Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 April 18

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

April 18

jamatv

Is there an article (here or at es:wp) about a TV station known as "jamatv"? Some of the figures in File:Casa en Ayacucho y José Mascote colapsó.jpg are using TV equipment labelled "jamatv", but aside from a guess that it's a station in Guayaquil (where the photo was taken), I know nothing about it. After making some fruitless searches, I just now asked at the es:wp help desk, but most of the recent archives haven't gotten any responses, so I doubt that I'll get anything useful. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's an enormous image, but doesn't tell the whole story. Move the blonde woman's face a quarter inch (0.635 cm), and "jamatv" becomes GamaTV. Here's our article. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A (Forced) Farewell to Arms?

Some books/sites claim Ernest Hemingway was court-martialed for fighting the Germans in France, and got acquitted only by lying.[1][2] I find this difficult to believe, as he was a war correspondent, not a soldier. What's the scoop? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what the Wikipedia article says: "Of Hemingway's exploits, World War II historian Paul Fussell remarks: "Hemingway got into considerable trouble playing infantry captain to a group of Resistance people that he gathered because a correspondent is not supposed to lead troops, even if he does it well".[18] This was in fact in contravention of the Geneva Convention, and Hemingway was brought up on formal charges; he said he "beat the rap" by claiming that he only offered advice.[109]" It doesn't say court-martial, probably because only military personnel actually face a court martial, but it would certainly have been some sort of military tribunal. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This lengthy account of the proceedings says; "Hemingway, who had come to France as a civilian newspaperman (albeit under the jurisdiction of the US Army) - had 'borne arms against the enemy.' For this - and because he was under army jurisdiction - he could only be court-martialled. He did not come under French jurisdiction because there wasn't any, he could not be sent back to the States to be tried as he had not committed a crime there. An American Army military court was the only solution, and if found guilty Hemingway could be sentenced to a long stretch in a military prison, or, at the very least, be sent back to the US in disgrace, with his passport withdrawn".

Hemingway was summoned to a preliminary hearing, officially described as a "military investigation and interrogation of Ernest Hemingway, commencing this day, the 6th of October, 1944, in the American occupied sector known as S.H-2, Nancy, North Eastern France, and in the temporary HQ of the Inspector General, US Third Army (Rear), with Inspector General Colonel Clarence C. Park, presiding."

In the end, "the case against Hemingway [was] effectively found un-proven. There can be little doubt that Park simply went through the motions and that Hemingway had been coached – probably by the military – in his replies to Park's questions. Hemingway continued as a correspondent, covering the Hurtgen Forest campaign, and some of the Battle of the Bulge." Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That's in the first link I already provided. I'm looking for something more reliable, one way or the other. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Select device manufacturers have not been willing to provide Gorilla Glass model verification."

This page[3] says:

The devices on these pages have been verified by the manufacturer and Corning as using Corning Gorilla Glass. The manufacturers and devices detailed on these webpages are the only manufacturers authorized to use the Corning Gorilla Glass trademark in their device promotions. Select device manufacturers have not been willing to provide Gorilla Glass model verification. In those cases, please ask the manufacturer directly or contact Corning here and we will do our best to help you.

What does "Select device manufacturers have not been willing to provide Gorilla Glass model verification." mean here? Doesn't Corning know exactly who they sold their Gorilla Glass to?

I must be missing something here, because the currently the situation reads to me like: "I lent my BBQ grill to Bob. But I don't know whether Bob borrowed my BBQ grill or not, you'll have to ask him. Only he would know."Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

They may have obtained the glass through intermediaries: companies supplied by Corning who have sold on surplus stock, or who have just acted as wholesalers. Manufacturers who say that they have used Gorilla Glass, but have not allowed Corning to test it and check that it is genuine, are not going to be on Corning's list. It doesn't mean that the glass is fake - just that Corning will not guarantee that it is genuine. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(e/c)Like many manufacturers they sell their products via a huge network of distributors and wholesalers who are independent of Corning.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, it may be known that a manufacturer bought gorilla glass, but that doesn't tell anyone which device models use it. StuRat (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone.Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

The difference between these two cases of disagreement

What is the difference between these two cases of disagreement?:

1. Person A claims that people with six-pack are sexually attractive because she (person A) is sexually attracted to that characteristic, but person B disagrees because she (person B) is not sexually attracted to that characteristic.

2. Liberals and conservatives disagree on the subject of which policies are best for the nation.

70.95.44.93 (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

See Meta-ethics in general and Emotivism in particular. Tevildo (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

1) This seems to be a case of a faulty generalization.

2) I think I see where you draw the comparison with case 1. That is, for fiscally conservative people who happen to be rich, it may be better for them to have low taxes and low benefits, while for fiscally liberal people who happen to be poor, it may be better for them to have high (progressive tax bracket) taxes and high benefits. So, if they both jump to the conclusion that whatever is best for them must be best for the nation, then yes, this is also a case of a faulty generalization. However, I am rather skeptical that they really believe this, but rather I suspect it's merely a rhetorical argument they make to try to get their way. StuRat (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The Experience Project

Since The Experience Project is now for read only, I was wondering if there are alternatives. --إلياس الجزائري (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think Wikipedia is for "read only". Anyone can edit the vast majority of pages on Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dweller: by "This website" I meant "The Experience Project" website. --إلياس الجزائري (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone as ignorant as me, a social media platform, Experience Project is now a defunct social media platform. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC) As there are lots of social media platforms out there, what aspect/s of Experience Project did you most enjoy/like to replicate? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You know, support, its goal was to let people know that "they are not alone". A place to be yourself and ask for help if you ever need it without being judged. —إلياس الجزائري (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Countries changing names

The question above about Dating a globe got me thinking -- especially since, a few days ago, we were all instructed to update our map terminology when the Czech Republic declared its wish to be known as Czechia. Is there a chronological list of national name-changes? Or indeed of subnational administrative divisions (not towns and cities, but counties, provinces, oblasts, etc)? I know the 1960s were busy with decolonisation, but which decades before or since were most active in name-changing? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Here you are: Timeline of country and capital changes. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Plus, another list, including subnational entries, at Geographical renaming. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd never come across either of those. It looks like the 1870s were relatively quiet. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

What actually happened a couple days ago was that the Czech Republic asked the UN to update its geographic database to include the name "Czechia" for the geographic area. The political entity, the republic, is still formally known as the Czech Republic, though it can be referred to by the geographic name. See Czech Republic#Etymology. Loraof (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the best analogy here is that the Czech Republic wants the nation to be known as Czechia and the state to be known as the Czech Republic. The best analogy with another nation I can think of is how Frances the nation, but the state is formally the French Fifth Republic and how Iran is the nation, but the Islamic Republic of Iran is the state. When the Czech Republic came into being, it lacked a name for the nation (as distinct from the State that governs it). Interestingly, it's former partner Slovakia had as national and state name (Slovak Republic). It sounds like a semantic matter, but in the case of long-standing nation states, a single "nation" can have a series of successive "states" which have ruled in, i.e. France has had at least two periods as the Kingdom of France, two distinct times as the Empire of France, and five different French Republics. Even the USA has had two distinct states (That under the Articles of Confederation, and that under the United States Constitution) that has been in charge of the American nation. --Jayron32 21:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

According to our Timeline article: The Czech Republic votes to adopt Czechia as its official short-form name in English. What I don't quite get is how any country can vote, decide, deem, decree or otherwise assert that the name of their country or any part thereof, in a language that they do not use, shall be whatever they say. They can request people use a certain word, but they cannot decide. Otherwise, what's to stop Belgium, Belize or Baluchistan from "deciding" that the English word "house" will henceforth be "szbenfbkwbckw"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I take your point, but if they use this form in all their dealings with the outside world such as their football team and their tourist information, then sooner or later the rest of us will fall in line, unless we wish to appear ignorant or boorish. Take Mumbai for example, which I still call Bombay at the risk of sounding like a relic of Empire. Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I still talk (and write) of Lyons and Marseilles, Leghorn, Elsinore, and Jutland. If I were speaking (or writing) French or Italian or Danish, I would of course use the French or Italian or Danish versions of those names. When I speak English, I use the English form. The French talk of Londres and Edimbourg or some such, and jolly good luck to them. DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, I've been waiting several decades for a chance to bring Leghorn up in a conversation, but it has so far eluded me. My favourite is Flushing which sounds vaguely lavatorial. Alansplodge (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It surely can't be long before we start hearing people (sports commentators, most likely) refer to "Czechians". Mark my words. The Rio Olympics are not far off. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. We already have a perfectly workable adjective, Czech. A few years back, India decided that the English names of some of its cities needed to be updated, so Bombay became Mumbai and Calcutta became Kolkata. These things happen, and there's no pressing reason for us to refuse to use the new term, excepting our own stubbornness. --Jayron32 01:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It's clear you do not share my infinite confidence in the penchant, partiality, predisposition, predilection, proclivity and proneness of sports broadcasters to invent new usages, usually in total ignorance that they are bypassing perfectly fine existing usages, and sometimes even seeming to be unaware of the rudiments of their own native language, as paradoxical as that may seem (but then, Elvis famously said "I don't know much about music. In my line you don't need to"). I can see the wheels of their brains clunking along already: "He's from Czechia, so he must be a Czechian". Again, mark my words. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

And lo, they have a basis - [4]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

For those interested: See our article Lech, Czech, and Rus. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

US (external, foreign, public, intragovernmental, total etc.) debt

Question

Remark

Expain please why don't numbers of external debt fit. What is actually external debt? To whom USA does owe its total debt?

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Pages/ticsec2.aspx > https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt > Grand Total 6148.1 (Dec 2015) https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Pages/external-debt.aspx > https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/debta2015q4.html > Gross External Debt Position 17,564,382 (December 31, 2015) http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=01&startYear=2015&endMonth=01&endDay=01&endYear=2016 > Debt Held by the Public 13 672 522 257 291,59; Intragovernmental Holdings 5 249 656 752 129,30; Total Public Debt Outstanding 18 922 179 009 420,89 (12/31/2015) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html > DEBT - EXTERNAL $17,260,000,000,000 (31 December 2014 est.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt#cite_note-10 > http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/debtd2015q3.html > Gross External Debt Position Total 6,693,241 (Sept 30, 2015) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt > External debt 19,136,052,433,969

37.53.235.112 (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Explain please which numbers you're referring to that don't, in your opinion, fit with something else you've not defined
2. WP:WHAAOE: External debt
3. Lots of different creditors. Not my area of expertise, but National_debt_of_the_United_States#Foreign_holdings looks a good place to start.

Hope that helps --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

>>Explain please which numbers you're referring to that don't, in your opinion, fit with something else you've not defined -- external debt numbers.

I have read articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States ($6.2 trillion or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt (Country United States External debt US dollars 19,136,052,433,969 Date 31 December 2015). I think numbers of external debt are too different even in wikipedia articles. Why? In some articles external debt almost equal total debt. 37.53.235.112 (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm no expert, but it looks like you're comparing apples with oranges. In your own quotes, you've compared "debt held by the public" and overall debt. The difference is explained in a very prominent pair of bulletpoints at the top of National debt of the United States --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That's why I asked to explain what is meant by external debt in articles (it seems definition differs official). So

(PUBLIC DEBT) = (TOTAL DEBT) - (INTRAGOVERNMENTAL DEBT);

(EXTERNAL DEBT) = (PUBLIC DEBT) - (INTERNAL DEBT) .

Correct?

Then we have (PUBLIC DEBT) > (EXTERNAL DEBT). Why do we have in articles (EXTERNAL DEBT) (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt) much bigger than (PUBLIC DEBT) (see http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=01&startYear=2015&endMonth=01&endDay=01&endYear=2016)?

37.53.235.112 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To answer just this part of your question: you fail to make a distinction between debt owed by the treasury and total external debt (which includes foreign debt by the treasury, but also includes foreign debt by banks and other corporations).

• (Total Public Debt Outstanding) = all money owed by treasury = around 18 tn
• (Debt Held by the Public) = (Total Public Debt Outstanding) - (INTRAGOVERNMENTAL DEBT) = around 13 tn - that's what US treasury owes to public (including US public and foreign holders, such as foreign governments)
• (EXTERNAL TREASURY DEBT) = (Debt Held by the Public) - (INTERNAL DEBT) = around 6 tn - that's what US Treasury owes to all foreign debt holders, including governments
• (Gross External Debt) = (EXTERNAL TREASURY DEBT) + (Foreign Debt Owed by Anyone Else in the US) = around 17 tn - that the sum of what anyone in the US owes to anyone outside the US.

No longer a penguin (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So

• (TOTAL TREASURY DEBT) + (EXTERNAL NON-TREASURY DEBT) =
• = (TOTAL TREASURY DEBT) + (Foreign Debt Owed by Anyone Else in the US)
• = 18 + (17-6) = 29 trillions.

Correct?

What debt is meant in article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt : (EXTERNAL TREASURY DEBT) or (Gross External Debt)? In any case it equals neither 17 nor 18 , but = 19. Why?

37.53.235.112 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I reformatted your question to make it easier to read, I hope it's OK. There is no need to quote anyone here.

You calculation seems correct, although I don't see the meaning for the resulting 29 tn, since it is a weird mix of intra-government debt (which is an accounting measure at least to some extent), internal debt (but only by treasury) and external debt (by everyone).

As for the 19 tn figure, I suspect that it is simply bogus. It was introduced by an editor a month ago without citing any source. The only source for such number that Google finds is Wikipedia itself and sites quoting Wikipedia. From the description on the page, it is clearly the 17 tn figure (Gross external debt) that should be in that article. I will change it accordingly. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the meaning for the resulting 29 tn -- (EXTERNAL NON-TREASURY DEBT) is potentially (EXTERNAL TREASURY DEBT), as when corporations will become bankrupt, government will buy them. Yes if the question about US default will arise , then Treasury can execute netting of intragovernmental debts. Then potential US debt before default we must calculate as 29 - 5 = 24 trillion. 37.53.235.112 (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"when corporations will become bankrupt, government will buy them". That is somewhat of a stretch - there is no reason to expect the US government would buy all the corporations that would go bankrupt. Corporations are (usually) limited liability companies that are independent of the government and when they go bust (hundreds every year) - the government does not bat an eyelid. Even in those cases where it did (i.e., financial sector during the crisis), the government did not assume the debts - it usually provided enough capital for the company to stay afloat, but the debts were still on the books of the company.

The only reason why Gross External Debt is of any interest to anyone is that is shows the overall exposure of the country's economy to international credit markets. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Why are MSM so highly at risk for STDs?

MSM is a high-risk group for contracting STDs. But why are they so high, compared to MSW or WSW? 140.254.77.156 (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(answer is partly copied from a recent section which got deleted) If you compare MSM with heterosexuals, the following reasons apply: 1) HIV is already more prevalent among MSM, so the chance of meeting a sexual partner with HIV is far larger if you are a MSM. This is of course a self-perpetuating problem. 2) Homosexual men have more different sexual partners on average than heterosexuals. 3) The impossibility of pregnancy means that there is less incentive to use condoms, and thus more risk of infection. 4) Intravenous drug (ab)use is more common among homosexuals than in the larger population.

I suspect WSW are at a lower risk because they do not exchange bodily fluids in the same way or to the same extent as MSM/MSW. They also don't have as many sexual partners on average as MSM. - Lindert (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for like, any of that? This is the reference desk, not the "Tell people stuff I think I remember" desk. Not saying you're wrong, just saying that references are what we do here. --Jayron32 21:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought that stuff was common knowledge, but it is easily documented. See e.g. this article which mentions all four factors I gave: the large number of sexual partners, the prevalence of STDs in MSM currently, frequent injection drug use and (anal) sex without condoms. - Lindert (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said, it wasn't your wrongness, it was the lack of references. Anything which is common knowledge enough that it doesn't need a reference, it doesn't need to be said at all, because you're presuming the OP would have already known it, and thus doesn't need your answer at all. If they don't know it, then that's why they asked the question, and as such, the knowledge is apparently not common enough, so they probably need solid, reliable sources to answer their question. Thus you have two choices 1) the OP already knows what you're about to say, so you don't have to say it or 2) the OP didn't already know what you are about to say, and thus you should probably provide them a reference, because this is the reference desk, and that's what we do here. Thanks for the NIH article. That's the sort of thing that should always be provided in the first response to any question. --Jayron32 01:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

So that I can follow what's being discussed, can someone explain what MSM, MSW, and WSW mean? I'm guessing that the S is sexual and the final M/W is Men/Women but am lost on what the initial letter could stand for. Dismas|^(talk) 21:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I had to Google it, too. Apparently, they were invented in 1994 to dispel this sort of stigma. Wasn't the most logical plan. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Men who have sex with men, for our article. The term was coined as many such men would not consider themselves homosexual (see Situational sexual behavior, for example). Tevildo (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. I do a lot of my WP reading these days from work, so didn't feel comfortable Googling it. Dismas|^(talk) 12:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hard to believe that it's almost 20 years since Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men was published. In it the gay activist Gabriel Rotello tackled epidemiology and sociology to try to understand the HIV/AIDS epidemic. From our article on the book:

Rotello's central argument derives from the epidemiological concept that sexually transmitted epidemics are the result of three factors, sometimes called the Triad of Risk: 1. the ‘infectivity’ of a sexually transmitted disease (STD), or how easily it spreads, 2. the ‘prevalence’ of that STD in a particular group, and 3. the ‘contact rate,’ or the average number of sexual partners that people have within a particular group.

His thesis has been challenged, but it remains a significant book - see the legacy section. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What's up with no smoked sausages in chippies in London and is there one that does?

London chippies don't seem to do smoked sausage, in my experience. Sausage, yes. And often saveloy, but this is a different thing (and can't really be battered as effectively as a proper smoked sausage). What's up with this and does anyone know where to get a smoked sausage in a chippy within the M25? Don't fail me Wikipedia. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I assume the chippy you refer to is "A shop serving the traditional British dish fish and chips". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

What sort of smoked sausage did you have in mind? DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

See this forum thread for a photo of a proper smoked sausage. Largely a Scottish delicacy - Google isn't coming up with anything south of Carlisle, let alone in London. But let's hope someone has the local knowledge to help the OP. Tevildo (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(Pic is about 2/3 down the page.) That looks a lot like a Polish kielbasa. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, smoked sausage is an east European thing, smoking is strictly for kippers and haddock for us Londoners. My mum is Scottish and square sausage is the traditional variety up there as far as I know. I'd never seen or eaten smoked sausage until I went to Finland as a teenager in 1975. Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I take it back, see The Complete Rebus Collection by Ian Rankin; "In Blairgowrie he stopped for fish and chips, which he ate at a Formica topped table in the chip shop... Red, white and black puddings, haggis, smoked sausage, sausage in batter, steak pie, mince pie, chicken pie... with pickled onions or pickled eggs on the side".

I've still never seen it in a chip shop though (even in Scotland). Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This thread suggests that there are NO Scottish chip shops in London (the OP had a yearning for deep-fried battered white pudding - good luck with that). Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The only sausages I've ever seen in English chippies are pork sausages (battered and deep fried) and saveloys. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. For those who wish to keep up with trans-pondian food analogs, Scottish square sausage seems very similar in concept to the scrapple eaten in parts of the USA. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought scrapple was the stuff Americans mended cracks in the plaster with. DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe in shape but scrapple's ingredients are a bit different! Rmhermen (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Both are composed of lower quality meats and then use grains as a filler. I'm sure the flavors are a bit different, but there aren't all that many pork/grain rectilinear sausage products, and I found the similarity interesting. I hope some day I go to Scotland and can try some square sausage so that I can make a more fair comparison :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)