Miscellaneous desk
< August 28	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 30 >

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.

August 29

Secret train cars

Every so often I hear about a conspiracy theory where the US gov't is building train cattle cars with various details changing depending on who is telling the story. They usually have chains and eye bolts and various other means to cage or otherwise hold people in within the cars. Supposedly the gov't has built thousands of these things for various nefarious purposes. Do we have an article on this theory or set of theories? Does this at least sound familiar to anyone? My Google-foo seems to be lacking right now and I can't come up with the proper search terms to find anything about this. I've skimmed through Category:Urban legends and Category:Conspiracy theories to no avail. Dismas|^(talk) 00:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This website seems... interesting? schyler (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here's a forum post discussing this topic as well. schyler (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got me all conspiratorial now... schyler (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People who come up with such theories may have (a) excessive leisure time and (b) virtually no knowledge of the rail industry in the U.S. First, the U.S. government owns almost no rail track. More important and more pragmatic: untold legions of railfans (armed with more cameras than talk pages have rants) prowl main lines, short lines, excursion train routes, and obscure routes in hopes of spying something out of the ordinary. Fantasies of thousands of nefarious prison cars would dissolve under the scrutiny of folks who notice stuff like a Leslie A-200 air horn ("factory tuning D#"). --- OtherDave (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if these trains have any special denomination, but I'm fairly certain the idea ties in with the idea that FEMA is a government organization whose real goal is actually the construction and maintenance of prison camps where the freedom loving American conspiracy theorists will be shipped off to once the NWO kicks in. And that will be any moment now. Possibly tomorrow. Or maybe next week. Next month? Well, definitely very, very soon. Check youtube for FEMA + NWO for some more incoherent ramblings. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmph, I see Schyler beat me to the punch :) TomorrowTime (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I'm surprised we don't have an article about this. I've heard this railroad car theory here and there for ~20 years now, so I thought there'd be more out there about it. Dismas|^(talk) 07:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely down to a (perhaps rather subtle) problem with reliable sources. I had similar woes trying to source the "conspiracy theories" section of Area 51, about which such theories are particularly Byzantine and manifold. What's needed is a reliable source, not about what the Federal Government is doing, but about what the conspiracy theorists think it's doing. Naturally such stuff isn't routinely covered in the New York Times, and when reliable journalistic sources do cover this stuff, they're generally sniggering behind their hands, decorating their stories with the gaudiest bits of the conspiracy pantheon (ZOG, the Anunnaki, the Reptile People). So while the "conspiracy community" (if such a thing really exists) does seem to loosely believe in FEMA Deathcamps and America's Stolypin Wagons, you'll rarely find a "source" better than the stuff Schyler quotes, above. When you find yourself hoping for a mention of some "fact" by Art Bell so you can cite it in an article, you're surely not in Kansas anymore. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk

A conspiracy theory has to contain some truth to be believable. The secret train idea combines the reality described in the article Extraordinary rendition by the United States with memory of the allegation that the KGB operated secret railway lines that were not shown on maps of the Soviet Union. It is known that railways are used under conditions of high security and secrecy for transporting nuclear waste. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A less sinister conspiracy in the UK was that the government had squirrelled away a fleet of old steam engines that could be used after a nuclear attack. Britain's legions of train-spotters would have given away various body-parts just to get a glimpse of one but apparently (if they existed[1]) they were all scrapped[2]. Alansplodge (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As terrible as the US rail network is - why the heck would they bother modifying freight cars? If some terrible government conspiracy were going on, to ship vast numbers of people from A to B they'd have to be using school busses or something. The fact is that a lot of people out there are very easily panicked into thinking anything you could imagine about the US government. They'll take even the smallest detail of an obscure government document, quote it entirely out of context then blow it out of proportion. It is essential to employ critical thinking skills when looking at either side of a conspiracy theory. SteveBaker (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant. --Sean 20:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Palmer Raids of 1919-1920 arrested over 10 thousand "subversives"without due process. The McCarran Internal Security Act of the early 1950's was passed over President Truman's veto. He called it the greatest danger to freedom since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1790, in that it allowed creation of a big list of enemies of the state who could be rounded up and imprisoned in a "national emergency." The government would have to transport all those subversives on the big list (supposed to be 10,000 or so names at the peak of the 1950s-1960s Red Scare) to the secret prison camps somehow, and cattle cars would be one modality. The Nazi transportations during WW2 prove that no eyebolts are needed. Just fill the cattle cars with "enemies of the state" or "subversives" or "undesirables" and lock the doors, until they reach the destination hours or days later. Many deaths might be expected in transit. Edison (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this an X Files episode?..Hotclaws (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, what's the difference between Romantic love and Platonic love?

Hi, Put in relatively simple terms, what's the difference between Romantic love and Platonic love? (I don't mean the question's put simply, I mean I need an answer put simply.) As far as I can gather from Romance (love), the difference it's just the desire for sex, but the article's very long and uses a it uses quite a bit of psychological terminology... and there are so many different types of romantic love. If it is just the desire for sex, then what about asexuals? When they're in love with someone (i.e. emotionally attatched and wanting to spend the rest of thier life with the person in an emotionally close way, but with out desire to have any sexual contact with the person), what are they feeling? Thanks for any help/information you can provide. 86.179.25.172 (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply, the answer is a desire for sex. Don't complicate what isn't complicated. Looie496 (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Platonic love was used as a euphemism for homosexual relationships, these days called Gay. If you have the aspiration then just do it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... wrongly so used. Platonic love is usually contrasted with the romantic variety of either or any orientation. Dbfirs 12:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...unless you've got the hots for someone of that name. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... asexuals don't feel romantic love when they're in love with someone, it's purely platonic? 86.179.25.172 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing asexuals into it goes beyond what can be explained in "relatively simple terms", I think. No, it's not (necessarily) platonic. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you describe it as simply as possible when an asexual is the one in love please. 86.179.25.172 (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As our article asexual explains, the term is used to cover a wide variety of experiences and romantic orientations. I don't think it's possible to give a simple, representative, example. To get a feel for it, try reading this thread on a forum where people discuss their own experiences: it is not official or authoritative, but it is simply expressed and gives an idea of the variety of experience. You might also find this blog post and comments helps you sort out what you're wondering. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you are an adult (wink-wink-smirk) you will find yourself with an assortment of people (ex-lovers and very close friends) for whom you have a great emotional attachment and more-or-less no sexual desire. That is Platonic love. There are people whom I would go to the ends of the earth to help (I like them that much) but wouldn't sleep with, because... ehhh, no. Romantic love in its various forms starts introducing romantic, sexual, and marriage-type considerations.

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson had Platonic lo. Move for each otherst football jocks have Platonic love for their teammates (though don't say that to them if you value your hide). Mother Teresa had Platonic love for God and the entire world. Without Platonic love the world would be a sad, desperate, lonely place.

Asexuals (to the extent that that particular group can be treated as a group) may or may not experience Platonic love, depending on whether they develop strong emotional attachments to others. Some asexuals prefer a relatively detached existence while others immerse themselves as deeply as anyone else in social interactions without engaging in sex. --Ludwigs2 04:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 86.161.108.172 for those links, they've helped me understand myself... and my feelings a lot more. Really, really useful.

Thanks Ludwigs2 too, I understand Platonic love, just not romantic love and how it compares. Oh, and I'm an adult, judging by society's age boundary and not how I personally feel.

Basically, I'm an asexual and I feel romantic love for a girl, and have done for some time, and I just needed to check it was romantic love and not platonic love because, although I thought it was romantic (because I want to spend the the rest of my life with her, and marry her, and make her happy, and stuff), I wasn't sure I could feel romantic love, and it's harder to know because I don't really feel platonic love much. Oddly, I understand platonic love but don't feel it, and I don't understand romantic love but I feel it intensly.

Thanks to you all. :) 81.159.15.144 (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Mother Teresa would describe anything she felt as "Platonic", since Catholicism has a complicated hierarchy of different kinds of love. That would probably be agape. Anyway, 81.159, don't worry, there is no one in the entire world who understands romantic love. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

81.159: when you say you are an asexual, is that a matter of choice, habit, inclination, or pragmatics? It's one thing (for instance) if you are a Catholic priest, or someone who has chosen to lead an asexual lifestyle, who is feeling a romantic attachment towards someone (that is a philosophical/religious issue that needs conscious investigation), but it's another thing if you simply haven't felt romantic love before and are starting to feel it now. That might just be a normal development, and should be something you investigate emotionally rather than intellectually. --Ludwigs2 15:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam Bishop, it's reassuring to know no one else understands it either!

Ludwigs2, I'm just asexual by... nature; I have no desire to have sex, actually, I'd prefer not to have it (I never have), and I find the idea kind of disgusting. I find even the idea of kissing with toungues quite odd, which is another thing I haven't and don't want to try, though, with Lauren, the girl I'm in love with, I'd like to try and kiss her on her lips... and other places such as the tip of her nose, and her hands. I've never done that before, but it seems enjoyable and worth a try. So it's not a conscious decision to be asexual due to religion (I'm an atheist) or philosophy (I see nothing wrong with it if that's what people want to do), it's just something built into my mind.

I've felt romantic love before loads of times, but I think that was more just infatuation, the time before Lauren was Miley Cyrus, but this is different because it's actual love which is so much stronger and I'm sure it's romantic and not platonic. I'm learning a lot about love because of this, with help from Wikipedia, but it's so easy to jump to conclusions, for example I thought it was obsessive love because I thought about her most of the time - I thought this for a long time until someone told me that's part of normal love.

How would I investigate it emotionally? Thanks 86.181.203.98 (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict - reply to Ludwigs2) Can't we respect that people really do feel what they say they feel? Feeling romantic love doesn't require that someone feel sexually attracted to anyone, nor want to have sex. This is why the OP is confused: because people have said that feeling romantic love requires one to want to have sex, and they don't want to have sex, so how can it be romantic? But it is. Obviously, if someone finds that they do want to have sex with one particular individual, or with someone that they have a committed romantic relationship with, despite previously feeling no sexual desire for anyone, and if the other person reciprocates, I think people are able to solve that for themselves. But there are people who genuinely just don't want to have sex, at all. It is not the experience that you have. And that's okay. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 86.161.108.172:

"People have said that feeling romantic love requires one to want to have sex, and they don't want to have sex, so how can it be romantic? But it is."

^^Yes, that sums up everything... and my confusion! 86.181.203.98 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Numbers Without Area Codes

Hello. Why do some phone numbers not need the caller to dial the area code in cities where multiple area codes exist? For example, a Canadian business, serving a metropolis where callers must dial the area code, has a seven-digit phone number. This business has call centres in regions of unique area codes. Why does this business not have a 1-800 line? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which city? In Vancouver, many businesses do this, I'm guessing because they assume that most residents know that 604 is still the dominant number. As far as I know the second number 778 is currently only assigned to mobile phones. They still need to dial the area code to make it work. Aaronite (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some "exchanges" (digits 4-5-6 of a 10-digit number) that perform the same service; 950 is one that I know of. It's like InWats but appears local. I don't have a clue what the technical difference between that and the standard 10-digit callee-pays services are, though.

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Greater Toronto, GTA Credit advertised on the radio their seven-digit phone number and need not the caller dial the area code. --Mayfare (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What We Talk About When We Talk About Love — "uncut" edition

Hello everybody,

In a few weeks in France a new translated edition of this short stories book will be published, based on the original text by Raymond Carver, not on the text as edited by Gordon Lish: see eg [3]. That’s fine but I’d like to read it in English as well : but I can’t find which edition to order! (Unless... bon sang! Is that it?!! It looks like a nice book but in fact I want to make a gift as well, so I wish "What We Talk about etc" alone...)

Thanks in advance for your answers, Herve1729 (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the book you're after [4] it's called Beginners and has the pre-Lish versions of every story that ended up in WWTAWWTAL. Having read both versions I have to say I much prefer the originals. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 08:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot ! Herve1729 (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1926 boxing match ticket

I have a ticket stub from the Dempsey - Tunney boxing match on

Sept 23, 1926. How can I research this? Email redacted for your protection. Answers will appear here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.20.125 (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on The Long Count Fight says a bit about that earlier match. Looie496 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Men holding hands

I saw a young couple of guys about 18/20 today walking whilst holding hands in the UK. They were speaking Italian and were not what I would describe as apparently Gay or effeminate - in fact they looked quite macho - but they were quite relaxed about holding each other's hands in public and I just wondered would this be normal in Italy as it certainly looked out of place here in the Uk? By the way, I am NOT homophobic, just curious - I mean - not really - well - er - only asking - escapes Left of Stage. 92.30.185.138 (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Italy, but according to our article on Holding hands, men commonly hold hands as a friendly gesture in Arab countries, Africa, and parts of Asia. Photos of former US President Bush holding hands with various Saudi Arabian diplomatic types have been good for hours of totally culturally unfair amusement here in America. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that they are what you term "macho" doesn't mean they're not gay. Plenty of gay men aren't effeminate. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm an Italian male, and I wouldn't feel comfortable holding hands with another guy... It's not, AFAIK, a cultural habit in aany region of Italy to do so, without a good reason. --151.51.145.104 (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't big boys ever need a hug? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they were indeed Italian, it's almost certain that they were gay, despite their 'macho' looks. --Belchman (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the above poster to remove their unsourced claim about Italian homosexuality. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he was saying that Italians are probably gay. I think he was saying that straight Italian men would be very unlikely to walk down the street holding hands. That rings true, actually. But of course it doesn't prove anything — maybe they're not gay, just rebels. --Trovatore (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]