Miscellaneous desk
< February 26	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 28 >

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.

February 27

Fish eating

I have read that eating meat is not good for the environment , due to the sheer amount of resources it consumes.However, I could not find the environmental cost of eating fish. A google seearch dose not give me any answers too. Sumalsn (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, eating fish can have some impact on the environment. Over-fishing can be a problem, although places like fish-farms do not have these problems. Large-scale fishing can also disturb ecosystems as certain species of fish become endangered. Chevymontecarlo. 08:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fish farming has its problems too[1][2]. Also have a look at [3] Alansplodge (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that eating fish is fine as long as it's not farmed (it doesn't taste great for starters), and it's not too expensive. Cheap fish is cheap because it is plentiful and not endangered. Vranak (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what they said about North Atlantic Cod too...and now it's on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The fact is that as we overfish one species and are forced to shift to another, it too soon becomes overfished. Eventually, the only things of any size left in the oceans will be jellyfish. SteveBaker (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Even when a population is decimated, there will always be enough survivors to repopulate. At least when it comes to marine life. You can hunt down every dodo, but not every grouper or tuna. Vranak (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting rather sick of you just "guessing" the answers to questions. If you don't actually know the answer - you should refrain from responding. If you'd care to glance at our Atlantic Cod article you'll discover that: "Several cod stocks collapsed in the 1990s (declined by >95% of maximum historical biomass) and have failed to recover even with the cessation of fishing." - so no, fish species don't always "repopulate" when overfishing has occurred and my response is far from "Nonsense" - please feel free to apologize. SteveBaker (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are cod extinct? I rest my case, Mister Baker. Vranak (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you are trying to defend you earlier lame post even after it has been so comprehensively demolished! But how about we speak only to face of actual, referenced facts instead of your mere opinions: According to the IUCN: "The collapse of the North Atlantic cod fishery put 30,000 Canadians out of work and ruined the economies of 700 communities". Nobody said that the Atlantic Cod was extinct - but it is most certainly endangered (that's why it's on the IUCN "Red List"). You said "Cheap fish is cheap because it is plentiful and not endangered" - this is not just wrong - it's a dramatic misperception that was the root cause of the cod crash. Look at the graph to the right here. Cod was exceedingly cheap in the 1970's, 80's and early 90's - and as you can clearly see - it was certainly endangered. Prices very often stay low right before a fishery crashes - the laws of supply and demand only apply when the supply is known - and in the case of so many ecological disasters of this kind, they aren't. As you can see from the graph, there were massive, record catches right before the crash and even after the crash first happened in 1977, people still went on hauling cod out of the ocean in increasing numbers until the second, more final, crash in 1990. So, before you reach for your keyboard to enter some more irrelevent opinions - how about the next words you type are comprehensively referenced OK? SteveBaker (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They've had less than 20 years to repopulate, that isn't long. Given enough time, I would be very surprised if they didn't repopulate. What would stop them? They may have been replaced by some other species, but most ecosystems will return to equilibrium given time unless there has been some irreversible change (environmental or evolutionary). --Tango (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some species, like the passenger pigeon, exist, and evolved to exist, in vast swarms. Not only does this mean that someone hunting them gets an inaccurate picture of how many there are (see people assuming there were plenty of fish when they were catching whole shoals at a time), but these species often seem unable to function properly in smaller groups. Quite apart from the genetic problems of repopulating from a small group, some species simply will not recover from depopulation because they stop breeding. 86.177.121.239 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See: Depensation. When a population hits a certain low level there are two effects that can prevent them from rebounding. In the case of the passenger pigeon it was that the birds had being relying on Predator satiation - a technique that works great when a million birds arrive at a particular location - but which fails miserably when only 100 birds are in the flock. In the case of the Atlantic Cod, it's probably more to do with the Allee effect which is that when the population gets small enough, the probability of a male cod meeting a suitable female cod gets so small that they cannot increase their population fast enough to overcome the natural death rate. It's probably true that the population won't stay as it is today - but if it's not growing even after 20 years of relief - then it's probably going to crash to extinction. One weird thing about the Cod is that adult cod feed on Capelin - but the Capelin feed on juvenile Cod. So when the adult Cod aren't keeping the Capelin population in check, the Capelin can supress the Cod population by eating their young. This may have something to do with the inability of the Cod population to rebound. SteveBaker (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeeee! Thanks Steve! This saves me asking another question lower down, since I couldn't remember or find links to any of those terms, and it was really bugging me. :D <- extremely happy face I am wearing 86.177.121.239 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Food_chain#Entropic_losses_in_the_chain for an explanation. Basically, every intermediate step between you and sunlight introduces waste, so eating plants has the least impact, eating herbivores has more impact, and eating the things that eat them has even more. I'd love to see specific numbers for practical situations, but I bet they're super hard to estimate. Paul Stansifer 18:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The damage done by top-of-the-food-chain (principal predator) destruction is a significant theme in Barbara Kingsolver's novel Prodigal Summer. Bielle (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of thumb is 10% for each level between you and the sun. If you're a plant, you're getting 10% of the available sunlight. If you're eating plants, you get 1%. If you're eating plant-eaters, you get 0.1%, and so on. --Carnildo (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's meaningless to talk about the environmental harm of eating a particular food. You need to talk about the harm relative to the food you'll be eating instead (unless you plan to starve and die - that would benefit the environment). It is well known that a vegetarian diet is more energy efficient than one involving meat, so if you are replacing the fish with vegetables then that will almost certainly be better for the environment. If you replace the fish with some other meat, it is less clear. Since fish like cod eat meat themselves, whereas most land animals eaten for food are herbivores, I wouldn't be surprised if fish were less energy efficient. Of course, there are other factors to environmentally friendliness than energy efficiency, but that seems the most relevant to me. --Tango (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you eat lots of some fish particularly those at the top of the food chain, you may die faster, which may be a net benefit to the environment. Whether that'll be worth the cost of eating the fish, I can't say. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears nobody has linked to overfishing. "Ultimately overfishing may lead to resource depletion in cases of subsidised fishing, low biological growth rates and critical low biomass levels (e.g. by critical depensation growth properties)." Yes, eating wild fish has an environmental effect. In that aquaculture relies on feeding animal protein to fish, that too will have an environmental effect. You may be interested to read Diet for a Small Planet (1971) by Frances Moore Lappé and Fish_farming#Criticisms. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vranak, yes cod have become extinct on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland, formerly one of the richest fishing areas in the world. The key here is the exact meaning of "extinction": not biological but practical. From Fish#Conservation: "Such commercial extinction does not mean that the species is extinct, merely that it can no longer sustain a fishery." (Emphasis in the article.) BrainyBabe (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fish (food) Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sports

In a typical leisure centre or similar such sporting venue, what sorts of activities might be available?

Tennis, Basketball, Swimming, I really can't think of many, and it seems there isn't anywhere around here where I can do some research.

Also, how much might it cost to visit such a place, on average?

148.197.114.158 (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you've been asked to find out about a "typical" leisure centre, you can probably assume your local one will be "typical". You can either ring, visit or go on their website to find out. And that's as close as we will come to doing your homework for you! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could also look up leisure centre on Wikipedia.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't actually seem to have one here, and if we do, it must be quite a long way away. And the article is rather short, so not much help. And there was me hoping I could get the answer today rather than after a lot of looking around on the internet. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have badminton, floor hockey, indoor soccer, and volleyball at my local rec centre. Vranak (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racquetball is quote popular as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.153.209 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grease pencils

Does anyone know of a high-street (physical) shop in the UK where I could buy a grease pencil? Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 17:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also after something like this – ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 18:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most medium-ish to large towns will have an art supplies shop, although I don't know of any chains (equivalent to Ryman's etc) - they're usually independent. The Yellow Pages is probably a good place to start. To give a strictly-correct but perhaps not very useful answer to your question: yes, I do, the one next to Sainsbury's in Hitchin (I won't give the name here, that might be considered advertising). But I'm sure that there'll be one nearer to you (unless you, too, live in Hitchin.) :) Tevildo (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also get grease pencils ("Chinagraph" is a popular generic trademark) at DIY shops ([4] at B&Q, for example). Tevildo (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-photo blue pencils should be available at any office-supply store (I'm not British, so I don't know what the big ones there are), and I'd be surprised if grease pencils weren't available there as well. Deor (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think grease pencils are used for writing on photographic film, so try a photographic shop like Jessops. 89.243.151.239 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth trying camping and outdoor shops for chinagraphs. DuncanHill (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why outdoor shops, out of interest? ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 19:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you've got your map nice and snug inside its mapcase, you can write notes, mark points & routes on the outside of the mapcase with a chinagraph. Keeps the map clean, dry, and unmarked. DuncanHill (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a shop that sells diving gear would have them. 89.243.151.239 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why diving shops? ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 19:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because divers use them to write underwater. 89.243.151.239 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a question that involves a unique pack case

This can be seen in Chris Redfield and Leon S Kennedy's designs in the Resident Evil game series,

I am wondering what kind of packs do these two wear at the small of their backs, these are incredibly useful and would appreciate finding out more about them.

the closest thing ive seen are fanny packs, but those died decades ago and I need something like this pack for more functionality. Murakumo-Elite (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, they died decades ago? I wear a bum bag when I go cycling. --ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was in reference to WGN's Way Back Wednesdays program in which 80's movies are played, and it prompts the line, "Don't forget your fanny packs!" Actually it is kind of appropriate, they were big a long time ago, last time I saw them normally was in the very early 90s. Murakumo-Elite (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can buy some very similar bags online for around $30. SteveBaker (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that's what they are! butt packs are a funny name, but I havent seen anything more useful in hiking the Smokies. Thanks! Murakumo-Elite (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13 days

A film about the Soviet Missile emplacement on Cuba in 1962. There is a scene wherein Bruce Willis as political advisor to JFK speaks by phone to a young U2 Spy Plane Pilot and pleads with him "not to get shot down". - sotto vocce - (as in - don't let this become a political incident if you get shot down). Sadly, the pilot is seen, and attacked by Soviet SAM's. Oh, my question??????? The pilot in question is seen wearing a very embellished flight suit with "frills" along the arms and over the body that don't at first glance seem to serve any useful purpose other than being decorative. Any clues as to their purpose or functionality??? Thanks. 92.30.6.164 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure suit? 131.111.248.99 (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deindented the original question. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Lockheed U-2:

Because of the high operating altitude, the pilot must wear the equivalent of a space suit. The suit delivers the pilot's oxygen supply and emergency protection in case cabin pressure is lost at altitude (the cabin provides pressure equivalent to about 29,000 feet/8,800 metres). To prevent hypoxia and decrease the chance of decompression sickness, pilots don a full pressure suit and begin breathing 100% oxygen one hour prior to launch to de-nitrogenize the blood; while moving from the building to the aircraft they breathe from a portable oxygen supply.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the frills? I think that was the point of the original question. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a pressure suit, perhaps the 'frills' are the myriad pipes that cover the suit - or, at least, that was my thinking. Without knowing precisely what the user saw, it's hard to say (and I haven't seen the film). 131.111.248.99 (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section heading says "13 days" but according to our article as well as IMDb, Bruce Willis was not in that film, as claimed by the OP. So, without knowing which film they saw, it's a little hard to find images from the right movie. Dismas|^(talk) 04:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure about the U2 but some of those spy planes had problems with pilots overheating and they had to pump cooling fluid though pipes in the suit. Alarmingly, the SR-71 pumped jet fuel through the suit! SteveBaker (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. SteveBaker, kerosene being pumped through the pilot's pressure suit is totally insane and impossible. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly 'kerosine,' and not that insane and impossible. Our SR-71 article states that the aircraft used ". . . JP-7 jet fuel, which had a relatively high flash point (140 °F, 60 °C) to cope with the heat. In fact, the fuel was used as a coolant and hydraulic fluid in the aircraft before being burned." While this doesn't in itself fully corroborate the fuel also being used to cool the pilot's flight suit, it appears to me to make it plausible. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reference for that fact: read "Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years of Lockheed by Ben R. Rich and Leo Janos". Ben Rich was the boss of the Lockheed plant that made the SR-71, so I think we can believe him! Sure, it's a crazy idea from a safety perspective - but at the height of the cold war, using a small pump to pump readily available cool fluids through the suit was considered to be better than reducing the performance of the plane by hauling a full-blown air-conditioner in the plane. This was war - and people are prepared to take bigger risks in wartime. Besides, JP-7 jet fuel is exceedingly difficult to ignite and any crash bad enough to set it off would surely kill the pilot regardless of the suit's cooling mechanism. Remember, the SR-71 was DESIGNED to leak fuel all over the runway when parked or taxiing - only when it got up to full speed did the thermal expansion of the body panels cause the seals in the fuel tanks to be fully compressed. So they'd take off with fuel pouring out of the plane - do a quick fast run to get the plane hot - then do an immediate in-flight refuelling to top off the tanks. These machines were crazy-dangerous! Anyway - what I'm not 100% sure about is whether they used the same trick on the U-2 - it may have only been the SR-71. SteveBaker (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remain shocked. The consequences in a pilot eject scenario seem awful. These are two crazy ideas, indeed. Jam them into the SR-71 article! Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the speeds and altitudes the SR-71 flew at - ejection would be exceedingly hazardous anyway - but JP-7 is an amazingly safe fuel. You can't set light to it with a match. I would assume that the suit connected into the seat with appropriate cut-off valves - by having it sloshed all over your flight suit wouldn't be a life-terminating experience. But those spy planes were right on the very edge of the technology of the day and there were hardly any compromises made in the area of pilot safety. SteveBaker (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This webpage may be of interest re SR-71 Pressure Suits (specifically David Clark Co. S1030 Suit) 220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not incredibly dangerous. In most aerial combat the planes are too high for external fires. During the Korean war pilots were amazed to hit enemy jet fighters with armour piercing incendiary ammunition and no ignition to occur despite fuel spraying all over the place. It's just too cold.--92.251.153.209 (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reader's Digest archives

Are the contents of Reader's Digest articles archived anywhere? I'm looking for the text of a particular article from the British edition, somewhere between the late 1970s to the mid 1980s, and I know several key phrases from it but not the title. There doesn't appear to be a searchable index on the RD website, except for the Canadian edition, and that only indexes titles of articles since 1990. I was wondering whether there was some academic database which indexed these sorts of thing, or whether I have to contact RD head office or (gulp) do the search manually. The Wednesday Island (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you call a big library's reference desk (your local library or nearest big library, or one in New York City or London or whatever your phone bill can afford) and ask them to check the "Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature" for a given set of years (late 70s and early 80s), and give them a few key words, they should be able to tell you all the Reader's Digest articles that fit your description. Many libraries will take your question and call you back with an answer. 63.17.48.29 (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THe British Library should have copies of it. Once you have identified the article your local public library should be able to order a photocopy for you if you are in Britain, and even perhaps if you are not. 89.242.47.252 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I upload?

How do I upload my articles to add to our community? As well as my retail lines? Thank you.. annett strahan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsbefrienz (talk • contribs) 22:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Wikipedia:Help desk#Upload support. Please keep discussion there. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Please don't post the same question on multiple desks - you have a helpful answer to your uploading query at the WP:Help desk. As regards your "retail lines", if you're hoping to use Wikipedia to advertise your business and products, I'm afraid this is not allowed. Wikipedia is not your webhost, and it does not accept advertising. Ka renjc 23:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Identify axe-like object in photo of gun collection

This photo (sfw) shows of some chap's extensive collection of guns and related accoutrements. In the centre, at the bottom, there is an odd object which resembles a cross between an axe and some kind of pipe bending device. From context alone I can only guess that this is some instrument used in the maintenance of firearms. What is it? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tool for firearms maintenance. Some sort of hammer/pry bar combo. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: Stanley FatMax® Xtreme™ FuBar™ Utility Bar.[5] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks incredibly handy; I still have a gift card and they are in stock locally. Guess I'm going shopping. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to be concerned that, with so many rather® macho™ names®, that it might be the Hummer™ of prybars. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the FuBar™ part somehow doesn't inspire much confidence in me. Deor (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, that's it exactly. That thing looks more dangerous (at least to the user) than most of those guns. Thanks for your swift help. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a tool nut - I have one of these. I'm still not quite sure why I need it - but you can't have too many tools! SteveBaker (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the guy in the photo worried that the godless commie terrorist liberals are going to leap out of the TV, or something? FiggyBee (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC) AlexHOUSE (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen a regulation US flag with those proportions. If it is correct then someone please go change this one. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a weird looking flag. The star spacing is off, and there's the weird blue space around the edge of the star field. Clearly this man is a communist infiltrator. Luckily we were here to spot his one error. APL (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thinks he's waiting for an excuse to shoot the TV so he can get a nice flat-screen one! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did nobody else notice that he also happens to be watching Glenn Beck...?AlexHOUSE (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT acronym

Why do we use the term "LGBT" rather than "TBGL" or any of the other 14 ways that the letters can be arranged? Our article on the subject says that it's often preferred over "GLBT" possibly for feminist reasons, but it doesn't address other combinations of the letters. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't necessarily a reason. It helps to be consistent, but it doesn't matter which order is used so whichever become popular first wins. --Tango (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article LGBT gives the history of variants of the acronym. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I've read the "Variants" section and don't see anything except the GLBT bit that I already mentioned. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not analyze all 14 mostly non-notable permutations of the letters LGBT. You can investigate their relative popularities yourself using www.google.com. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how are we getting 14 (or is it 15?) permutations here? I count 4!=24 different orders: BGLT, BGTL, BLGT, BLTG, BTLG, BTGL, GBLT, GBTL, GLBT, GLTB, GTBL, GTLB, LBGT, LBTG, LGBT, LGTB, LTBG, LTGB, TBGL, TBLG, TGBL, TGLB, TLBG, and TLGB. Buddy431 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking 16 (14 was 16 minus LGBT minus TBGL), but of course you're right: for some reason I was taking 2×2×2×2. And I'm not asking which permutations are more common than others; I simply wonder why LGBT became the popular term, but the article only explains why it's more popular than GLBT, not why it's popular in general. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be nice to me; I was a history major in college, and I've not had a math class since I was in high school :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that either 1. there is no reason other than tradition, or, 2. there might be some psychological/linguistic reason that certain acronyms sound better (to English speakers) than others. GBLT sounds like a sandwich, for example. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps lesbians organize the meetings and are thus entitled to the first spot, with bisexuals and transvestites being less common than gay males. Edison (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "T" is for "Transgender" and not "Transvestite". There is a big difference. Dismas|^(talk) 04:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Wood was a transvestite and was straight, so that's a whole different story. As is the main character in the "Lumberjack Song". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoanalysis of the lumberjack's statement 2:49 "I wish I'd been a girlie, just like my dear Mama"[6] reveals the transvestism syndrome to be a product of repressed Transsexualism. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

It just seems wrong for them to exclude transvestites from their meetings. Edison (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say they "exclude" straights from their meetings? I would think anyone interested could go to those meetings. (PFLAG, for example.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ. 86.177.121.239 (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you google [LGBT GLBT], you'll see a number of questions like this with no answers, including on answers.com, which I think is the one that speculated that the "L" was kind of a bone tossed to the lesbian side in connection with women's lib; while also saying the GLBT is also acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 ways to pick the first letter, then, when you've chosen the first one, that leaves only 3 ways to pick the second, 2 ways to choose the third and then the last letter is a 'given'. Hence there are 4x3x2x1 ways (4 factorial) which is 24 ways. SteveBaker (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By contrast, there are over twice that many ways to leave your lover. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to this discussion a bit late, but I have personal experience that sheds light on this. I came out in 1981, at which time my university had a (tiny) Lesbian-Gay Students' Association (LGSA). Based on my experience of the movement at the time, I think groups chose to put Lesbian first because women tended to avoid mixed-gender groups, fearing male dominance, unless the group made an effort to give lesbians prominence. One way to do this, of course, is to put lesbians at the beginning of the group's name. Back then, bisexuals were not really fully accepted as part of the movement. During the course of the 80s, they gained acceptance, and more and more groups added Bisexual to their names. So, there was a transitional LGB stage. Then, around 1990 or during the 90s, LGBs moved to embrace transsexuals, and LGBT was born. Marco polo (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]