Humanities desk
< March 30	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	April 1 >

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.

March 31[edit]

Did the Catholic church ever say that Catholics cannot eat meat on Fridays and may eat fish as a substitute for meat?[edit]

I know Catholics can't eat meat on Fridays, especially during Lent. That's how the Filet-o-Fish was born; it was to make money from Catholic customers. Is this practice exclusive to Catholics in Western countries? What about Catholics around the world, like in the Philippines? Basically, is eating fish on Fridays a local, cultural practice, or did the Catholic church prescribe this to all Catholics worldwide? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't try to summarize this, but here's an answer from an expert: [1]. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... The article says that meat is commonplace in the US, and so it's not really a sacrifice to let go of meat. Well, it surely is. But that doesn't mean it's cheap! It's actually cheaper to go vegetarian or vegan than to eat meat regularly. So, meat, especially high-quality meat like wild-caught salmon and bison and grass-fed beef, is still a luxury product. And letting go of this luxury product, meat, can still be considered as a form of penance, even by American Catholics. Technology is something that can be given up, though Americans - Catholic or not - are all probably very dependent on their iPhones and computers. A true sacrifice will probably be something like spending one's free time meditating in the church and thinking how to make the world a better place instead of texting incessantly on mobile phones and checking Facebook notifications. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I read it the opposite way. Meat is common in the US, therefore it's something that's hard to give up. Whereas a subsistence farmer in Africa who has never touched meat in his life, is not giving up anything by abstaining from meat. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re your question about the Philippines, see [ Meatless Monday and fish on Friday] which says: "In [redominantly Catholic Philippines, Fridays are for fish, substitute for meat"

In England where there is a substantial Catholic minority but many of the the cultural roots are Anglican with a heavy dose nowadays of agnosticism and atheism, eating fish on Friday is still a tradition. According to Lust, Lies And Empire: The Fishy Tale Behind Eating Fish On Friday, the requirement for Friday fish was enshrined in law by the Protestant King Edward VI to protect the fishing industry. However, that can't have lasted long as a statute in the religious turmoil of the 16th and 17th centuries, but it was certainly still common in the 1960s and 1970s for people have fish for dinner on Friday, and there is always a queue outside our local fish and chip shop on a Friday night. Alansplodge (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used to work in a wet fish shop and there was a huge demand on Fridays. The problem is separating how much of this is due to people's preference for buying food ahead of the weekend. The Friday night queues at fish and ship shops are probably based on social, rather than religious factors. In any event, Catholics operate a "vigil" system - the requirement to attend mass on Sunday is satisfied by attending the mass on Saturday night. 79.79.142.236 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the old tradition of a new day beginning at sundown? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely but my parish had Sunday masses as early as 5:30 Saturday. That is so wrong, the Sun hasn't set yet! Except in winter! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Fish on Friday: All Fridays of the year are days of penance. All persons who are between fourteen years old and sixty [1] are bound by the law of abstinence on all Fridays that are not Solemnities. Nevertheless, both Paenitemini and the 1983 Code of Canon Law permitted the Episcopal Conferences to propose adjustments of the laws on fasting and abstinence for their home territories, and most have done so.... Loraof (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I couldn't find the original letter, these sources cover the Conference of Bishops of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei's determination [2] [3] [4]. It's clear abstaining from meat is still the primary recommended form of penance but other alternatives are suggested if this abstinence cannot be performed, including abstaining from alcohol, smoking or some other favourite food or giving up on a favorite show on television or video. Spending time meditating in church how to make the world a better place isn't suggested but giving alms, spending time with someone who is sick or lonely or who is poor or disadvantaged, visiting the Blessed Sacrament, praying through the stations of the cross, the rosary or with family, etc. (This is from 1984 so obviously no mention or iPads, or even computers.)

BTW to clarify an issue raised in the source Someguy1221 provided, as clear from those and under sources [5] [6] [7] [8], it isn't just feast days or sacraments for which dispensations may be granted. In places with significant Chinese populations it's common that dispensations are given for penance on Ash Wednesday (although this should be performed on another day) or fridays (these don't generally have to be made up I believe) where needed for Chinese New Year celebrations, particularly where Ash Wednesday coincides with the CNY eve (when the reunion dinner is held). In fact provisions may be made to receive the ashes on another day if needed. (Special masses for Chinese New Year are also common.)

Nil Einne (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from a Philippine perspective, I've observed that the practice of abstaining from meat on Fridays is more common among older generations or more observant Catholics, and is dying out among the youth. There aren't really any penalties for eating meat on Fridays over here. It's more common to do it during Ash Wednesday and during Fridays in Lent, but for various reasons (usually a lack of available alternatives), it's not a universal practice either, even during Lent. However, it's popular to introduce or promote seasonal fish-based or non-meat food products during this time (notably Jollibee's Tuna Pie, which is offered yearly around Lent). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Private hearings[edit]

Common law court proceedings are transcribed and said transcripts are public information. But what about private hearings?

1. Are they transcribed?

2. And if so, is the transcript public information? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they're transcribed in real time with a Stenotype keyboard. Those are keyboards designed for fast typing - at the pace of speaking - with a trained user. Blythwood (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Common law court proceedings are transcribed and said transcripts are public information" — this is only true of a court of record. jnestorius^(talk) 12:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The county court is not a court of record but its proceedings are tape recorded. Anybody who wants a transcript picks up the tape from the court office and takes it to an approved transcriber. The new Court of Protection is a department of the High Court but it is highly unlikely that the transcripts of its proceedings would be publicly available. This post explains how the system works:

At the Royal Courts of Justice in London they simply turn on the tape recorder. Printed transcripts may be produced from the tapes later. If the hearing is private they won't be published. If you visit the library you will find they have a copy report of certain proceedings which, although not published, are available for public viewing (but not copying). 81.151.128.189 (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a placeholder text with specific characteristics[edit]

Hi. For an article on printing, I'd like to illustrate it with some kind of text (maybe a poem, but ideally out of copyright, anyway) where:

The title is short - about eight letters max - and begins with an 'R'
The first letter is also an 'R'

No preferences otherwise but nothing too odd. Any thoughts? For sentiments' sake I'd love something British or Italian or with a science theme. Blythwood (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rpophessagr by ee cummings strikes me as eager for an example of printing. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I need something with capital letters... Blythwood (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about the time-honored "Roses are red, violets are blue..."? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I'm looking for. I want something with a title different to the first line so there's a contrast, and a very short title. Blythwood (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne, by The Police ? That's also the first word of the first line, but not the only word. Not out of copyright, but if using it to illustrate fonts, somehow I doubt if they would mind you using a snippet. It's British, but not related to science. StuRat (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Russia by Donald Mackenzie Wallace, if you skip all the front matter (including the preface) and go to Chapter I, "Travelling in Russia", you will see that after the chapter title the next thing is a list of topics in the chapter, of which the first is "Railways". Will that do, or does the chapter title (or the front matter) break your requirements? --76.71.6.254 (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can search poems by year - for example, go to [9] and click through year by year looking for entries under R. And you can do the same thing for novels [10] and short stories [11], and choose a paragraph that also begins with R. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebud! DOR (HK) (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the 1999 Russian apartment bombings were obviously carried out by the Russian state, why wasn't there international uproar?[edit]

OP's premise is a petito principii.--WaltCip (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's possible to seriously argue that the FSB wasn't responsible, but nonetheless my question is on something else. 2.102.184.154 (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With FSB agents discovered planting a bomb in an apartment building no government in the world would be in any doubt the FSB carried it out. Surely this would get the whole international community involved, including the UN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.184.154 (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some sources please ? StuRat (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Russian apartment bombings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.184.154 (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the article, I assume because the Russian government made sure there was never an independent investigation of the bombings, and that no one would have the opportunity to disprove their assertion that the FSB device was a fake. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pls, don't state as fact something that's one hypothetical explanation. Hofhof (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer for the OP is: It is unclear who is to blame for the bombings, at least from what I can read at 1999 Russian apartment bombings, so we can't answer any further. The OP's surety is not shared by reliable sources. --Jayron 32 11:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When rebels in Ukraine shot down that passenger plane the international community was in uproar and demanded an independent investigation, yet the same doesn't seem to have been demanded of the apartment bombings. It's not like the international community is silent just because the victims aren't their own either, as seen in other events. 2.102.184.154 (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Russia has a veto at the UN, even if the claim that "no government in the world would be in any doubt the FSB carried it out" is true, there would be no legal consequence to bring it up. All you would do, is antagonise Russia. Is that what the OP is asking, why didn't any state decide to antagonise Russia, for no benefit to themselves? --Lgriot (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we're comparing 1999 to 2014, that's really apples and oranges. 15 years is a long time, and political situations change a LOT in 15 years. If the OP is asking "Why was there not as much of international attention given to a series of bombings from 1999 as there was to a plane shoot-down in 2014" the answer is "The world was a different place in 2014 than it was in 1999". --Jayron 32 14:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bancorp[edit]

Bancorp seems to be the name of many totally unrelated bank corporations. As this is not a word in English, I wonder how this is possible? Why, obviously, has no company saved the trademark rights to the name? Is it a problem to save trademarks rights on an obvious abbreviation and/or portmanteau? --KnightMove (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what sort of reliable source would satisfy you for the "why not?" question you seek? "Why not" questions of this type are not generally answerable with reliable reading material. --Jayron 32 12:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will see from our article Trademark that it is generally not possible to obtain a trade mark for a descriptive name or a generic term. Obvious portmanteaus of descriptive words are often themselves descriptive, for example, "Gastation" for a gas station. The more widely something is used to describe a type of product or business, the more likely that it is generic. For why there are so many "bancorps", see Banq (term). Perhaps the first "Bancorp" could have argued that it was distinctive, but it has become fairly firmly established "X Bancorp" indicates that it is a particular type of business. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. --KnightMove (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also possibly important is genericized trademark. --Jayron 32 13:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aminu Ahmad Kazaure[edit]

I'm trying to verify that Aminu Ahmad Kazaure is the governor of Jigawa State, as of 27 March, 2017 as claimed in Aminu Ahmad Kazaure, List of Governors of Jigawa State and Jigawa State. I can find nothing in a simple google news search. Per https://www.jigawastate.gov.ng/page/get_page/id/43 the governor is Muhammadu Badaru, who we seem to have as Badaru Abubakar. Is this a hoax or am I just not finding the information? Mduvekot (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the website of the Nigeria Governors Forum (which ought to know who its own members are) it is Alhaji Badaru Abubakar. http://www.nggovernorsforum.org/index.php/the-ngf/governors. The state radio station has news about him from the past couple of days - https://www.facebook.com/newsroomradiojigawa/. The new name looks like vandalism - or a political statement. Wymspen (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do humans complain about life being short when it takes them 15 years just to reach sexual maturity?[edit]

At 10 years old, humans aren't even sexually mature yet. And relatively, that's a very long time in the animal kingdom! With better nutrition, humans are becoming sexually mature sooner, so they should reproduce at younger ages. So, a longer lifespan doesn't matter if one human can produce a lot of kids! And yet, why do humans want longevity? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect to be totally cool with shuffling off the mortal plane, when your own time comes up? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's more fun being alive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because their happiness is not determined by the number of kids they produce. You seem to be confusing evolutionary goals with personal goals. - Nunh-huh 21:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfaction isn't the children - it's the grandchildren. Wymspen (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Especially "if they're properly cooked." -- W.C. Fields ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few references on our article of time perception, specifically on how it changes with age. Life isn't just short, it gets shorter the older you get. uhhlive (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was in Annie Hall that Woody Allen resurrected an old joke as being a good metaphor for lifespan: A couple of older women go to a restaurant. One of them says, "You know, the food here is really terrible." The other one says, "Yes, and such small portions!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time flies like a jet. Fruit flies like a banana. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Researchers were overjoyed when the newly discovered Martians agreed to a cultural exchange meeting. NASA assembled a team of top scientists to meet the Martian representatives. The meeting was cordial and both sides expressed an interest in learning how the other race reproduced. Demonstrations were proposed and two Martians, one pink headed and one blue headed, volunteered to begin. The blue headed Martian tapped five times on the front of the pink headed Martian, then waited expectantly. After a minute there came a rumbling noise from the pink headed Martian, a door opened on its front and out stepped a perfectly formed baby Martian who bowed to the assembly's applause. Not to be outdone, a young woman and man of the Earth team then gave an enthusiastic (in the cause of science) demonstration of human coitus. When it was done the humans were embarassed that the Martians seemed unimpressed, so they asked why. "Your demonstration confuses us, where is your baby?" The NASA team explained "It comes after 9 months." "We are still confused. When your reproduction method is so slow, why was your demonstration so rushed at the end?". Blooteuth (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A golden oldie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]