Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 3

footage

Trying to find video footage of This guy's jump 199.19.248.107 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

BBC news website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36935755 (and probably most other news websites anywhere - it was widely covered, and is very recent) Wymspen (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I found it by clicking on the news link in the article and then poking around the other videos on YouTube. †Dismas†|^(talk) 20:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

August 4

People who don't like to travel

Hi,

I've always wanted to travel and I did it a lot as soon as I had money for it. I've been living abroad for 7 years. I've lived many amazing things and I have plenty of pictures and stories to tell but nobody in my family never got interested in it. It's been a big frustration for so many years and I'm about to lose contact with them cause we have nothing to talk about. They are from France and they would spend 2000 euros to go in the south of France every single year instead of going to Asia or to the US or to visit me in south east Asia. So time and money is not the issue. Why are some people so closed minded about the rest of the world? Should I try to motivate them to travel or should I give up? Please share your experience if you have some related to this topic. Thank you very much. 122.53.58.54 (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Travel aversion reads more like an essay than an article, but it might suggest some insights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I am one who doesn't care to travel. I have traveled a fair amount for work, at least in the US and Canada, but don't enjoy it. Let me list some reasons:

1) I absolutely hate air travel. From the illogical pricing, long lines and invasion of privacy at security, the bus I have to take to get from the parking lot to the terminal (the bus driver actually parked the bus to go eat dinner once), the unbearable heat in the plane when parked on the tarmac, having to sit uncomfortably close to a stranger or 2 in a seat that's way too small with way too little foot room, to having to risk them losing my luggage if I check it or having to pack unreasonably light to avoid it and jam my possessions into an overhead bin or under the seat. I am subject to DVTs, too.

2) I don't care for hotels. They are unsanitary (rarely clean the comforters, etc.) and lack privacy with the housekeepers coming in to clean. Theft is also possible.

3) I don't like unfamiliar places where I can get lost.

4) As I've mentioned earlier, I don't like strangers.

5) I don't like long lines at tourist attractions.

6) Once I arrive at a sight worth seeing, like the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, or Pike's Peak, I am unimpressed. It just looks like the pics I've seen. Others mention that there is something magical about actually being there, but I just don't get it. Full colors pics at a sufficient resolution do just fine for me.

7) I don't like trying to communicate with people who don't speak English.

8) As a tourist, I am more likely to be robbed, kidnapped for ransom, targeted by terrorists, etc.

So, when I do take a vacation, I travel to visit relatives nearby. I know the route, there are no strangers involved, I can take a car that won't cause me cramps, there are no lines, etc. I seem to be a bit on the autism spectrum, so some of my reluctance to travel may be due to that. StuRat (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's even more basic: To you (and probably to many others) the annoyances outweigh the benefits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• A lot of people simply don't like being out of their comfort zone, for many of the reasons StuRat mentioned. Not much you can do to change that, it's largely just personally. For example, I'm the exact opposite, and many of the reasons StuRat listed to not travel are in fact appealing to me (meeting strangers, unfamiliar places, trying to communicate across languages, etc). Trust me, you never complain about hotels again if you've spent weeks camping through East Africa with strangers .... For me, almost any annoyance is outweighed by experiences like that. I have noticed that it also seems to vary from country to country. People from the US seem to be more reluctant to travel, particularly more adventurous travel, than those from European countries for instance. All OR, or course. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• The biggest hesitation I have had when traveling is that I do not want to go to a foreign country, and automatically receive the perception that I am a Westerner tourist, and therefore must be dumb, naive, racist, or ignorant to the culture. I try to do a lot of research on the place I am traveling to before going. Sometimes there's not a whole lot that I can do, though.--WaltCip (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100% with StuRat (talk · contribs). For me, the disadvantages of going to a different country (or even a new part of my own country) are that everything is unfamiliar, confusing and possibly threatening. Advantages - none. Zilch. Not a one. I don't see that as closed minded - I am very happy to listen to other people's amazing (and, often, terrifying) travel stories. Just don't expect me to join you ! Gandalf61 (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

And of course we have an article, Travel aversion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I may have posted that link earlier. Traveling in America underscores the importance of franchise businesses. Most anywhere you are, you can find a brand-name hotel or fast-food joint or department store to fall back on, to help mitigate the unfamiliarity of a place. Someone commented on national parks looking like the pictures. The way around that is to do something that is less often photographed, and can put you much closer to what you're seeing from afar in the postcard view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There are actually two different issues involved: one concerns the actual travel, and the other being in an unfamiliar place. They are not necessarily linked. I would love to be in Australia, or Japan, or China - but I would no appreciate the travel involved in getting to those places (from the UK) Wymspen (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's much better to travel to visit someone you know who lives there and has space to put you up. That eliminates the hotel issue. Getting there, of course, can still be a major pain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• This may contain some reliable sources. --Jayron32 15:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

no sources, but it seems there is an evo-psych reason for some people's aversion to travel. this is because for like 99.9% of human history, venturing outside your village was a sure way to get killed (men) or raped (women.) I also predict that women enjoy non-business (or war) related travel (aka vacationing) more than men. Asmrulz (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

also, the opening-up of air travel to the lower classes. Asmrulz (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

the security theatre, too Asmrulz (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's also known that a particular form of travel, - namely, hiking, camping, mountaineering etc, is largely a White thing. I don't know why that should be so (and there have been some BS explanations put forward), but I can confirm from personal experience that it is. Asmrulz (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Then your personal experience is pretty limited, it doesn't sound like you've been hiking in any affluent country with a large Asian population. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It's limited alright, but the difference is I can substantiate my bs when asked. This here puts Asian hikers at 3.2%, which is way fewer than the Asians' share of the population, and Whites at 86.3%, which is more. The personal experience I referred to is that I know more outdoorsy Slavs than outdoorsy Joos and I myself never understood what the point of hiking was. Asmrulz (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Jews (it appears you don't have to say "Joos") are not considered Asian in the US just because Israel's in Asia (neither are Russians from Siberia). And in the US Asians (Jews too) disproportionately live in the places furthest from nature (big cities) so it's no surprise that Asians hike slightly less than their share of the population. Asians were 4% of the population the last time I checked. A random African-American is more likely to be poor or not have a car, Northern African-Americans often live in cities and people that live close to nature are whiter than average so it'd be expected that white people hike out of proportion to their numbers. I don't know where the Slavs you know live but I believe the most Russian-American part of the US by percentage is around North Dakota/Montana/Idaho (Alaska too?) so.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

What Sagittarian Milky Way. And Asmrulz, if your stereotypes based on race held true all the many hiking trails in Japan would be mostly empty. They are not. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Our Demographics of Asian Americans suggests 5.6%. However it's still not way fewer. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW [1] is interesting. While it doesn't separate by race or ethnicity, it does by overseas market. China and Japan were both markets with fairly low rates of people who weren't interested in tramping in NZ, similar rates to US. Both the UK and Australia had significantly higher percentages of people who weren't interested. China and Japan did however have fairly low rates of actual participation (lower than UK or US), although still higher than Australia. (The closeness of Australia combined with the fact it's likely quite a few of the visitors were probably simply visiting family or friends or needing to spend their money so they don't contribute to the Australian economy despite working and living there most of the time probably didn't help.) Germany is in a world of their own. South Korea was the only Asian country of the three listed that comes close to fitting the claim of not being into tramping, but even for them, there was still more people who were interested in it (or did it) then who weren't. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Let me make sure I understand you, Stu, You are coward and a pussy. You are a bigot, or chauvinist. You're simply lazy. Did I miss some other point? My biggest complaint with travel is the foreign gits all try to speak english atcha! Bastrards! μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• That's an unacceptable attack on an editor just trying to honestly answer a Q. Coward ? If I don't feel the need to risk my life by going to foreign tourist attractions that are frequently targeted by terrorists, that's my business, not yours. Bigot ? Most people choose to associate with people like themselves. Trying to ban those different from yourself from moving into your neighborhood is a bad thing, but choosing not to go to theirs is anybody's right. As for being lazy, who decided that a vacation should be hard work ? If I choose not to use my vacation to struggle to learn a new language, that's also my business, not yours. And speaking of intolerance, you seem amazingly intolerant of anyone whose preferences differ from your own. Not I. Those who choose to go to places where it's hot and humid and nobody wears deodorant are welcome to do so. StuRat (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Note - as Marchetti's constant says - "Even since Neolithic times, people have kept the time at which they travel per day the same, even though the distance may increase." So technology & money (access to tech) probably explain all the variation between groups of peoples through time; within groups the proportions of wanderlust & homebodies are likely stable too.John Z (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is that people have different interests and preferences. This sounds like more of a problem for the OP than for his or her family. If the family are not interested in talking about travel, are there really no other possible topics of discussion? I would drop the travel topic, at least for a while, since further proselytizing in the immedIate future is likely to lead only to further resistance. John M Baker (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I've thought of a couple more reasons:

9) Bad for the environment, since lots of fossil fuels must be burnt to get me to the other side of the world. If VR progresses to the pt where I can pilot a robot down the streets of Beijing, then I might like to give that method of tourism a try.

10) Tourism is a net negative for the world economy. It's a positive for nations that receive lots of tourists, and a negative for those nations that send them. Add to this the inefficiency of the process, considering the wasted fossil fuels, etc., needed to make it all happen. If the goal is to send money to poor nations, then foreign aid and charity may be more efficient ways. StuRat (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If you send money to a poor nation, how do you know who will pocket it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Which US states do not have a "Single-subject rule"?

Our article "Single-subject rule" says that 41 US states have single-state rules - but doesn't list them (or, more briefly, list the ones that don't have this). A quick Google didn't provide a list either. Help! SteveBaker (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There might be 41 different ways to say it, and 41 different Google sources to look for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This[2] purports to be a list of states which have the single-subject rule. There are 15 of them, so the numbers don't add up. But that might help narrow your search. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference 3 in our article lists 15 states that have a single-subject rule for initiatives, and it states that 41 have a single-subject rule for legislative bills. At the end of that reference there is a link to a person you could contact for more info (if it's not out-of-date).Loraof (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah - I saw the short lists of 15 states that have the rule for public initiatives. I was mostly interested in it for legislative language. There is currently an effort to get a similar rule added into the US constitution - but for that to happen, there has to be near-unanimity between the states. I was interested to discover which states might object if such a question were seriously raised. To me it sounds like a good idea, with no downsides - it's hard to find arguments why it wouldn't be a good idea - and again, finding places that don't have it might provide some insight. SteveBaker (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

August 5

pigeons

is it immoral to feed the pigeons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.144.62 (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. It can be annoying for other people due to the bird's behaviour and defecation, and it's a somewhat futile exercise, merely extending slightly the Malthusian limit on the population. Many arguments can be made that there are better uses for resources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There was a TV news report not long ago which said the complaints about pigeons being "rats with wings" are unfounded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• This may contains some useful information in helping you to make a decision. --Jayron32 13:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Morality is a tricky matter - and it's unlikely to ever come up with a clear answer. For example, there are racing pigeons...homing pigeons...fancy show pigeons. It's clearly OK to feed them! If you're constrained to considering only wild pigeons, you have to know that pigeons are sometimes consumed as food (eg Pigeon pie) - and you might therefore consider feeding them to get a plumper bird, or to attract them to make them easier to catch. Even if you further constrain the problem to exclude those kinds of activities, I doubt that anyone would complain about you feeding pigeons if you lived 50 miles from the nearest other person - the degree of problems you'd cause for your far distant neighbors shouldn't be objectionable - and you might even draw some of the local pigeon population away from their homes and actually reduce your neighbors problems. Even in a city center, where pigeon infestations are a problem, you could probably come up with some contrived situation in which you'd benefit mankind to some degree by doing this. That said, there are obviously situations where by doing this, you'd be inconveniencing others to an unacceptable degree. This is a nuanced and subtle question. SteveBaker (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In some locations, it is illegal to feed the pigeons - read Save the Trafalgar Square Pigeons for a classic example. It seems reasonable to argue more generally that it is immoral to break the law, in which case it would be immoral to feed the pigeons in that specific location. Wymspen (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I've got a mental picture now, of The Bird Woman being thrown to the ground, cuffed, and rushed away in a police lorry. And her fine would be a lot more than tuppence a bag. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Rules like the Trafalgar Square ban (for instance) is motivated by a combination of concerns - environmental/health/hygiene/public amenity, as well as freeing up the square for commercial reasons (renting it out for concerts and promotional events for example). Even if one does not believe breaking the law is not in itself amoral, the fact that a democratically elected authority has made a judgment call and said banning pigeons will benefit the public generally is a good indication that following the rule benefits the public more than the loss of whatever pleasure people get from feeding the pigeons.

And if you have bags of stale bread lying around, why not feed the ducks and geese at the nearby park instead? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

cue Tom Lehrer —Tamfang (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And maybe we'll do in a squirrel or two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And why not, as it just takes a smigine.--Aspro (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"I feed the pigeons, I sometimes feed the sparrows too. It gives me a sense of enormous well-being." See Felicific calculus. Tevildo (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Australians built a rabbit - proof fence to contain the creatures after they were unwisely imported (they have no natural predators). The grey squirrels are vermin who are threatening the native red squirrels with extinction, but unfortunately the bounty scheme for killing them has been discontinued. You can, however, be jailed for failing to give your Japanese knotweed to a licensed waste handler after you cut it down. 86.149.13.241 (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

August 7

A rising student?

What does it mean to be a rising sophomore? †Dismas†|^(talk) 04:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it just means they're becoming more important (because of their success in the sport). See sense 16 of "rise" here: "to attain a higher status". --69.159.9.219 (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

During the summer break, a student's status is usually considered based on the upcoming fall semester. But to emphasize that this is for the upcoming term rather than currently active enrollment, sometimes one says "rising". That is, at the current time, they are in the process of moving up to that next level for the imminent term. So a "rising sophomore" has completed the freshman level, but is currently on break and has not actually begun sophomore coursework. Google "rising sophomore", "rising junior", or "rising senior" to confirm. DMacks (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That must be it, then. Thanks for the correction. That usage of "rising" does not exist in my experience (in Canada). --69.159.9.219 (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I started with the Virginia Thrasher article which led me to that source. My wife and I, both American, have never heard the term used for students before. Normally I see, and use, "...will be starting her/his sophomore year..." Thanks again, †Dismas†|^(talk) 12:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd never heard the expression before, so I typed rising sophomore into Google. The first hit explains the term and suggests that it's popular in Washington, D.C. (and given the confusion, not much anywhere else!) Matt Deres (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

In DC, clarity is a dead issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to the experiences of the people above, I've heard the phrase frequently in various parts of the US. To call someone a "sophomore" during the summer would be unclear as to whether the sophomore year recently ended or will soon begin. Loraof (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but there are other ways to say it, as Dismas indicated. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

As someone said: "I matriculated at university. It's all right. They can't touch you for it." 86.149.13.241 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

August 8

Three second rule

How did the "three second rule" for dropping food on the floor come about? And realistically, are you all that likely to get sick if you drop food on the floor and leave it there for a few seconds before picking it up and eating it? WaltCip (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This may give you some useful information.--Phil Holmes (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A reference that says its a myth: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/news/three-second-rule-is-a-myth-says-new-research/ . This reference says you will get gangrene if violated, but not a reliable one: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=3%20second%20rule. This page talks about origins, but in an untrustworthy way: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/3_Second_Rule Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

And this reference http://cn.uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/%E4%B8%89%E7%A7%92%E8%A7%84%E5%88%99 says that the 3 second rule was derived from the 5 second rule, equally untrustworthy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether it's safe or not depends on the nature of the food, and the condition of the floor (or whichever surface it falls onto). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

But the referenced and cited facts show that it is unsafe to allow any contact between food and contaminated surfaces.--Phil Holmes (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Mythbusters did a show on the rule. Interestingly they found, IIRC, that dry foods attract bacteria and germs as soon as it hit the ground, but wet food surprisingly did have a few second rule. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're remembering that incorrectly. I just looked at a short clip from the episode again and the conclusion was that the wet food (pastrami) picked up MORE bacteria than the dry (crackers), although both were instantly contaminated. Neither supported the x second rule. CodeTalker (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Which raises the question - what is considered not a contaminated surface in practice? Can cutting boards and other kitchen instruments, even if properly washed, be considered fully sterile?--WaltCip (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a difference in terms of health, not necessarily grossness, between a cutting board used for meat, etc. and a floor. The floor might be dirty but it might not have dangerous bacteria. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This report[3] squares with what I've often heard, that the average desktop is the germiest thing around. Yet how many of us willingly pick up and eat a chip or whatever which fell on our desktop, while we wouldn't do that if it fell on the floor? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

See Hygiene hypothesis, eating germy chips from our desktops may actually be making us more healthy... --Jayron32 18:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on that, given the likelihood that the average kid has eaten off the floor (or other unsanitary places) from time to time, there should be little to worry about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Are there actually people who believe that the "three" (or five or ten) "-second rule" is anything but a joke? --69.159.9.219 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If so, it's an extremely old one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

What are the current estate tax consequences for property held in trust?

The current estate tax deduction is $5.45 million. So, what if one has $5 million in real property and bank accounts totaling $10 million in trust. When the current beneficiary dies, the trust installs that person's heir as the new beneficiary.

What are the current estate tax implications for that new beneficiary? What if that $10 million piece of real property was the beneficiary's sole home residence?

What options exist for converting the trust into a charitable trust in order to avoid any estate tax consequences? Zombiesturm (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

All of these are questions you'd need to ask a tax lawyer or accountant about. We cannot advise you on your legal options regarding an inheritance. Also, inheritance law varies WILDLY from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. There are no universal principals we can direct you to that apply to the entire world; which is why you should talk to a local lawyer who can advise you based on your local situation. --Jayron32 18:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice, but we can point you to some information. I am guessing the original poster is asking about the U.S., since the amount they give is the "combined credit" for U.S. federal gift and estate tax. See estate tax in the United States. Note that for married couples with jointly held assets, the couple can combine each spouse's credit. In the U.S., at least for federal taxes, I am fairly certain that real property being one's residence does not have any impact on estate taxes. We have an article on charitable trusts. For more information on U.S. federal taxes, most IRS publications are available on the IRS website. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)