November 20

I just read in an article about fish photography that there was some sort of "etiquette" requiring you to show the left side of a fish (i.e. flipping pictures where the right side of the fish in focus is visible). Is there such a taboo and where does it come from? 124.154.253.31 (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wild guess - most languages of the world read from left to right, and thus the majority of viewers have eyes that are expecting information to be presented from left to right - in which case it feels natural to have the head of the fish be the first thing you see, and the tail the last. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an explanation - but it's not just fish. Oddly - there is a similar weirdness about photographing cars. Take a look at car photos and you'll find that the vast majority have the car facing to the left. I just looked through photos of my favorite car (the MINI (BMW)) on WikiCommons - and there are more than twice as many facing to the left as to the right. This was discussed at some length a couple of years ago on WikiProject Cars - and many people thought that it was a consequence of which side of the road we drive on - but that was blown away when someone counted car photos in British and American car magazines and found that despite driving on opposite sides of the road - we still prefer our car photos with the car facing to the left (just the same as fish). In the case of cars, I'm pretty sure the bias is not "etiquette" or "convention" - because even people who were previously completely unaware of the 'rule' would discover that of the photos they'd taken of cars, more than two thirds of them were facing to the left. It would be interesting to analyze car/fish photos from countries where people read from right to left. One other wild-assed theory is that it related to the fact that our left and right eyes are connected to the right and left sides of our brains - and thus to some bizarre idea about one half of the brain being more logical and all of that stuff. I have no clue why that would matter - but then I don't have a better explanation either. SteveBaker (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also watch photography etiquette which, if you check any magazine, demands watch hands to be at the 10 + 2 position. You can say what you wish about symmetrical spread and ability to see unique aspects of watch faces (such as the number 12 or the date at the 3 position) but that doesn't really explain why the hands can't be at 8 + 4. It's just what it is because someone once said to do it that way and it caught on by convention. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a convention that profile or three-quarter images of people face the center of the page, and newspapermen were perfectly happy to flip negatives to make this so. The fish convention, though, has to be adjusted for flatfish like sole or flounder — the pictures are more interesting if you shoot the side with the eyes, which varies from left to right. Actually, flatfish are born with opposed eyes, and one migrates as the fish matures. Occasionally the wrong eye will migrate, so the fish settles to the bottom eyes down and starves.. PhGustaf (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it mentioned numerous times that watches are set like that because it makes them appear "happy" and that viewers subconsciously react more favorably. Whether that's ever been scientifically proven I have no idea, but it's been repeated to me enough times by all sorts of people that I think it's become the de facto reason, if not the original? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We did have an article on that, but it got deleted. Astronaut (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think about it, putting a profile so that it is facing outside the page seems really awkward (perhaps they are not interested in the article?), and since most pictures of cars, fish, and other animals, when presented on a page with text, are usually on the right side of the page, that might cause a general trend to have all "faced" items looking left-wise, which would then be copied and patterned into the brain as the "correect" orientation. Does that make sense to anyone else? 124.154.253.31 (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well-established photographic composition rule to leave more room in front of an animate or moving object. Extending this rule from the photo to the page would have the subject always looking toward the centre of the page. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Catherine Ashton's beauty (of lack thereof) ever a topic in the UK press? Do journalists have a code of conduct that forbids them to tackle this topic? Mr.K. (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I've ever seen a newspaper article regarding this lady until yesterday, whether discussing her facial features or not! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's not so bad, she looks kind of like Emma Thompson -- or at least like how Thompson would probably look without the benefit of beauty treatments, etc. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair to say she has "a good face for radio", but since politics is her business rather than beauty pageants, her looks don't really figure into it. Not every female politician can look like Sarah Palin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except for in the extreme tabloid press, I fail to see the journalistic relevance of her (lack of) beauty. At least in Europe politics has yet to become a beauty contest. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed, a woman that's too attractive is going to find that a handicap in running for office, at least in the USA, as the press tends not to take her seriously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that why Nancy Pelosi is so successful? Googlemeister (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda cute. But I'm guessing she never posed in hot pants, nor created her own traveling reality show. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it is Palins looks that is her disadvantage. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pelosi is 69 years old, an age at which none of us will be getting by on our looks. A quick google shows she looked perfectly fine as a young woman. --Sean 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that one of the more wonderful things about the UK is that you can do very well for yourself and not be overly attractive. I guess Donald Trump proves that's not totally unknown Stateside either. Vranak (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, an attractive woman with no other real political views, aptitude, experience, etc, and no real plan at all beyond being a Hollywood-style media darling has a wonderful excuse for not being taken seriously: She can simply blame it on her good looks. (As you may have noticed.) APL (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could also say that the half-blindness of Gordon Brown is only a topic for the tabloid press. However, a couple of days ago I heard a BBC's comedy podcast mocking his deficiency in perceiving depth (he spots trouble, but doesn'tknow how deep they are). Mr.K. (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many would argue that New York governor David Paterson could not have been elected successfully, given his handicap. It was a significant issue in the press when he assumed office. As far as Ashton goes, I wouldn't say that she is either remarkably attractive or ugly. —Akrabbim^talk 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I did not associate "the press" with comedy shows. Of course in that kind of shows anything goes and the physical appearance of Ashton will probably be mentioned one time or another. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During a recent trip to the LA area, I noticed that many people were driving without rear license plates on their cars. Many of these cars had very dark tint on their rear windows, but in none of them could I see any indication of a plate, temporary or otherwise, in that rear window or anywhere else on the car. I was surprised to see this on one car on my first day, and figured it was a single scofflaw, but over the course of a week I saw maybe 15 cars of this description. Many of them had placards which advertised car dealerships or aftermarket performance part manufacturers in the license plate holders. I can't imagine that I would get very far in my home state without a plate. Is this simply the result of poor-enforcement, or is there some other reason this seems to be so common in socal? Tuckerekcut (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the 2nd question/answer here. --LarryMac | Talk 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then the obvious question is: "Why on Earth does it take 30-45 days for the DMV to provide new car owners with a plate. What, do they have to send away to China for them ?". In Michigan, they have a pile of them there and you walk out the door with one (or transfer the plate from your old car). StuRat (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

There's a serious backlog of license plate orders at San Quentin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Being a California prison, on any given day they have to check their New Age chaplain to see if the karma is right for stamping out plates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

When I was in LA I was also surprised at the number of cars driving with no plates at all. I noticed this exclusively in poor parts of town on old 'junker' cars. APL (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, LarryMac. Tuckerekcut (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

75.76.95.188 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)I am trying to verify an article in The Arlington Journal, Virginia, on Tuesday, January 31, 1984 in the Tempo section titled "Mental Illness." I cannot find any information related to this article. I have even checked w/ the Library of Congress. Can anyone direct me to a link that verifies that this article actually exists?75.76.95.188 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A large university library, especially on in the Washington D.C. area, should have backissues of that newspaper on microfiche. this link states that the paper merged with the Washington Examiner; if you contact the examiner's research department directly, they may have access to back issues of the Journal. --Jayron32 00:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]