Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 November 6

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.

November 6

Microwaving Pritt Stick

Hi, this is a very random question but it's because I was having a conversation about it and we were merely speculting on the answer. What would happen to the gluey bit of Pritt Stick if you microwave it? I guessed it would turn into a hot clear viscous liquid, but I don't know. Any help you can provide is much appreciated. Thanks. 86.138.158.223 (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be "not much". Microwaves only really heat liquids and Pritt Stick isn't liquid. It is pretty soft as solids go, though, so it is possible it would melt (I know glass will melt in a microwave if you heat it slightly to soften it - it's probably about as hard after being softened as Pritt Stick is). --Tango (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[1] describes a glue stick exploding the in a microwave - I guess due to air pockets or just uneven heating (which microwaves are renowned for). --Tango (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought it would cause a short circuit that blows fuses and ruins electronics (anything plugged in), as I've heard happening if an action figure like Gumby is placed in a microwave. Of course, I guess it depends on how long it's left in, too. (Before I read the article I thought you meant blowing up the microwave, not blowing up inside it.) Still, even if it didn't mkake the microwave explode, I'm surprised that more didn't short out. Of course, it may have been newer wiring, too.209.244.187.155 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the glue stick exploded, not the microwave - I've corrected my appalling grammar. --Tango (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon: Arceus and the Jewel of Life

It just aired on Cartoon Network in Australia, yet I can't find it uploaded on YouTube. The Shaymin movie was on YouTube almost immediately after it aired, so why isn't this movie uploaded and where can I find it online? --71.144.122.140 (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tautological answer: it isn't online because nobody uploaded up. Why's that? There is no guarantee that anyone will upload commercial content (usually illegally) on the web immediately after something has aired. Whether something does end up on the web immediately (or at all) is no doubt a balance between interest, technical capabilities, and copyright enforcement. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The previous movie was uploaded to YouTube almost immediately after it aired.

Do you know of anywhere that does have the movie uploaded? --71.144.122.140 (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, it might be sometime before it is uploaded anywhere... If you really wanted to watch it again, perhaps check out the Pokémon website, and contact them about it. A quick email couldn't hurt. Letter ⁷ _{it's the best letter :)} 13:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My sisters watch So You Think You Can Dance on YouTube, and the same user always posts the episodes after they air. Of course, he has to keep getting new accounts since they get closed down for copyright infringement, and they have to keep track of him somehow. So, you could start with finding the user that posted the earlier movie. —Akrabbim^talk 13:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this is common—that the number of users who take the time (and have the know-how to do it) to upload any given movie or show are very few in comparison with the total number of viewers or potential audience. Uploading movies taken from the TV is not particularly difficult, but it is nowhere as easy as ripping/uploading an MP3 or even a DVD. (If I were a mean-ol' MPAA-like organization, I would target these users specifically, and/or the sites/software that make it easier to do so, and not worry about the downloaders so much.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is illegal. Here's another suggestion, wait until November 20, 2009. It apparently airs in the United States on that date. Perhaps you could check YouTube, but there's no guarantee. Letter ⁷ _{it's the best letter :)} 13:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We won't help you much with blatant copyright infringement on here, sorry. And just because it was uploaded once immediately after it aired does not mean that subsequent ones would be. You're talking about a sample size of 1 here—just because something happened once before does not in any way guarantee it will happen a second time. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And there was I posting a warning because I thought someone had copied out some text from a site to Wikipedia. Bah! is what I say. I know where people posting complete episodes from television and having their accounts closed down can go jump. Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Muslims

In the past, the Muslim world was the center of mathematical and scientific thought. In fact, Muslims invented such fields as algebra and chemistry, among others. Yet today, Muslim countries are among the most anti-intellectual societies on Earth, believing that math and science go against the will of Allah. What caused this enormous shift in thinking? --70.141.193.245 (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Does this qualify as a loaded question? TastyCakes (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's true that modern Muslim countries are very anti-intellectual. For example, Saudi Arabia has all but outlawed thinking. My question is, why has this significant change occurred? --70.141.193.245 (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

t takes a lot of math and science to build the tallest building in the world and a nuclear program... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It does and it doesn't. Burj Dubai, like all big (non-military) construction jobs, is contracted out. If you look on the page for it, you'll see that the great majority of the companies are non-Arab (many are European and Asian). I don't know how the work is divided up, but either way, it's not like one has to "go it alone" on things of that nature. The Iranian nuclear program certainly demonstrates that even difficult technical feats can be accomplished by a state willing to fund it, and that Iran in particular has a well-developed engineering and scientific infrastructure. (This holds true even if one acknowledges that they received key help from other nations... as did, frankly, all nations with nuclear programs.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, aside from the bullshit that muslim countries are anti-intellectual (they certainly don't hold a monopoly on anti-intellectualism), there certainly was a fundemental paradigm shift in the muslim world following the Siege of Baghdad in 1258. Baghdad was the cultural and philosophical capital of the Muslim world, the sack of Baghdad has been cited as the Muslim equivalent as the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in the West, the effects on the Muslim world in terms of decent into "so-called" dark ages is roughly equivalent. But the idea that modern Muslim countries are "more anti-intellectual" than countries of other cultures is bullshit; the idea that modern Islam as a faith is inherantly anti-intellectual is also bullshit. But there was a historical decline in scholarship in the Islamic world after the fall of Baghdad, so there is a nugget of truth in the question. However, ideas like "Saudi Arabia has outlawed thinking" shows such rediculous narrowmindedness I don't know where to begin in correcting the OP's rediculous prejudices. --Jayron32 18:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

He's from Missouri, which probably explains a few things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

From Springfield, MO, no less. <<insert Simpsons related gag here>> ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we can say, however, that many Muslim nations have adopted very harsh laws restricting freedom of speech, access to education, and that the vast majority of the Muslim world lives in abject poverty. Such things are not generally a recipe for scientific innovation, but they are not all to lay at the hands of Islam specifically, but extreme religion more generally. Fundamentalist Christianity is not terribly favorable towards basic scientific research, either. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Many non-Muslim countries have done so as well; such restrictions on freedom are merely a symptom of an authoritarian governmental structure, and not a function of religion at all. There are muslim-majority countries, Turkey for example, where there is not any such authoritarianism. --Jayron32 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think one can totally disentangle the government structure from the religion (though obviously you would want to specify that "Islam" is as broad a category of viewpoints as "Christianity", and that both have their extremes) quite as easily as you would like to. Shi'a Islam is fairly straightforward on the types of governments which should follow from believers, which includes a strong authoritarian/theocratic element. Sunni Islam (like that dominant in Turkey) is more agnostic about the question of politics, as I understand it (see Islam and democracy). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's probably unfair to single out Islamic nations as "anti-intellectual". It's not that Islam was behind the rest of the world, but that for many centuries Europe was ahead of it (I am strictly speaking technologically here - I am fully aware of the cultural contributions of other civilizations). In the colonial period the nations of Europe were able to dominate most of the other civilizations they encountered, and were the equal of all. In short, Europe was the anomaly, not Islam. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's stick to just answering the OP's questions and correcting his observations, and avoid calling him things like "rediculously [sic] narrowminded" and ridiculing his IP location. —Akrabbim^talk 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There are, of course, arguments that different cultures and religions did affect the pace of science, long before the Europeans started colonializing in a significant degree. E.g. Joseph Needham famously argued that the Chinese culture of philosophical stability and the methods of advancement in governance boded ill for it actually using its technologies effectively, even though they were significantly ahead of the Europeans for many centuries (people have taken issue with this argument, of course, but it's not stupid). I don't know enough about the Islamic world to say much specifically on that topic, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there is an answer that fits on a bumper sticker. Here is an article that discusses the issue. All of this is terribly non-PC of course. (Btw, "Muslims invented algebra and chemistry" is a myth, see history of algebra and history of chemistry.) 88.112.58.122 (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is the distinction between an entire community of people ("Muslims") and some individual intellectuals within that society. While we know that the word "Algebra" comes from the title of a book written in 820 by some persian mathematician - that doesn't tell us much about Muslims in general in the first century. It might be that all of that society was galvanised by advances in math and science - much like Victorian England. Or it might be that there were just a handful of intellectuals who studied this field and came up with a few breakthroughs - while the rest of the population had no clue about or interest in math and science. I have yet to see proof either way.

I'm sure you can find a fair number of modern-day Muslims who are also responsible for breakthroughs in these areas. Abdus Salam for example - a practicing Muslim who won the Nobel prize in Physics for his work in Electro-Weak Theory in the 1970's. The reputation Muslims had back in the first century AD for this kind of progress might reflect only a relatively small number of individuals - comparable, perhaps, with the number working in these fields today. See List of Muslim scientists for many, many examples through the ages.

What I think is more significant is the nature of the entire body of society. There is no question that some (but not all) modern Muslim countries are rather hostile to the kind of modern educational systems that produces mathematicians and scientists. When you look at the modern era members of List of Muslim scientists - a large proportion of the ones recognised in the past 50 years are Muslims living in non-Muslim countries. In the past, that inattention to scientific education mattered little because a determined individual could be self-taught and still make breakthroughs that would change the world. But in our modern age, an individual with nothing more than a good intellect and a small number of books stands almost zero chance of doing that because there is so much more to learn - and all of the easy stuff has already been done. In the year 820, you could get an entire major branch of mathematics named after your book just by writing down the rules for making equations balance. Nowadays, you'd have to spend years of your life working on one narrow problem just to get a Theorem named after you!

To make progress these days, you have to stand on the shoulders of the giants who preceded you. Hence, without an educational system that strongly promotes and teaches these subjects, without access to large libraries, without computers and fast access to the Internet - it's going to become increasingly hard to turn out top class scientists and mathematicians - no matter how intelligent people are - no matter how enthusiastic they are for their subject - no matter how tolerant your society is of those activities.

But lest the western world become smug - remember, 44% of Americans believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old, 65% don't believe in evolution, 36% don't believe that global warming is a problem, 90%(!) of adult Americans are unable to add two fractions - even with the help of a calculator, 20% don't believe that men have walked on the moon. Science education is under assault from all directions. Things in Europe are not so bad - but there are signs that things are heading in the exact same direction (25% of Brits and 28% of Russians think the moon landings were a hoax).

In 50 to 100 years - will people in Japan be looking at America and Europe and say "In the past, the western world was the center of mathematical and scientific thought. Yet today, western countries are among the most anti-intellectual societies on Earth,"...I think we're seeing the start of a trend here.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I would like you to cite a source about the reputation of Muslims in the first century AD (500 years before the big M showed up :)

Steve, I know you're typically sketchy on citing sources, but do you have any for the dumb-Americans claims in the 2nd to last paragraph? Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but the citation would be useful. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto to the above because I'm really interested in reading up more about this trend as well. Are those numbers from the book: Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future? Royor (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of sources - Google can be your friend. As far as I recall, these numbers came from:

• 44% of Americans believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old - comes from the book I'm reading right now - Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution - quoting a 2008 Gallup poll.
• 65% don't believe in evolution - came from the same book (it happened to be handy next to my keyboard!). This number varies radically according to who you read - but this shows only 39% believe in evolution - this shows the number is much lower if you specify human evolution - just 15%. You can find numbers anywhere between those two extremes...pick whichever you want depending on precisely how you frame the question.
• 36% don't believe that global warming is a problem...I forget which web site I got this from - but a Google search turns up plenty of sources for this number or worse. But again, you see a range of numbers depending on precisely what you ask - this says only 15% accept that burning fossil fuels is the cause. This says only 35 percent describe it as "very serious". This says that only 57% say there is solid evidence for global warming. "Fewer than four-in-ten (36%) now say global warming is mostly caused by human activity such as burning fossil fuels,". Here is a graph showing the percentage of believers and disbelievers as a function of time.
• 90%(!) of adult Americans are unable to add two fractions - even with the help of a calculator. This was from a survey taken by Dallas ISD about 5 years ago - sorry I can't point to an online reference. I was surprised at the number at the time and I asked a bunch of people I know to add 2/3rds to 3/4ths - and very VERY few of them could do it - or even describe how to do it. An alarming number of people thought the answer was 5/7ths because that's (2+3)/(3+4). I went so far as to ask my son's math teacher to pose this question to parents who came to the high school open day - and it was amazing to see an entire roomful of Adults with absolutely no idea how to do this simple piece of arithmetic. Many said "I learned how to do that in school - but I've forgotten how."...argh! I now firmly believe the 90% figure (at least for people without calculators)...but it's pretty frightning.
• 20% don't believe that men have walked on the moon - came from a Fox TV show "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" which is a bit outdated from 2001. I believe that recent studies have found far worse figures - people are definitely getting worse on this one at time goes by.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Those "90% of people don't know how to do (random mathematical calculation)" are kind of misleading. 90% of people probably don't need to know how to add two fractions, except on their math tests when they are 12. Why do they need to know how to calculate the length of a hypotenuse? Or the area of a sphere? Who cares? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, he's not talking about something weird that nobody needs to do in real life; adding simple fractions is something Americans ought to be better at than most people as they still use those quaint fraction-based measurement schemes. Anyone who's had to add fractions of inches together should know how to add fractions together. Here in Canada, we could at least honestly say "Fractions?? What the fuck would I need to add fractions for, Yankee? Don't you guys still measure fuel efficiency using rods per hogshead or something? Gimme a decimal!" and so on. Or at least we would, if we weren't so nice. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, although we still do use imperial measurements for some things (do you know how tall you are in centimetres, or how much you weigh in kilograms? I don't!). But the only time I can imagine adding fractions is if I have to double a recipe that requires 1/3 or 1/4 or 1/2 cups. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note, I'm often surprised by how many otherwise intelligent people believe that gravity is caused by the Earth's rotation.

Is the fraction thing a sign of "anti-intellectualism", though, or merely a demonstration that such skills tend to be lost by most people if they don't use them regularly? As for the recent increases in young earth creationism, etc, I think a lot of that is a reaction to militant atheism; when you get respected scientists running around telling people that they can have their traditions, culture and religion, or they can have science, but they can't have both, it's not surprising that many choose the former over the latter. FiggyBee (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's often Christians who make that argument - that science is incompatible with Biblical literalism, therefore science must be rejected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a temporary bulwark of hard-line nationalism in some Muslim nations, and that once things settle down we'll be able to see past the nuclear programs and Hezbollah attacks and recognize that part of the world as having a lot to offer, intellectually and scientifically. Vranak (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The enormous shift in thinking is called the Renaissance that did not impact Muslim societies. Is there a reputable source for the OP's claim that Muslims believe that math and science go against the will of Allah? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there was a very explicit change in the history of Muslim thinking around the 12th century. In the early history of Islam there were too approaches to understanding the will of Allah. One might be described as fundamentalist in modern terms, relying on the Quran, textual interpretation, and authorities. The other was philosophical/scientific with Muslims believing that new insight into the Quran and Allah could come from studying the natural world with scientific reasoning. The two sides came into conflict. The Incoherence of the Philosophers, Al-Ghazali, and similar 11th and 12th century scholars and works led to the conscious suppression of the Islamic natural philosophers. Sort of a Renaissance in reverse. The universities and religious institutions of that era moved away from the study of natural philosophy and became more fundamentalist. The elimination of science as an accepted path to understanding Allah had a lasting impact on the development of scientific thought in the Muslim world that carries through even to the modern day in many places. Dragons flight (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Christian world is facing that same anti-intellectual threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Midrash Shachar Tov on Psalms makes an interesting statement when it compares all nations to animals, much like modern personifications as the Russian Bear. It compares the heritage of Ishmael (Islam) to a camel, the heritage of Esau (Rome, and often extended to embody Western civilization) to a pig and the heritage of Israel to a sheep. Rabbi Yoel Schwartz explains these references as follows: each of these animals displays different types of kosher signs. The camel ruminates, but does not possess fully cloven hooves; the pig possesses fully cloven hooves but does not ruminate; the sheep both ruminates and possesses cloven hooves. He explains that these personifications reference the global perspective of the nations. While, he asserts, that Islam displays tremendous respect for past tradition (regurgitation + rumination), they fail to make progress and move forward (hooves). Christiandom, he states, is the opposite -- they make great strides and advance (hooves) but they have little respect for things in the past (rumination). While I'm sure this is to be controversial -- I believe access to all knowledge is inherently good, and you may choose to agree or disagree as you will. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And by an amazing coincidence, the Jewish writings (i.e. the Midrash Shachar Tov) about that group of nations conclude that the Jewish approach is the best. :) An interesting comparison, though. It's fortunate for the sheep that it gets a good chunk of its feed from a nation alleged to be a "pig". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your apparent disgust is misplaced, Baseball Bugs. At the time that Midrash was written the kind of treatment Jews were likely to get from Christendom was not exactly liberal. For most of the last 2000 years, Jews got a much better deal from Moslem countries than Christian ones. You can't place a modern day interpretation on an historic text without clashing anachronistically. In this context, characterisation of a "pig" is actually pretty mild. You should also know that there are other bases for the characterisations - the Romans set up a pig in the Temple. And the Israelites (=Jews to the author of the Midrash) first encounter with the race that was to become the Arabs, was a caravan of Ishmaelites, who took Joseph away on their camels. Typical aggadic midrash, layers on layers, and a little obscure and generalising. --Dweller (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Jews in particular. I'm talking about the widespread human tendency to conclude that a particular group is superior to all the others, and by an extraordinary circumstance, that happens to be the group they themselves belong to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The book What Went Wrong? by Bernard Lewis is about this very topic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Try here for a quick answer.

I am surprised to find myself not in total agreement with SteveBaker, but of the two Moslem Nobel laureates, one did his work in the West, while the other was declared a heretic. Clearly, Muslims are not born intellectually inferior to any other group, but living in authoritarian societies that put education in the hands of fanatics with an agenda will make it all but impossible for its members to reach their full potential.

Examples abound -

• Many of the contributors to the Manhattan Project had fled Axis-controlled Europe and its racist fanaticism. Without that insanity, they probably would have supported those governments, as their parents had support the Central Powers in WWI.
• Communism, as interpreted by Stalin, demanded an "all nurture, no nature" view of the world. The USSR, which had been a leader in genetics, soon sank into the nonsense of Lysenko, helping to exacerbate its crop failures.

Religious fanaticism of any stripe and brand is equally likely to repress the growth of knowledge in any society that permits it to gain sufficient power. B00P (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Info for Mike DeNiro

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_DeNiro, it is stated that Mike DeNiro of Youngstown OH and (Youngstown) Chaney High School attended the Univ of Alabama. This is incorrect. Before his death, Mike attended Texas A&M. I know -- I was a friend and teammate of Mike's all though high school and into college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.47.70 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you certain? Wikipedia has no articles named Mike Deniro or Michael Deniro nor has any article by those titles ever been deleted, near as I can find. Are you perhaps mistaken about where you found this info? --Jayron32 20:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. As you say, the OP didn't see that info in an article by that name. He actually got it from List of people from Youngstown, Ohio. However, he got it from an old revision of the page, and only today User:DJ Clayworth deleted the Mike DeNiro name from that list, citing "redlink" as a reason diff. Now, I am unaware of any guideline or policy that says deleting redlinks anywhere, including lists, is a good thing. The whole point of redlinks is that they encourage people to start articles.

On the other hand, the OP should note that unfortunately, personal knowledge like he quoted is not sufficient for Wikipedia. We need a reference to a reputable, independent, verifiable source such as a newspaper or magazine article that says DeNiro attended Texas A&M. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The deletion or retention of redlinks on WP lists is decided on a list-by-list basis. Some accept redlinks galore, others immediately remove them. Some let them stay for a month or so, then delete them if an article hasn't been forthcoming, e.g. Deaths in 2009. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK states "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created". Articles whose subject is not obviously notable are usually not placed into lists of "notable people from city X"-type lists. Redlinks in lists are useful for situations where the list contains likely notable subjects. Its fairly standard operating procedure to remove redlinks of people from such list; if such people are notable establish notability in an article FIRST, then add them to the list in question. --Jayron32 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

H. Upmann and Montecristo in the US

According to Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara, "A smoke in times of rest is a great companion to the solitary soldier."

I was recently able to purchase H. Upmann and Montecristo cigars in the United States. It is my understanding that the US has a trade embargo against Cuba correct? Hence, is it safe to assume that the cigars I purchased were made by Altadis in the Dominican Republic instead of Habanos S.A. in Cuba? Acceptable (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Likely. Does the cigar band say? The Cuban ones seem to advertise it there. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. After the revolution, the major Cuban cigar makers all set up shop elsewhere in the region. There is some debate about how well those cigars compare with the current Cuban product — the plants stayed in Cuba, but much of the expertise emigrated. The Cubans I've had have been good, but not enough so to justify the price. PhGustaf (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers; the label does not say the manufacturing origin. Acceptable (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See United States embargo against Cuba. Smoking a Cuban-grown cigar could be viewed as burning their crops. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Below is a picture of "Mike DeNiro" which appears to have been scanned from a school album of some kind. /Users/billkemp/Pictures/A&M/MikeDeNiro.jpg