Miscellaneous desk
< December 6	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

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.

December 7[edit]

Farthest point in the US from another country?[edit]

Excluding Foreign embassies and consulates, where is the point in the United States *farthest* from a foreign country? I presume the answer is Hawaii, specifically one of the islands at the northwest end of the chain near Midway. However, if Hawaii is excluded, is it somewhere is it somewhere in SW Alaska at the base of the Aleutians or is it somewhere in CONUS like Missouri?Naraht (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attu Island is "just 208 miles (181 nmi; 335 km) away" from Russia, so nyet to first guesski. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not this one, but is there another Aleutian island that is farther from Russia than Missouri/Kansas is from Canada/Mexico? Akseli9 (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unalaska is about 1100 miles from Bering Island and a similar distance from Mt. St. Elias. It's about 1800 miles from Brownsville due north to the Canadian border, which means (I think) that nothing in CONUS will be more than 900 miles from either Mexico or Canada. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 08:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unalaska is however only about 750 miles from continental Russia. Still probably further from any country than any location on American continent. Nikolski, Alaska seems to be slightly better, about 780 miles from Russia. - Lindert (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some eyeballing of the continental U.S map and using this utility the longest distances from a location in the U.S. to the U.S. borders with both Mexico and Canada seems to be somewhere a bit northeast of Salina, Kansas, and that distance is on the order of 690-700 miles (I couldn't find the exact perfect spot, but it was somewhere around that). Still less distance than Nikolski, Alaska is from Russia or Canada. --Jayron 32 11:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add my methodology: I tried to find points that were far enough from both Detroit, Michigan (which is the deepest south into the U.S. that Canada comes at Windsor, Ontario) and Langtry, Texas, which is the deepest bend in the Rio Grande. The longest straight-line distance from the Mexican to Canadian border is, I believe, Brownsville, Texas to Grand Portage, Minnesota, but the midpoint of that line is too close to Detroit/Windsor for our purposes. I started looking at the longest straight-line distance from Langtry, Texas to the Canadian border somewhere north of Langtry, and the midpoint of that line came out near Salina, Kansas (actually a bit north of it). --Jayron 32 11:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want Point Pelee National Park, for the point, on the mainland, furthest S in Canada. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for that. --Jayron 32 20:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(OP here)I was thinking that it CONUS it could be farther east, say somewhere between Northern Alabama and North Carolina because Cuba is much farther south...Naraht (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, using this circle tool I estimate that the sweet spot is just south of Electric Mills, Mississippi, about 700 miles from the closest country, though just southeast of Williamsburg, Kansas is very close: about 691 miles from the closest border. Do note the Bahamas though, they are further north than Cuba. - Lindert (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for Hawaii, unless I'm missing something, Penrhyn Island in the Northern Cook Islands seems to be the closest at 2,002 miles, according to the Google Maps calculator. Alansplodge (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tabuaeran, Kiribati is within 1200 miles of Honolulu. - Lindert (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I was looking in the wrong direction! Alansplodge (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Porfirio Díaz's famous remark about Mexico comes to mind: Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- When he was drummed out of Mexico and fled to France, did that put him any closer to God? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, he ended up in the Cimetière du Montparnasse, which is a classy address for a dead person. Alansplodge (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Although they might have buried him deeper than the customary six feet, on the old theory that "it will get him closer to where he's going". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - China? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        That's one possibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Not from France, surely, unless they were digging sideways. MChesterMC (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cottonwood, California (between Redding and Red Bluff) is about equidistance between Victoria, BC, Canada and Tijuana Mexico. Roughtly 670 road miles, all of it on Interstate 5. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite of Feminism[edit]

Is there an equal and opposite term for the male version of feminism, or are we all doomed to a life of being called bigoted sexists? $KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！)$ 20:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no male version of feminism because males have the upper hand in the power imbalance in society. The Men's rights movement is primarily concerned with protecting their existing or past level of privilege vis a vis women. --Jayron 32 20:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is - and we have an article on it: Masculism. SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also male feminism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Masculism" is the same thing as the so-called "Men's rights movement". It is to feminism what "white power" is to "black power" - namely, trying to hold on to existing or past levels of privilege, as Jayron notes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the original question presents a false dilemma. --LarryMac | Talk 20:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are matrilineal cultures, where men might indeed find themselves at a disadvantage, relative to women, due to inheritance laws, etc. In such a society, it might make sense for men to demand equal rights.

It's also possible for the pendulum to swing too far in the quest for equal rights, so that it then favors the traditional minority rather than being neutral. Affirmative action is a case where that may have happened. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a friend of mine once said, "There's no law saying you've got to hire somebody that's stupid." small|Actually, the term "shadowy figures" seems like a good choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a point which has been hit on by others is that the question is really confusing. One would assume the "male version of feminism" would either be male support for feminism; or perhaps more likely, a call for equal rights etc for men in areas where it's felt they don't exist now. But this isn't "opposite". It's far more complimentary. Stuff like masculism and the MRM may be more "opposite", but they often aren't really calling for equal rights etc. Particularly masculism, as our article highlights, often supports a preservation of inequality. There are some areas where for various reasons, MRM and masculism may be more atune with equality or what could be called a male version of feminism, areas like custody, suicide, compulsory military service, domestic violence against men and perhaps education (although the later is likely to be more debated). But in other areas there far more the opposite of what you would call the "male version of feminism". I.E. they're mostly absent or even opposed to what you would expect from the "male version of feminism", e.g. they don't generally call for a change in society such that it isn't seen weird or wrong for boys to play with dolls, cooking toys, like pink etc. They aren't generally the ones calling for due respect and support for stay-at-home dads (and not seeing them all as failures). Etc etc. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London bus routes[edit]

As you may know, there seems to be extensive coverage of London bus routes on Wikipedia, for example, London Buses Route 1. However, we appear to lack info on bus routes of other areas of the UK. Earlier this year, I tried to add a couple of articles on a couple of routes near me as an experiment to try and bring London style coverage to my part of Scotland. Yet, one of my articles was deleted due to lack of notability. Why should London get better coverage than any other city? As a Scotsman I should have a duty to cover Scottish bus routes on Wikipedia. I will start work early in the new year. But, I don't want any deletions to interfere with my programme. Is there any way in which I can get my articles more notable? Please help me achieve these ambitions in future? Thank you. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help editting, you should be asking for concrete assistance at the Help Desk or perhaps asking for a mentor. The last thing you need to be doing, especially given your block history, is coming here preemptively to complain against past injustices and look for support for your 'programme'. We don't do that anywhere at WP, especially at the ref desk. Just edit in good faith following WP:NOTABILITY rather than looking for drama and expecting disaster. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an area of some contention; the linked article above has been nominated for deletion twice and only kept after a lengthy debate. There are another 238 London bus route articles in addition. User:Medeis is right that this isn't really the place for this discussion, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses might be the best bet; at least someone there could explain the rationale behind which bus routes are considered notable and which aren't. Good luck! Alansplodge (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an "unspoken" dirty-little-secret about the gatekeeper policies to Wikipedia articles (like WP:N and WP:42), and that is that there are really two different situations, one of which are tacitly acceptable (despite being at first glance against policy) and the other being something we "really don't want around here". In the first case, we have articles created and maintained by various fandoms: people who because of their interest in some esoteric area of human knowledge (be they roadgeeks, Pokemon fans, Rambot-created stubs of named, but minimally populated, American places, etc>), have posted articles which probably don't meet the strictest definition of notability, but which we tolerate because they don't really represent anyone using Wikipedia for ulterior motives. The second class of problematic articles represent people who have recognized Wikipedia's widespread popularity, and are interested in using that popularity to promote themselves, their businesses, their personal causes, etc. This represents what we're really trying to stop at Wikipedia. The real article non grata at Wikipedia is one that represents the intersection of conflict of interest problems with marginal notability, those articles are doused with gasoline and set on fire and banished forever from Wikipedia as a scourge upon the ideals of the encyclopedia and the community. The first class of articles, those which are likely not really all that notable, but which lack a conflict of interest element, like the various public transportation routes, favorite characters from TV shows and movie series, etc. etc, are basically ignored as "maybe a problem, but harmless to Wikipedia, so we ignore them". The real threat to Wikipedia is not that fanboys post esoteric details about some odd little thing, like London bus routes, but that it's status as a popular website would be hijacked by someone to promote their business, their person, or their fringe beliefs. So when we say that we care about WP:N, we really only care when WP:N violations also represent a real threat to Wikipedia's reputation. --Jayron 32 04:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The key policies here are WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTE. I think that bus routes are dubious on both grounds - but I agree that if London bus routes are acceptable - then so are bus routes in any other large city. WP:NOTGUIDE says to me that you need to have more to say about the bus route than just "the bus goes to these 20 places and runs on these days". It's gotta have things like "such-and-such memorable event happened on a bus travelling this route" or "such-and-such memorable person habitually travelled on this route". Even then, it's a stretch.

But in the end, this is a matter of taste and personal opinion. When Wikipedia was two years old, I started a deliberate habit of hitting "Random Article" three times before going to bed - and reading whatever came up. I did this as a way of widening my mind - diversifying my knowledge base. For about a year, it worked well - I read 1000 or so articles that I'd never have read otherwise. However, gradually, I found that I was hitting article after article about rock bands that undoubtedly popped into existence, had one hit and then vanished again - I hit a TON of articles about Japanese railway stations (some person with fanatical interest had created articles for every single one of them!) - articles about freeways...more and more "junk" that I really don't think belongs here.

On the other hand - disk space is cheap. So what if we create articles that nobody ever reads? Who cares? If you go and create articles about a hundred bus routes in obscure places in Scotland...which nobody will ever read...why should we care? Disk space is getting cheaper faster than Wikipedia is growing...so the cost of storing it will never be a problem.

Well, there is a reason. Suppose, in a few years time, you've created all of those articles, and then lost interest in Wikipedia, or died, or...whatever. When a Scottish bus route changes - or is shut down - or extended...who will come in and fix that article?

The answer is "nobody". That article will be incorrect - nobody will ever come to fix it - and in the unlikely event that somebody ever DOES come to read it, it'll be wrong...horribly wrong.

So if Wikipedia allows articles of really marginal interest - with very few readers and very few maintainers - how will we avoid it becoming a sea of untruth instead of the shining beacon of all human knowledge?

I don't know how that's going to work. We currently have 5 million english language articles and 25 million total articles - but estimates for the number of people maintaining those articles is in the 100,000 person range. That's 250 articles per person on average...but that's a very skewed result. A lot of those 100,000 people are interested in the same things. I'm quite sure that there is no shortage of maintainers for articles about Barack Obama or World War II. But once the Japanese railway station guy moves on - will ANYONE ever fix those articles he created?

That's the problem here.

The solution in this case is Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses. Wikiprojects are a good way do defend the encyclopedia against this kind of rotting of obscure stuff. If WikiProject Buses is an active, vibrant, community of bus enthusiasts - and if they have broad agreement on adding scottish bus routes to the set of articles that they care about - then there is a reasonable chance that the care and maintenance of Scottish bus route articles can be reasonably guaranteed - but if nobody there gives a damn about bus routes outside of London - then no matter the theoretical Wikilawyering of notability and not-a-directory guidelines, I don't think it's responsible to create those articles - even if you can. And it's not enough for you to swear on a stack of bibles that you'll personally keep the articles up to date - editors lose interest - editors die - and finding a successor to look after those articles is a very, very hard sell unless Wikiproject Buses is willing to take them under their wing.

This case is actually even worse than the rock-band article problem. If a rock band appears, makes a couple of records, then ceases to be widely known - then providing the article is correct at that point, it'll remain correct for the next 1,000 years - and it's OK. The same is true for articles about very obscure branches of mathematics that are incomprehensible to 99.999% of readers - or biographies of historical persons that nobody much cares about. Once written, and written correctly - the article will be good forever. But bus routes aren't like that - they change, they go away - and unless the article is adequately maintained, it'll rot into incorrect mush.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses/UK bus route quality drive has some details about what the WikiProject Buses people are aiming at. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]