County suburbs in 1972 and in Chicago in 1983. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason on why the rest of the USA, feel less foreign and different, with an exception of Hawaii, Navajo Nation, Texas, and New Orleans, compared to overseas and international world in terms of culture? Why does USA only primarily speak English, despite being the most ethnically diverse countries in the whole world? Why do not a lot of people speak different languages in United States? Was this continent very diverse before European colonization? 76.81.87.234 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section Indigenous languages of the Americas § Northern America states that there are approximately 296 spoken (or formerly spoken) indigenous languages north of Mexico, 269 of which are grouped into at least 29 families. These are languages that predate European contact and mostly continue to be spoken, although some have gone extinct and many are threatened, due to the small numbers of surviving speakers. The map on the right gives a visual impression of the distribution of these language families. For more, see also our article Classification of the Indigenous languages of the Americas. Note also Hawaii, where the Hawaiian language is an official language.

The colonies that became the United States were populated by a melting pot of settlers for whom English, if not their first language, became the dominant contact language, and in most cases after a few generations the primary language. But in some communities other European languages the settlers brought with them remained spoken for centuries, some to this day. See, for example, Pennsylvania Dutch, Texan Silesian and Louisiana French. Several creole languages resulting from slavery remain spoken in the US; see e.g. Gullah language and Louisiana Creole.

Many other languages are spoken in the US today, most notably Spanish. They mostly have no official status, but in fact, until Executive Order 14224 was issued a few months ago, English had no official status in the US at the federal level and in 32 of the 50 states.^[3]  ​‑‑Lambiam 03:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also Languages of the United States. A myth that German was almost adopted as the official language is called the Muhlenberg legend. Alansplodge (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dominance of English is probably in part related to the fact that the 13 colonies that first declared independence had been possessions of the British Empire. Some of them, especially in the South, had been settled mostly or primarily by the English. Others had been settled by other European powers and acquired by the English many decades prior to their independence (such as New York and some of the surrounding mid-Atlantic areas in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, originally settled by the Dutch).

After independence, there was more immigration from other European countries, as Lambian describes. And some territories were acquired that had been occupied by other European colonial powers -- such as Texas and Florida from the Spanish and Louisiana from the French. (Also Alaska from the Russians, but it had never been particularly densely settled.) Due to immigration, there have always been enclaves of different languages and cultures in the US, especially in major cities -- there are Chinatowns in several major cities; New York has Little Italy, and once had a significant subculture of Jewish immigrants who spoke Yiddish among themselves.

But most immigrants have found it useful to assimmilate in order to succeed socially and economically. Even in regions where there's a significant subpopulation that's bilingual or for whom another language is their first language, most children of immigrants in the US learn English as they grow up. The public school system and its default use of English has contributed to that.

As you can see from that map, there was a rich diversity of thriving native cultures before the colonial powers arrived. And in pretty much all the places that Europeans settled, they suppressed the native cultures. The Spanish tried to convert the indigenous peoples to their religion and dominate culturally. In many cases, the native populations were either eradicated or uprooted and exiled to other parts of the continent (see also the Trail of Tears).

Beyond the East Coast, settlement by non-indigenous groups expanded extremely rapidly, while indigenous people were isolated in Indian reservations -- many far from their original home territories -- from which they couldn't exert much influence on the dominant culture. The vacated land, rather than being settled at different times and then evolving separately for hundreds of years, was largely settled within a period of 50-100 years by a relatively homogenous culture of Europeans departing from the East Coast. Before they had time to diverge significantly, the homogenizing influences of radio and Television became widespread. -- Avocado (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii doesn't feel "foreign". The rate of bilingual speakers in Hawaii is only slightly higher than the mainland US, so I don't know what you mean by that idea. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[WAG alert] The Native Americans (or Indians or whatever they want to be called, per another RD discussion still in progress) were generally easier to push around/displace/suppress/kill than Europeans, Asians and even Africans (who had empires and suchlike), due to being fewer in number, broken up in often mutually hostile tribes/confederations and being more susceptible to nasty European diseases. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]