Miscellaneous desk
< November 16	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 18 >

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

November 17[edit]

Food dispensing wheel shaving thing[edit]

I was watching Particle Fever last night. It's a movie about the discovery of the Higgs boson. They follow a few of the physicists involved and one of them, who works at CERN, is shown with his family at the dinner table. During the meal, he's seen using a rotary tool of some sort to shave off food from a wheel. What I'm wondering is what food this was and what the tool is called.

I'll try to describe it a bit better. The foodstuff was cylindrical in shape like a wheel of cheese. It was laid on its side and a post came up through the center. A blade like tool rotated on the post and shaved off thin curls of the foodstuff. The man then just picked up the shavings and the camera went to another shot of them eating and having a normal family dinner.

So, what was this? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 00:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of these? It (probably) was cheese, and, as far as I can tell, they're just called "cheese slicers". Tevildo (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's it! I thought it might be cheese but couldn't say for sure as it was a foreign contraption to me and wasn't on the screen for long. I don't think I'd call it a slicer if the naming were up to me though since it's more of a shaving situation. Thanks again! Dismas|^(talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We call it girolle (usually used for Tête de Moine) ---Sluzzelin talk 07:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even better! Yep, that's it as well! Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 10:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual Ducks?[edit]

Is it true that ducks have the highest incidence of homosexuality in the animal world? Why is this? Are the ducks living in relatively secure suburban North American ponds more prone to homosexuality than feral ducks? What about geese? What about ducks living in machismo cultures like the Muscovy Ducks of South America? Thank you. Zombiesturm (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good book for this would be Biological Exuberance which you can search at the link I gave you. Almost birds and mammals engage in opportunistic mounting, and some seek it out. Ducks are notoriously, aggressive, prone to gang raping females and sometimes drowning them to hold them down to mate. In that context, a lack of homosexual behavior would be surprising. Another interesting question is the shape of the duck's penis and the reason for it. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And this too Article Zombiesturm (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Rape" is not a valid word for interactions between two non-human animals. Traumatic insemination is a little bit different, but let's at least stick to scientific language when describing animal behavior. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Rape" seems like a perfectly apt word for non-consensual sex to me, regardless of the animal species. What purpose does it serve to come up with a parallel phrase for the same behavior in other animals ? I suppose we could come up with parallel phrases for eating, sleeping, urinating, defecating, etc., too, but to what end ? StuRat (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't matter what you think. You are of course allowed to talk about duck "rape", and biologists will be allowed to see it as a sign of ignorance. Consent in a duck (let alone an insect etc) is not something that we can scientifically establish. I don't recall if you have any training in behavioral biology, but rape is not a word that professionals use to describe non-human animal behavior. Your mention of eating is a red herring. The definition of eating/ingestion is not in terms of humans, the definition of rape is. The "end" is to avoid proscribing terms of human morality on to animal behavior. To do so is bad science. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consent is easy enough to establish. Do they "present" or run away/fight ? StuRat (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by biologist you mean pedant, you may be right. But using the word rape here is fine. Rape would also seem a perfect description of some acts by dolphins. No one would claim that infanticide was criminal murder, but we use the same term for humans and animals. If it was at all relevant, simply telling the OP, be aware scientists might use other language would have been fine. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, see Homosexual behavior in animals, which among other things states that "Roughly 60% of all bonobo sexual activity occurs between two or more females". --65.94.50.4 (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another good book is "Evolution's rainbow" [1], which is written by the highly regarded researcher Joan Roughgarden, who also happens to be transgendered. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has addressed the "why" part yet. Let me offer some theories:

1) Brain malfunction. This would mean the part of the brain that tells the male duck to mate with a female duck isn't working properly. If this were the case, I'd expect homosexual duck behavior to be rare.

2) Social bonding. This seems to be the case for bonobos, where the sex is consensual, but not for ducks, where it's often forced.

3) Dominance display. This is my theory for ducks.

4) Semen clearance. If they simply need to get rid of excess semen, to avoid painful side-effects, then any available "target" will do. This may also apply to ducks. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sex can be for pleasure StuRat, without any other motive. - Taketa (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you have to look a little deeper. We get pleasure for evolutionary reasons. It's the way that lower bodily functions reward higher brain activity when we have a choice. Take away the 'pleasure' sensation - and we would eat less and have sex less often (if at all). That would clearly be detrimental to the survival of the species, so we've evolved to enjoy sex BECAUSE sex has evolutionary benefits in propagating genes. We enjoy foods that are high in nutrients for similar reasons. So StuRat is correct to look for evolutionary reasons for this behavior - "pleasure" is just an intermediate step. SteveBaker (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evolution of pleasure in sex is to propagate the species as you say. Since pleasure exists, subjects go for other means to gain pleasure with their reproductive parts beside reproduction, leading to the above. Ergo pleasure is the easiest answer to the why question from an evolutionary standpoint, and a list overlooking it, is not that great a list. Pleasure is simply so important for reproduction, that possible negative reproductive factors such as gay rape activity, do not negate the net positive effects. - Taketa (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would fall into the brain malfunction category, if the pleasure evolved solely to ensure reproduction, but is now being used for non-reproductive sex. That is, of course, unless there was some other reason why pleasure evolved, such as the ones I listed.

But yes, saying animals have sex because it feels good is a bit like saying the Titanic sank because it was full of water. While undoubtedly true, we should go deeper than just stopping there. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your theories are all silly and wrong except for 2). I have personally observed several male ducks of several species do mating displays to each other, and sometimes copulate. Both in nature and in captivity, neither male seemed subordinate to me. But I encourage the OP not to listen to any of our opinions and WP:OR, and instead look at the good books listed above. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Why do fur seals have sex with penguins?. --ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because they can. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White people in South Africa[edit]

Is the white population of South Africa shrinking or growing? --SolliGwaa (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to South African National Census of 2011 compared to South African National Census of 2001, the white population has gone from 4,293,640 people (9.6% of the population) in 2001 to 4,586,838 people (8.9% of the population) in 2011. Thus, in absolute numbers the White population is growing, but as a portion of the overall population, it is shrinking. --Jayron32 17:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[After an Edit conflict] The smart answer is "Define white". One of the worst aspects of Apartheid was the arbitrary assignment of an "official" skin colour to some people of mixed background. I would like to hope that nobody is counting people by skin colour any more. HiLo48 (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having now seen Jayron's response above, the precision of those numbers astounds me. What IS the definition of "white"? Does the term "coloured" still exist? HiLo48 (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea how the South African numbers are arrived at, but the normal way of doing things in censuses is to ask people to classify themselves. It gives an 'exact' number, obviously, but is only valid at the time the question was asked - many people will give a different answer at different times. The 'precision' is an artefact of the data collection method. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's self-classification, it requires that skin colour still be used as a means of labelling people. Not all countries do that. It's interesting that South Africa still does. HiLo48 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The UK still does, and even makes a distinction between White (British) and White (Irish). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 19:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In NZ, white isn't one of the current stock options. I'm fairly sure however if you tick other and call yourself "white" you'll be classified as "European, not further defined" although I couldn't find a specific reference. I think if you call yourself white British you may be defined under European as "British and Irish" (alternatively "European, not elsewhere classified"), whereas if you call yourself White Irish you may be defined as Irish. Someone who calls themselves them selves White South African, I'm not sure. Either "South African, not elsewhere classified" or "Afrikaner" I would guess. White Australian would be Australian (again all under the European category). Etc. BTW, "South African Coloured" is under other ethnicity. Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Realise I forgot to provide my link [2] Also I should clarify that the list are just how Statistics NZ classified people. Only a few common ethnicities (based on previous census I think) are provided people are supposed to fill in their ethnncity. The guide gives a few more examples, but the idea is you're supposed to choose what best fits you so I'm not sure they'll give you much more help even if you call them (I'm not saying they're going to be intentionally obtuse and possibly they'll read you the list of the previous recognised categories if you really want it and can't get it yourself). See [3] [4] for sample forms and guides. The statisticians then decide how to fit what you said in to a category, I think they will make a new category if they feel it's useful. (They won't make stuff if they don't feel it is, e.g. the infamous Jedi case.) Probably the most controversial thing is how to deal with people who answer "New Zealander". In this past these people were treated as New Zealand European, [5], but this was changed IIRC after a media campaign in 2006 resulted in many people answering that although it seems to have been short lived [6] [7]. BTW the Callister source surprised me a bit, if it's correct it seems at least in the past "white" without qualification was interpreted to mean "New Zealand European" (although I'm not sure if the European, not further classified existed then. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the census, South Africans self identify their "population group". See page 2 of the 2011 Census Questionnaire - Section A - Demographics - P-05 Population Group for how the question is presented. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the US census, people are asked to choose one or more of the following: White, Black [also labeled African American and Negro], American Indian / Alaskan Native, Asian Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Vietnamese, Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Guamanian [also labeled Chamorro], Other Asian, Other Pacific Islander, and generic Other. People are separately asked about Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, which the US does not consider to be a race. Almost all Europeans would be considered generic "white". So one take away is that the US census really likes to differentiate the Asians but doesn't care about differentiating Europeans. Incidentally, the term "colored" is at least antiquated and has become borderline offensive in the US these days. Dragons flight (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Colored' in the United States has/had a different meaning from 'coloured' in South Africa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "Colored" in America was long used as a relatively polite description. It's now pretty much obsolete except in legacy references such as NAACP. And to call someone "colored" does smack of racism. However, I've heard more and more black Americans refer to themselves as "persons of color", which seems rather nice and positive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic insult by IP

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

Which is all fine and dandy, but as this is about South Africa, nobody cares about what things are called in Yankistan. 131.251.254.81 (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor in Limeystan, for that matter. However, I was commenting on Grumpy's comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP locates to Wales. If he has to go all the way to SA to lob stupid insults at the US he can do it elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I await a good occasion to describe myself as a "person of pallor" and wait for the blank looks. —Tamfang (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]