Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities 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

December 30

Tagore poem

Hi everyone. I am supposed to make sense of a certain poem by Tagore, but I have the impression I was given a back-translation of a Chinese translation. I found the text I received here: http://blog.udn.com/quietdharma/8963422. Could someone enlighten me? (I am most interested in the part starting with "Two: I heard the music, from the moon and carcass" etc.) Thanks a lot! MuDavid (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is very confusing. Looking at a Google translation of the page you linked to, I don't think that is a poem of Tagore at all. The page starts with line 82 of Tagore's Stray Birds, but it then goes into a Zen dialogue. I can't find anything resembling the lines you are asking about in Stray Birds, or elsewhere in Tagore's work: I think this is a poem inspired by Tagore. It's possible I'm wrong, as it's all rather unclear. Certainly the lines you are talking about are not English; but a Google translate of the page shows that, apart from "I believe I am" coming out as "I believe in myself", the "English" on the page is a Google translation of the Chinese. --ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm, well, maybe I should try at the Language desk to see if I can find someone to help with the Chinese... The person who gave me this fragment confirmed it is Tagore, but I couldn't find anything like it in any Tagore work I found online either. MuDavid (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Japan in World War 2

Did any white people fight with the Japanese rather than against them in WW2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.225.138.20 (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Germans. They were allies. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I mean actually fighting with them, rather than allied with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.225.66.217 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The German auxiliary cruiser Michel briefly operated out of Yokohama in 1943, if that counts. It was still a German ship though, it just happened to be stuck in the Pacific. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The Vichy French and Germans were fighting alongside the Japanese in Vietnam. One Allied fighter saw this and it became the inspiration for Planet of the Apes. Shii (tock) 15:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What was the rationale behind selling indulgences just prior to the Luther's Reformation?

From what I understand, indulgences were used to make sins less weighty, so a person receiving an indulgence from a priest wouldn't be divinely punished so harshly. Perhaps, some clerics wanted to cheat the system, so they lied to ordinary, naive laypersons that indulgences could be "purchased" instead of going through the trouble and confessing your sins to another person outside your family (probably very embarrassing and shameful!). Or perhaps, some artful laypersons bribed the priests into giving an indulgence without really confessing or repenting. Though, I have a hunch that it's more of the former than of the latter. Was selling indulgences done by a handful of corrupt priests, or was the entire Western Roman Catholic Church corrupt at the time? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Indulgence, an indulgence was theoretically good for avoiding temporal punishment (ie penances) for sins already confessed (ie to a priest). But the reasons for the abuses are obvious; it gave the church something it could sell and which it cost nothing to produce and greed took over. Often the money raised was for a good purpose (funding hospitals, building projects, schools etc). See [1] for more information. GoldenRing (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Incidentally, let's be clear that permission was never given to sell indulgences: permission was given that donating money to a worthy cause could be an act of penance towards the indulgence (still accepted acts of penance include things like saying certain prayers, reading the Bible, going on certain pilgrimages, attending certain sorts of events, etc), and then this was abused and turned into a situation where people were practically buying them from certain unscrupulous individuals. The worst abuses were also reserved for indulgences obtained on behalf of the dead: there are no even nearly-contemporary accounts of people selling indulgences for the living with the heretical promise that the indulgence guaranteed them entry to Heaven: there are accounts that people promised that dropping the money in for an indulgence for those in Purgatory would immediately send the soul in Purgatory to Heaven, no matter the State of Grace of the individual obtaining it, or anything the soul in Purgatory might do or have done. Whether that is because even the unscrupulous had a line they wouldn't cross, or because, no matter how poorly catechised they might be, the public obviously wouldn't believe the idea of a ticket to Heaven regardless of any actions they might take, I don't know. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Would a 21st century American judge commanding people to do community service as a form of penance be a modern equivalent to the indulgence system done in the Middle Ages? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's less chance of abuse than where money changes hands. (Traffic cops are notorious for giving out more tickets when they have a budget shortfall, so suddenly behavior that was acceptable before now requires a fine.) Potentially community service could be abused something like a modern chain gang, which was a system of virtual slavery where people were convicted on little evidence and often spent the rest of their lives in prison, working without getting paid, perhaps for a relative of the judge who sent them to prison. Allowing people to choose their form of community service somewhat removes the profit motive and hence conflict of interest from the equation. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really, because nobody made people do penance. Nobody made people obtain indulgences. It wasn't part of the justice system at all. And a judge can't have you do community service in order to free someone else from jail. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. A Papal Indulgence could also buy you remission for sins that you hadn't got around to yet - a sort of "Get Out of Jail Free Card"; the whole thing was genuinely unsavoury however you look at it. To answer the question, Pope Leo X "is probably best remembered for granting indulgences for those who donated to reconstruct St. Peter's Basilica, which practice was challenged by Martin Luther's 95 Theses" according to our article, having spent all his cash on luxurious living and making war on the French. Alansplodge (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"A Papal Indulgence could also buy you remission for sins that you hadn't got around to yet". Citation needed, unless you're basing it on the fantasy works of Phillip Pullman. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed long and hard debate about this, with all Catholic sources (that I can find) denying that such a thing ever took place and most Protestant sources taking it as read that it happened. It does seem that the official doctrine of the church never ventured into pardons for future sins. However, the practice of promising future absolution, however against doctrine it might have been, does seem to have gone on. It is difficult, for instance, to interpret these words of Urban II, during his declaration of the first crusade, in any other way:

If anyone who sets out should lose his life either on the way, by land or by sea, or in battle against the infidels, his sins shall be pardoned from that moment. This I grant by right of the gift of God's power to me.

— Urban II [2]

I can't dig out an original text of this speech immediately, and there is a suggestion that there are several accounts of it, and at any rate he wouldn't have said it in modern English, so it might be open to debate whether he said that or whether that's exactly what he meant or whether the translation is good etc. But there does seem to have been an understanding, however mistaken it might have been, that those going on crusade were forgiven all sin, either before taking the cross or after, if they were to die in the course of the crusade. GoldenRing (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Were there ways that a poor Catholic peasant could do as penance? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Any number of them. One could, of course, say a lot of prayers. Or perhaps donate some time or energy to the church, rather than money. Or indulge in forms of mortification or abstinence of various sorts. Or, I suppose, become a monk. Don't laugh - I think the latter was rather common among what we might today call retirees. Pretty much all the forms of penance recognized today were recognized then to. Unfortunately, particular around Luther's time, there was a serious effort to get together the money to build up churches in the Vatican, and given that then current effort, and the need for money for the building, it was maybe a bit trendier and more appealing at the time to donate money, and, of course, there were some indulgence "salesmen" who, like most other disreputable salesmen of any era, were maybe more interested in "closing the sale" than dealing in a responsible and straightforward way with the person whose money they were trying to get. John Carter (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Of course, yes. There are two important distinctions to draw, which I think are getting lost a bit in some places above. The first is between between penance and indulgence. The normal process for dealing with sin was (is?) to confess to your parish priest, who would pronounce absolution and assign a penance. The absolution removed the obstacle between the sinner and God; the penance is the temporal punishment for the sin. Completion of the penance was seen as a mark of repentance, not a substitute for it. An indulgence could only be granted by the Pope, and essentially waived the penance.

The second is between the official doctrinal theory and how it was practised. In practice, 'could only be granted by the Pope' actually meant 'sold by one of very many Papal representatives in the Pope's name, some of whose sole job was to peddle indulgences'. 'Waived the penance' occasionally drifted into 'a promise that all sin would be forgiven, past and future' (as noted above). The requirement for confession and absolution was also often glossed over, at least by the person obtaining the indulgence. Officially, indulgences were never sold; rather, a donation was given to some charitable cause, as a sign of penitence, and the Pope (or his representative) would grant an indulgence, considering how penitent the person obviously was.

It all looks a bit weird to our modern eyes, and of course the Protestants declared it all to be terribly wrong; but it wasn't a system that someone thought up overnight, it developed over the course of most of a thousand years, a small step at a time. Most people really believed in the hell that awaited them if sin was not dealt with and looked for some authority that could reassure them that it had been, so, for some people, the opportunity to effectively buy your way out probably seemed a boon. GoldenRing (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

For Urban's speech calling for the First Crusade, see the translations here - in short, as usual for a medieval speech, there is no "official" record of it, but a bunch of people who may or may not have been present may or may not have accurately remembered what he said when they wrote it down later (a few years later or perhaps even 30 years later, but in any case after the crusade turned out to be successful). Apparently he offered some sort of plenary indulgence though, because the precedent was continued/expanded for other crusades too. The papal bulls Quantum praedecessores and Audita tremendi also offered indulgences for crusaders. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

All-green flag on early 17th century Spanish warship

I'm passing on a question by Christopher Braun regarding a painting by Cornelis Verbeeck. What is the green flag flown from the mizzen mast of the Spanish ship (to the right) in this painting?

I've searched around a bit, but can't find references to all-green flag relating to any specific Habsburg territory. My guess is a command flag squadron commander (rear admiral?), but I don't know if these were flown from the mizzen in the early 1600s. The red flag on the stern of the Dutch ship is apparently a signal flag showing intention to engage in combat. The red and yellow flag appears to be the flag of Enkhuizen in North Holland.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo You might post a link to this question at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships if you haven't already done so. They might help garner more input in getting the question answered. MarnetteD|Talk 17:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Inheritance System in Pride and Prejudice (19th Century Inheritance System)

Hi everyone,
I'm just reading Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice (1813), I'm not even halfway through (so no spoilers please ;)), but I've already got a question concerning the inheritance system of Great Britain in the 19th century. I know it's actually an academically irrelevant question, and my literature professors would kill me for spending time on such a subject based on that text, but I'm still wondering about the British inheritance system at the time:
The situation is that Mr Bennet has a large estate that, upon his death, will be inherited to the closest male relative, which in his case is his distant cousin Mr Collins because he's only got five daughters but no sons. Because of that, his daughters are to be married as quickly as possible to ensure that they won't end up home- and penniless after Mr Bennet's death, which is fair enough so far. But I'm wondering now that, if one of those daughters now married, wouldn't her husband be a closer relative than Mr Collins? Or, if blood-relation was the determining factor and if his daughter and her husband had a son, wouldn't Mr Bennet's grandson, who is in his direct line of descent, be a closer relative than Mr Collins, and wouldn't Mr Bennet be able to change his will?
Or, to phrase the question more generally: in the 19th century, was a distant cousin a closer relative than a grandson (to which the answer should clearly be no in my opinion) so that seniority was more important than direct line of descent?
Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.245.82.10 (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

According to ordinary inheritance at the time (in the lack of a will or other specific relevant legal document), the daughters would actually inherit equally. However, in Pride and Prejudice, the landed estate (house + land) is restricted by an entail legal document established in a previous generation, which presumably gives the male-line male descendants of a specific named individual priority inheritance rights (as most entails did at that time)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No wonder Elizabeth was pushed into marrying Mr. Collins - and when she rejected, she had an argument with her parents. Apparently, she put herself over what was best for her family, which seemed very selfish of her to do. And there was intense pressure to get those daughters married in wealthy homes, so they could maintain a similar standard of living. AnonMoos, couldn't Mr. Bennet get a mistress or concubine and receive an heir through her, but the child would be legally passed as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet's? That seems entirely biblical too. Sarah/Sarai received a son through a handmaiden named Hagar. He was named Ishmael. But then Sarah conceived and gave birth to Isaac. Although Isaac did become the next patriarch, Ishmael was believed to found a new religion - Islam. Also, Martin Luther and his wife Katherine begot and adopted children. Surely, the Bennets could do the same and raise a small child as their own, bestowing everything to the adopted son? Also, how could Mr. Collins have received a last name so different from Bennets? Wouldn't there be a female ancestor somewhere up the family tree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.234.132 (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you miss a lot of the context of the book if you don't realise that getting the daughters married was actually a deadly serious matter, that Mrs Bennet is the only one taking it as seriously as it deserves, that Mr Bennet has surrendered all responsibility for his children's well-being because it is hard and embarrasing, that Lizzie Bennet is being unreasonably prideful in her judgement of her best friend, and that Jane and Lizzie are making very difficult decisions that value their pride potentially over their own well-beings and the well-being of their sisters. But the alternative is effectively like being sold to the highest bidder, which Mr Collins attempts to be: at the same time, he is trying to do the right thing by his cousins, by allowing them first refusal. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. It's a shame that there's no reference to the document (or at least to as far as I've read), so we can only speculate about it. It just seems weird to me that it's legally possible for a boy not to inherit anything from his mother's father, even when Mr Collins is very, very unlikely to be a male-line relative to Mr Bennet, otherwise he would be called Bennet as well (thanks 71.79.234.132 for that point)? So that legal document doesn't really explain why Mr Bennet couldn't bequeath the estate to a grandson as soon as one of his five daughters gives birth to him, unless it specifically names Mr Collins as heir. That, however, seems unlikely to me as a lay because Mr Bennet isn't too keen on Mr Collins or his father, and only meets the former for the first time in his life in Chapter XIII or XIV... That must have been a hell of a specific document because otherwise there's no reason why an unpopular non-male-line distant cousin should be preferred to a non-male-line (but obviously direct) grandson that is nearly bound to be born within the next five to ten years with two extremely beautiful and three other normal-looking daughters. 87.245.82.10 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I think Mr. Collins is a Protestant clergyman. If he were Roman Catholic in Anglican England, then religion would probably be a big issue in marriage, unless the Bennet family had been Roman Catholic as well. Also, the fact that he can marry hints that he is definitely not Roman Catholic, so he may be affiliated with an Anglican church or a Free church or an Anglican off-shoot (Methodist, Quaker, Puritan, Evangelical, etc.). 71.79.234.132 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The deed to the real estate that was the basis of Mr. Bennet's wealth could have established an order of succession to the estate other than male primogeniture. For example, it could have given priority to direct male descendants of the original owner's children, including his daughters, according to their birth order. That would explain why Mr. Collins was next in line even though his surname was not the same as Mr. Bennet's. Marco polo (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In a previous thread a few months ago (which I can't find now), we came to the conclusion that the English gentry at that time were almost universally Anglican and that any other case would have been worthy of mention. Alansplodge (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The document is described, in a cursory manner, in the first paragraph of the seventh chapter:

Mr. Bennet's property consisted almost entirely in an estate of two thousand a year, which, unfortunately for his daughters, was entailed, in default of heirs male, on a distant relation; and their mother's fortune, though ample for her situation in life, could but ill supply the deficiency of his. Her father had been an attorney in Meryton, and had left her four thousand pounds.

— [3]

In other words, according to the will of whoever left it to Mr Bennet, the estate (a not-inconsiderable one - somewhere near £200,000 per year in today's money) would pass first to Mr Bennet's male heirs, then to Mr Collins. Mrs Bennet's fortune might have earned a few hundred pounds per year. GoldenRing (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Does "an estate of two thousand a year" mean property whose rents average that much, or an annuity, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Monetary wealth and annual income were generally converted back and forth using a conventional 4% or 5% ratio (4% was the interest rate paid by long-term government bonds, while 5% was a typical rate of return for relatively safe, but not absolutely guaranteed, investments). So Mrs. Bennet's £4,000 wealth translates to £200 or a little less of yearly income. (They can't touch the principal because £5,000 is "secured" as an inheritance to the Bennet daughters after the death of both Mr. and Mrs. Bennet.) But the "estate of two thousand a year" is the average annual income of the entailed property... AnonMoos (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No, a child by "a concubine" would be illegitimate and excluded from such a succession. — As for the surname, it may be that some ancestor changed his name from Bennet to Collins as a condition of inheriting property from his mother's side; I don't know how common that was but I've seen multiple examples. On another hand, Marco makes a good point that the entailment could have included the founder's daughters and their male heirs but no further female inheritance; there are examples of such clauses ("special remainders") in peerages created for someone with daughters but no sons, see e.g. Earl Mountbatten of Burma. In that case the founder might be neither Bennet nor Collins! —Tamfang (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It was quite common. A more recent example is Admiral Hedworth Lambton, who changed his name to Hedworth Meux so that he could inherit the estate of the eccentric brewery heiress Valerie, Lady Meux who had taken a shine to him. He cheerfully abandoned his own family name, being descended from one John Lambton who is said to have killed the Lambton Worm (a dragon) at the time of the Crusades. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

See fee tail for the legal background. However unfair the arrangement may appear to us reading the book, it was a way for the previous testator to set up precisely what he intended to happen to the estate after his death. --ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What would've happened if a centrist became president instead of Batista?

His dictatorlike-ness helped Castro be popular enough to win the Civil War, right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note the following "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate" which is printed towards the top of this page. This question can only be answered with opinions which are also debatable. MarnetteD|Talk 17:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

But yes, I'd say in general a more moderate government will prevent civil wars. Perhaps if the Mensheviks hadn't been wiped out by the Bolsheviks in Russia, it would have had a much more peaceful revolution. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to think that if they had instituted an all-kitten government, it would have kept order quite well. Generalissimo Mittens McFluffikins would have ruled with an iron paw. On a more serious note, I'd go looking for alternate history books. There's a healthy industry for them and many are exceptionally fun reads. There's bound to be a few that deal with a Cuba that never became Communist. Though many might be in Spanish. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 8 Tevet 5775 18:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, both Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam and Castro in Cuba started out reasonably enough, but were driven to more radical positions and measures because the West opposed them and their only way of surviving was alignment with the opposing superpower. The cold war tended to have such an effect - and not unreasonably. The highly illegal Bay of Pigs Invasion cost more lives than 9/11 even in absolute terms, and certainly showed much more real threat to the Cuban state than al-Qaeda ever did to the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This is really two separate questions, the question in the heading and the one beneath it. The question in the heading is unclear. Is it asking what would have happened if a centrist were president instead of Batista, in the first place? It's unclear what "centrist" is supposed to mean here. Also, the primary issues with Batista were not his position on the left-right spectrum but 1) his undemocratic seizure of power in 1952, and 2) his policy of favoring the interests of U.S.-based property owners over those of the Cuban people. So, the question ought to be, What if Cuba had had a democratically elected president in 1952 who had attended to the interests of his people? Clearly, in that case, Castro would never have launched a revolution. On the other hand, this question might be asking, What if a centrist had replaced Batista instead of Castro? Of course we can't know the answer to that question, but most likely a centrist would not have provoked the anticommunist paranoia of the United States at the time, and Cuba would probably have had better relations with the United States, but probably also would have maintained high levels of income and wealth inequality like other Latin American nations. As for the second question, I think that the answer is no. Castro's dictatorial tendencies were not the basis of his popularity, nor was popularity the reason Castro won the war. He won the war through a combination of luck and shrewd strategy. The popularity came later, partly because Castro had succeeded in overthrowing the hated Batista and partly because his government's reforms reduced inequality and improved living standards for many Cubans (while also alienating many others). Marco polo (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Batista, as an army noncommisioned officer, was a leader of the 1930's overthrow of Machado, who was as evil and corrupt as Batista wound up in the late 1950's. Batista was elected president in 1940 as a progressive, with the full support of the Communist Party, and enacted a progressive constitution in 1940. The 1940-1944 version of Batista seems to have been everything one would wish in an alternative history version of the 1950's Batista, democratically elected and attentive to the needs of the people. Yet he came back in 1952, after residing in the US, with the backing of the US mafia, the US military and civilian authorities, and US multinational corporations, to take over as a dictator, and crush opposition in favor of organized crime, an anticommunism strongman with lots of US weapons, and allowed exploitation of the natural resources of Cuba by US corporations. How did he get co-opted? Our article only gives the explanation that he saw he would lose the 1952 election so he cancelled the elections and took over with the backing of the Cuban military.Wikipedia says that even in his 1952-1958 reign, wages in Cuba were relatively high. Perhaps he had backing from Washington to supply money and weapons the military wanted. That still does not explain how he made alliances in the US from 1944 to 1952 with the military, politicians, the state department, multinational corporations, and the Mafia, so that they all backed his coup in 1952. Was he in tight with the CIA? In the early 1950's they are said to have backed the overthrow of democratic governments in other countries such as Iran, leading to similar "blowback" years later when anticommunist strongman governments were overthrown. A document by Lyman Kirkpatrick, who worked for Allen Dulles of the CIA, does not indicate much control of Batista or tight coordination with him by that agency in the late 1950's. A progressive president in 1952 might have had his hands full if the US were engaged in Cold War moves to install anticommunist strongman dictators, the US multinationals wanted the natural resources, and the mob wanted casinos and drug trade. Edison (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Duty managers in retail/hospitality/leisure/travel/transport industries

I.e. Customer service or operational roles. Are duty managers in these roles employed specifically for the purpose of being duty managers or are they just a manager level employee who is required to perform duty manager roles on a shift basis but has a separate day job? 176.251.149.108 (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Justifications for the different legal treatment of physical mail and email

In most developed countries it's a serious offense to steal physical mail from someone, more serious than petty theft. Many of these same developed countries have government-run programs that read email and record internet browsing habits. How are these contrasting policies justified? I would be interested in reading statements from American, French etc politicians and government agencies about this.--31.200.166.105 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not for a moment condone governments engaging in mass espionage of citizens without having to convince a court that there is reason to suspect criminal activity in specific cases, but the situations that you describe are not analogous. When mail is stolen, the intended recipient never receives it. When email is intercepted by government agencies, it does still reach its intended recipient. There is no theft, unless the email contains information of monetary value and either the government profits from it or an entity favored by the government profits from it.

The analogous situation is a government intercepting a person's paper mail, reading its contents, and then sending it along to the recipient. Many countries have legal arrangements that allow police to do just that, though in countries with rule of law, police generally have to produce evidence supporting suspicion to obtain a warrant from a court.

There are two things that are different about email surveillance: 1) It is now much easier to capture and process metadata than it was before the recent expansion of computing speed and capacity, and this activity is therefore inadequately addressed by existing law. Government intelligence agencies have taken advantage of this loophole. (It would be possible to collect metadata for paper mail as well, and that may very well be happening.) 2) The international structure of the internet means that email messages, even those passing between two people in the same country, may pass through servers in a number of different countries, unlike paper mail, which typically passes through as few countries as possible. For this reason, legal restrictions on government surveillance of citizens make it difficult for governments to monitor citizens' paper mail without court action. However, there are often no legal restrictions on monitoring the communication of noncitizens, so a government can monitor noncitizens' email when it passes through the country's servers. Because lawmakers did not foresee the possibility of governments trading information on one another's citizens, few laws exist to prevent this.

Finally, one might expect that lawmakers would have been swift to close these legal loopholes, which threaten their constituents' privacy. In fact, pervasive fears of terrorism have created a strong appetite among governments, and to a lesser degree among their citizens, for intelligence activity that threatens privacy, and so little action has been taken in most countries, beyond occasional empty expressions of outrage by certain politicians. Marco polo (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Consider historically that stealing mail is theft and may prevent the actual delivery of money, goods, and legal documents entirely; while reading email is like tapping a phone line. It's an invasion of privacy that may have further bad consequences like fraud, blackmail, and identity theft, but which in itself is merely eavesdropping. There's also the fact that the USPS, for example, was government chartered by constitutional mandate, while the WWW has largely developed free from the clutches of or even understanding of the legislature. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

December 31

Nicholas Poussin Seven Sacraments

In Edinburgh's National Gallery on The Mound, there is a room dedicated to the above 7 paintings, where both the setting and the paintings (second series), are magnificently displayed. But why did Poussin paint them out of the recognised chronological order of Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction (Last Rites)? Maybe my memory is fading in that order, but in any event, why would Holy Communion precede Penance in the established order of the Sacraments when it is forbidden in the Catholic Faith to receive communion in a state of Sin? 77.97.208.118 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to assume the painter knew that in the Eastern Orthodox world confirmation and baptism are, pretty much, given in the same ceremony, although, admittedly, I don't know when first communion in the EO takes place. Given that there is some dispute among when confirmation should take place, but that so far as I remember in all cases confirmation must precede taking the Eucharist, it would seem to be logically placed before Holy Eucharist. I also suppose it is possible that the painter may have been assuming, based on the various timings of confirmation and the question relating to the relative onset of the age of reason in the confirmed, that it might historically have been the case, and maybe still is the case, that some first communicants might not have been old enough to have engaged in any real sin, if the first communion preceded the age of reason. Presumably thereafter, however, all of them would have been at some point eligible and likely to have sinned, which would place Penance in that position. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"the black community"

"I've spent more than half my total career in black operations. I don't ask questions unless they're germane." "Touché," Townsend said, chuckling. "I'd forgotten you were in the black community before you..."

writes John Ringo, and not just once. Is this one of his special right-wing jokes or would anyone in the US actually refer to "people that are part of things the military does that the public doesn't know about" as "the black community" ? --92.202.11.135 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's any indicator, I thought you were talking about some bizarre thing involving Black Americans until I got to the very end. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tevet 5775 02:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read any of Ringo's works, but that phase seems pretty self-explanatory, considering the context provided by the prior sentence. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The word "chuckling" seems to indicate Townsend is punning when he says "black community". 93.95.251.190 (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Martin.

It might sound that way but with a broader context the chuckling refers to the (not asked) question and answer at hand and why Weaver won't ask: Why a bunch of high ranking military attends the wedding of a low rank soldier; they thought it was "mandatory". ("I'm waiting for someone to ask why we're all here," the CAO said. "You're looking at the wrong captain, sir," Weaver replied.)

A few more samples:

"So I'd like your argument for staying," the CO said. "I feel I owe you that. But be aware that I'm pretty much set on leaving and letting D.C. decide. Among other things, I feel it's over my paygrade to set up long-term treaties." "There's a PR aspect, sir," Weaver said, frowning. "Even in the black community. These guys are cute. If we cut and run and leave the poor little rodents to be eaten by demons . . ." [...] "Even if we go back just to ask for reinforcements, we're going to get held up. Committees, commissions, boards, every idiot in the black community, and they are numerous, sir, trust me, is going to want to add to the reports and recommendations. State is going to get involved and that means two months of reports going back and forth for addendum and amendment."

Two-Gun Berg was, by far and away, the best known of the Marine security contingent of the Blade. As such he was something of a celebrity within a very small and very black community. --92.202.74.210 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It very much looks to me like maybe some sort of possibly internal joking reference to the Black ops community. That is of course on the assumption that there actually is a specific community of individuals involved in black ops, but I think that might be not unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The term black ops is pretty common, with that abbreviation (which is why I didn't pick up on black operations at first) but even in-context calling it the black community just sounds bizarre. Maybe to someone deeply involved with black ops, they might call it the black community, but to regular people, black community just means Black Americans. Taken out of context, what that guy was saying in his book would probably cause confusion and maybe even a bit of offence. The world of espionage is a more common expression, I think. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tevet 5775 17:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Which non-Western Hemisphere countries were federations between 1815 and 1914?

• Such as, at any point in time between 1815 and 1914 (I don't care whether or not these countries were federations before 1815 and/or after 1914; I picked this time frame because it is after the Napoleonic Wars ended but before World War I began). Also, as this thread title states, for the purpose of this thread and question, I am excluding all countries which are located in the Western Hemisphere.

As for me, I can think of Switzerland and Germany as being such countries, but I am honestly unsure if any additional (non-Western Hemisphere, obviously) countries meet this criteria.

Any help here? Futurist110 (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Australia became a federation in 1901, but might not be considered to count as a country until they adopted the Statute of Westminster. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If Australia wasn't fully independent during this time period (from 1815 to 1914), then it wouldn't count for this. Futurist110 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

She wasn't. Some constitutional theorists aver that she wasn't fully technically independent until the passage of the Australia Acts in 1986. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any other non-Western Hemisphere candidates in mind for this, though? Futurist110 (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Federated Malay States were established in 1895. Tevildo (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The political history of the Low Countries is rather involved, but the Kingdom of Belgium (which is described in our article as a "federal monarchy") was established in 1830. Tevildo (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary was a federation of Austria and Hungary after 1867. Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Sokoto Caliphate might also be considered a federation. Marco polo (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I would point out that the Federated Malay States were never independent and that Belgium did not become a federation until the 1980s. Marco polo (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Lists of sovereign states by year might be handy for this. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

The USA should also meet your standards. Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

From reading the question carefully (which was not difficult), I do believe the OP is talking about countries which are not located in the Western Hemisphere. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 20:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Follow my link; this country is all in the Eastern Hemisphere. Nyttend (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The old bait-and-switch transcends all borders. Well done! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

It was inspired by Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page, with stuff like Did you know... that Norwegians built Gibraltar's first school in the 1860s? Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering South Africa is directly south of, and even in the same time zone as Europe, which is considered to be in the Western Hemisphere, I would also consider South Africa to be there, too. Or are we defining 'Eastern Hemisphere' as that half of the world to the east of the Greenwich Meridian, because in that case, that would include most of Europe and even a part of the UK, including London. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 23:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

South Africa has never been a federation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm, you're right, thank you. I thought that the USA was a federation, with its provinces comparable to the provinces of Canada. Futurist says As for me, I can think of Switzerland and Germany as being such countries, but I am honestly unsure if any additional (non-Western Hemisphere, obviously) countries meet this criteria. Switzerland and Germany, like South Africa, are in the Eastern Hemisphere; if South Africa had been a federation, it would have qualified just as much as Switzerland and Germany. See Australia, too; the discussion above hinges on whether it can be considered independent, not whether it can be considered Eastern Hemisphere. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The US states are not provinces. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the question clearly states 'non-Western Hemisphere', which can only be 'Eastern Hemisphere'. The secondary criterion, stated in an answer to a reply, was that it had to be independent. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? See the note by Jack of Oz and the two above it: they're addressing the issue of independence, and nobody's arguing over the hemisphere issue, even though Australia's culturally Western and geographically Eastern just as the Germans and Swiss are. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

By whom is "Europe [...] considered to be in the Western Hemisphere"? Some of this fuss could have been avoided with the words Old World. —Tamfang (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is the "head of household" in Martin Luther's Small Catechism?

I was reading from bookofconcord.org, and I noticed that Martin Luther intended that the "head of household" would teach the children and servants how to be good Christians (Lutheran style). Is the master of the house the head of household? Or does it refer to the mother, who may be in charge of the house, children, and servants? Or does it refer to the master of the house and his wife? Or maybe it refers to the patriarch or matriarch of the family, but not necessarily grown children? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You can find a critical edition of Luther's Small Catechism here (starting at page 241). It appears that the earliest German version reads "wie sye ain haußvatter seinem gesind (...) fyrhalten soll", so Luther called this "head of household" the "haußvatter", lit. 'house-father' originally. That rules out that the mother is meant, and the most straightforward interpretation is that the father of every family should teach it to his wife and children (and possibly servants). - Lindert (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. During Luther's time, many women most likely did not receive an education. Though, sometimes in patriarchal societies, a girl may learn how to read with her brothers. So, it's likely that mostly men knew how to read and could take the information to their families (wives, children, and servants). 71.79.234.132 (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Reinterpretation of the UNSC abstention count

Our article on UN charter amendments says:

The requirement in Article 27 that "Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters [not procedural] shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members..." has been reinterpreted in practice to include abstentions within the definition of 'concurring votes'.

When did this reinterpretation take place? Was it when USSR walked out over the whole PRC/ROC business back in 1950? Or was it something more recent? WinterWall (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Also the "include abstentions within the definition of 'concurring votes'" part is unclear. If the P5 all voted yes and the other ten members all abstained, would the resolution pass? According to the current phrasing of our article it wouldn't (if my reading comprehension and logic is correct.) WinterWall (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think that an abstention is counted as a yes vote. The wording of the charter seems to give the five permanent members only the choice between a veto or a yes vote. Abstentions don't change the requirement that 9 yes votes (given the current council size) are needed for a resolution to pass. AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably it means that an abstention is not considered a veto; it's counted as a "yes" only to the extent that it doesn't by itself prevent the motion from passing. Since a decision requires nine "yes" votes out of fifteen, it would technically be possible for the temporary members to pass a motion without the support of any permanent member; "just" convince all five permanent members to abstain, and get nine of the ten to support it. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Fairly sure Nyttend is correct here. (Well whether you want to count it as a "yes" or not is perhaps not the main point, the main point is it's counted as a concurring vote but not an affirmative vote.)

If we consider the recent Palestinian & Jordanian resolution, most sources [4] [5] [6] [7] seem to agree that 1) United Kingdom (permanent member), Lithuania, Nigeria, Rwanda and South Korea abstained. 2) The United States (permanent membered) & Australia voted no. 3) The others including the permanent members China, France and Russia voted yes. 4) The vote failed because amongst other things it didn't get the required 9 majority of "yes" votes. 5) It was originally believed Nigeria was going to vote "yes" so they would have gotten the required 9 "yes" votes. 6) It would have still failed because of the US's veto (i.e. they voted no). 7) The US and Israel pushed Nigeria (probably other countries too, but Nigeria was seen as the key win because it was believed they would vote "yes") to at least abstain if not vote "no", so that it wouldn't come down to the US veto. 8) I.E. all taken together, the UK abstaining wouldn't have stopped the vote from passing if there weren't the other factors.

I have no idea when the claimed change in interpretation happened however.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the OP is right about the date and cause of the change, the reinterpretation in practice, contrary to the natural (intended?) reading. This change was one thing used to argue that the UN resolutions for the Korean War were not legal. But the USSR didn't skip meetings after that.John Z (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The 1967 6 day war causes- according to Richard B. Parker

Parker's book: The Politics of Miscalculation in the Middle East, draws on unpublished accounts and interviews, to explain why did the Six Day War take place.

Brook's book says:"15- According tp Parker (1993:79), Zakariya Mohieddin, Egypt's vice president, attributed Nasser's behaviour to a flare up of his diabetes."

I will appreciate it if one can quote Parker on ex senior Egyptians officials views, and especially Zakaria Mohieddin (who was a vice president then) view.

References

-- 09:32, 31 December 2014 Ykantor

---

I would be curious what basis Egyptian insiders give for Nasser's decision to reblockade the Straits of Tiran -- something which the Israelis had repeatedly proclaimed was a "red line" for them, and which was probably the single action which made war inevitable (though the Soviets lying to the Syrians about Israeli military intentions didn't help, of course). The quasi-insider who's published the most in English is apparently Mohamed Hassanein Heikal... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Some quotation which might be interesting for you: [8] :

1. According to two of those present at the 22 May meeting, Nasser said then that the blockade would make war 100 percent certain – although in his speech of 23 July, Nasser claimed his actual estimate at that time was 50 percent to 80 percent
2. in fact Sadat reports that he said: 'If we close the Straits war will be a one hundred per cent certainty'.
3. Following Nasser's speech of May 26, one of his close allies, Mohammed Heykal, wrote in the Cairo newspaper Al-Ahram that an armed clash between Israel and Egypt was `inevitable. It would come because of the inexorable logic of the situation.
4. (king Hussein) "He tried to convince Amer and Nasser that Israel was too strong and that they were risking a disaster. Don't worry, they told him. We know what we're doing. Nasser and Hussein were fatalistic. Both of them said, apparently sincerely,that whether, the battle was lost or won, they could not shy away from the fight. Arab dignity demanded nothing less. (The CIA commented that 'dignity has unquestionably become an overriding priority in the scale of Arab considerations'.)...(p.67)... Hussein, though, was not deluded by his new fans ... 'I knew that war was inevitable. I knew that we were going to lose."
5. Later on at the ... In the course of the discussion it became known that the closure of the straits applied specifically to tankers transporting oil to Israel. The General Staff rapidly came to the conclusion that this Egyptian step required Israel to declare war at once, without waiting for further developments. Assuming that war was inevitable, the DMI was immediately requested to

• Hopefully, there will have Zakaria Mohieddin view, quoted from Parker's book. Ykantor (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)=

If Nasser knew that reblockading the straits of Tiran would result in a 100% probability of war, then that would seem to confirm the perceptions of his reckless adventurism, and being taken in by his own grandiose bombastic rhetoric. Sorry I don't know anything about his medical condition... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of "Royal We" personal pronoun by Japanese Emperors

When looking over Emperor Hirohito's surrender speech in 1945, I noticed that he used the "royal we" pronoun 朕 to refer to himself. This particular pronoun has also been used by the monarchs of other East Asian countries before they abolished their monarchies. However, I have heard from some sources that today's Emperor of Japan, Akihito, no longer uses this pronoun to refer to himself. Is it really true that sometime after 1945, either Hirohito or Akihito stopped using 朕 as a personal pronoun for himself? 155.229.41.46 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it. A couple of sources here for saying this equivalent for the royal we was used until 1945 or thereabouts. [9] [10]. But I'm sure someone will be around soon who actually knows about these things. --Antiquary (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

According to ja:WP and other Japanese sites, 朕 was used only in official documents and speeches. The last use of the word can be found in the Constitution of Japan in 1946. See commons:File:Constitution of Japan original copy.jpg. Hirohito used "僕/boku" in private and "私/わたし/watashi" in non-official speeches. Akihito uses "私/わたくし/watakushi". Oda Mari (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Ism't this more a RD/L question? (During the occupation, MacArthur was supposedly given the nickname "へそ元帥" because おへそ is above お朕朕. Source for this was a book by Jack Seward which also contained other scurrilous tit-bits like a Japanese friend of Seward's who enjoyed scandalizing people by referring to 天皇陛下 as "天ちゃん. Yes, that this was the sort of thing I was reading about when I should have been memorizing the 当用漢字.) Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it might have been 臍天皇 as opposed to the "朕" 天皇. Equally as offensive. Don't try this at home, kids.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Jewish Customs

I have a small, oblong box which I was told was placed on the doorjamb of a Jewish home. It is said to have scripture notes inside. I cannot find any information about this as I do not know what it is called. Can you help me? Thank you. ----nanacasey---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanacasey (talk • contribs) 22:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you're talking about a mezzuzah. Touch it as you enter the house. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tevet 5775 22:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't say this, but whenever you pass a mezuzah you're supposed to touch it and kiss the fingers that touched it, as a way of honoring God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Forgot that bit. I'm not a very good Jew. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 10 Tevet 5775 03:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The "scripture notes" you mention is probably the most important prayer in Judaism, which is called the Shema Yisrael. It is said by observant Jews twice a day, and should be said by a dying Jew if possible in their final moments. A rolled parchment scroll with those words from the Torah is put into a little box and nailed to the doorposts of observant Jewish homes. Yes, my wife will frequently touch it and then kiss her fingers. I will also do so occasionally, when I am feeling sentimental. But the most important message is that you are entering a Jewish home, and I always feel comfortable discussing my Judaism when I enter a home with a mezuzah mounted on the door post. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The specific verses written on a mezzuzah scroll are Deuteronomy 6:4–9 and 11:13–21). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Deuteronomy 6:9 is the specific verse commanding that the words be placed on Jewish doorposts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the custom of touching/kissing-by-hand of the mezuzah is not 'essential' from a religious perspective; the mezuzah's ritual function is to just be there—and not necessarily in plain sight, as Cullen suggests; historically mezuzot were hidden inside door post for their protection. While the required contents of a mezuzah are, according to standard halakha, the two passages mentioned by Cullen, contemporary mezuzot also include one to four mystical names of God on the reverse side of the parchment, as mentioned in in the article. (Medieval Ashkenazic mezuzot had about a dozen more, with angels and sigils too.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

lol, OP asked a simple question about a door decoration and now will end up having to memorize and say a prayer twice a day as well as touch it every time he sees it. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Eh, the OP can just do what most Jews do: Whatever we feel happiest doing. Their question has been answered and they can now appreciate a part of their home more. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 10 Tevet 5775 05:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

January 1

new brunswick place names

why are several of new brunswick's place names -ton (ending in (-)ton)?174.3.125.23 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does 'Washington' end in '-ton'? It's short for 'town', and comes from old english 'tun' (with a long 'u', which became a 'ow' sound in modern english, but at the end of place names became shortened to 'ton'). It's not just New Brunswick, these place names are all over the English speaking world. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 00:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

See 'tun, ton' in List of generic forms in place names in the United Kingdom and Ireland --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it didn't originally mean "a town" in the modern sense; just a house, farm or enclosure. Some of the "-ton" names have a complicated origin; Moncton in New Brunswick was named after Lieutenant-General Robert Monckton, whose surname was derived from one of several places in Britain called Monkton, possibly Monkton, Kent, whose name means "farmstead of the monks" in the Old English language - it was Munccetun in AD 960. [11]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ruyton XI Towns is probably the best example of the original meaning. Tevildo (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Did European Christian families eat the best foods only on big holidays?

In contemporary Chinese society, I am well aware that many Chinese families during the mid-twentieth century had to buy food with coupons or stamps. Meat was scarce and expensive, so it's rational to preserve meat for Chinese New Year. Chinese New Year was a special time of the year for family reunions and a great feast. I am wondering if European Christian families have a similar tradition, where people eat the best foods on big holidays (Christmas, Easter, New Year's Day, etc.)? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

For commoners, probably yes. See Roast goose, for example. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking about the past or the present? The title asks about the past and the body asks about current practice. Turkey and goose would be the answers, though, yeah. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 10 Tevet 5775 05:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of a time period in European history when food would be scarce and expensive due to economy, politics, or natural forces, and how that might affect what people ate - or whether or not they would preserve food for the big holidays. Also, you need to explain how turkey and goose are somehow more special than typical everyday food. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Turkeys were not a common food in Europe, during the old days, considering the fact that they originated in the Americas. Goose was also not a common food, as it was mainly reserved for selling to richer people. These days, people have a larger dinner, similar to a normal Sunday dinner, but bigger, at Christmas, followed by some sort of pudding. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict with KageTora] Bear in mind that meat was historically scarce and expensive in Europe, too. Part of it is traditional: if your ancestors have all seen something as prestigious, and you and your spouse grew up seeing it as prestigious, you'll see it as prestigious and teach your children to think likewise. Conversely, if the tradition gets forgotten by whatever means, it might not get restored; nobody talks about eating roast geese here in the USA, and I remember being confused and somewhat disgusted upon encountering the concept for the first time, when first I read "The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle". Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Well, I've never had or made a goose, but making a turkey is a HUGE production if you want it turn out right. Three days of brining, buttering and olive oil on and under the skin, stuffing, a good marinade, monitoring the bird for the three and a half to five and a half hours of cooking. What I just described is the difference between delicious fall-off-the-bone meat and shoe leather, as well as phenomenal gravy. This is because they're such large animals, need a lot of preparation, and can feed many people (or a family over two to three days depending on how American the appetite). They also tend to be pricey. I think that suckling pig is another meal in this realm. Now I'm hungry.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 10 Tevet 5775 06:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

So, did European Christians ever eat the best foods on holidays or not? So far, I've only seen a few dishes. Were the meat dishes made some preserved meats or fresh meats? Were there several meat dishes on the table or only one meat dish on the table? How big was a family gathering? Why only Christmas dinners? Was that more important than Easter or New Year's day? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which period of history you are interested in, but certainly in medieval times special dishes were reserved for feasts: the Boar's Head Carol is testament to this. I found this site and this site explaining the class differences in menus. Our article on it is Medieval cuisine, by the way. And in our Christmas Dinner article you will find sections on various European countries menus.

As for your other questions, Christmas was a special time for feasting because of the Yule celebrations which were subsumed into the 12 Days of Christmas. Many of the pagan rituals of Yule became the Christmas rituals of medieval Britain - the Lord of Misrule being one such. There were similar occasions throughout the year: All Hallows Day being one, Easter being another. If you notice from the linked article, there is such a thing as Christian feast days, and these were days when special dishes were consumed in honour of a particular saint as part of their patronal feast. As for the question "was Christmas more important than New Year's Day", well in Scotland until very recently, no it wasn't and this apparently was because of the influence of the Kirk which forbade excessive celebration of religious festivals so the people made Hogmanay the time that they celebrated to excess. In my memory, the Christmas holidays weren't public holidays in Scotland but New Year's Day was. They weren't brought into line until about 30 years ago. (My source for the reason for Hogmanay is a programme I saw on the BBC not long ago, and I'll see if I can find it for the reference.) --TammyMoet (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Calvinist churches, including the Church of Scotland, rejected the concept of the Liturgical year in which Christians follow the Gospel story through different seasons each year. Therefore, Christmas Day was no different to any other day for them. "Noncontinental Reformed Protestants continued to avoid celebrating feast days until the twentieth century" according to our article on the five Evangelical feasts, which are nowadays observed. According to our Christmas in Scotland article, "A 1640 Act of the Parliament of Scotland abolished the "Yule vacation and all observation thereof in time coming"...Christmas Day only became a public holiday in 1958, and Boxing Day in 1974." However, before the 1560 Scottish Reformation, they celebrated Christmas every bit as enthusiastically as their English neighbours. Alansplodge (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, European Christians (and Europeans generally) eat the best, most special, most expensive foods at Christmas. Just like Chinese New Year, except different dishes, of course. Historically, both preserved meats and fresh meats. Today, sausages and bacon are often cooked with the turkey. For a feast, in Europe, the idea is that there should be one big spectacular meat dish as well as a huge variety of other dishes. How big was a family gathering? Depends on how big the family is and how far away members live, so any size, from one person to dozens. Easter is another special time, particularly important in Greece. Again there would be a feast. In Greece they slaughter a lamb or a goat and they bake bread with coloured eggs in it. In parts of France, they have an Easter pie, which is a pork pie including eggs. In England, eating lamb is traditional, or chicken. We have hot cross buns, Easter eggs and still sometimes simnel cake. Which is the biggest feast, Easter or Christmas? Christmas in most countries nowadays, but definitely Easter in Greece. With few exceptions, everyone celebrates both. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Clicking on Yule somehow took me to Christmas ham, which said (citation still needed) that the dish was used as a test for sincere conversion to Christianity. A Marrano would abstain from it, because it was pork, and pork came from an animal that had cloven hooves but did not ruminate. Meanwhile, Gentile Christians had no problems eating it, probably because they never had the abstention in the first place. If this fact is true, then I can see how Christians distanced themselves from Jewish customs. Ironically, the New Testament doesn't seem to imply that the Old Testament way of life should be completely banned, or that pork should be avoided. In that case, maintaining Jewish customs somehow became more than just optional; it seemed to become unnecessary. Still, if Jesus had been a faithful Jew himself, then he would not abolish Jewish customs, would he? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that the preceding season of Advent is a fast, which used to be observed in a similar way to Lent by avoiding meat, eggs, sugar and spices. So people used to go overboard a bit once the restrictions were lifted. Alansplodge (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I recently read that the Advent fast or Nativity fast (Orthodox branch) was 40 days long. I'm not sure where the 40 days came from for Advent/Nativity. I think it would make more sense to have the 40 days prior to Easter. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Lent is the forty days before Easter. Rmhermen (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Technically 47 days, minus the Sundays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The Nativity Fast of Eastern Orthodoxy is 40 days prior to Christmas day. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

People can of course observe both Lent and Advent. Further to what Alan says above, people would have been preparing the Christmas or Easter feast while fasting. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Median height of world population?

What is the median height of all humans currently alive, considering both sexes together, and counting children at their current size, not the height they are estimated to reach? (The table in Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world only gives average values for individual countries and sexes, and considers only adults.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt whether we will be able to find a published source for this because it's not a statistic that is commonly calculated. To get an accurate estimate, one would need to use the population pyramid for each country or region, and find out the average height of each age range. The mean might be easier to calculate. If you want to do your own rough estimate, you could use this pyramid together with world estimates of average height for each age range. Dbfirs 21:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if we could theoretically measure everyone, by the time we were done, the children would have grown and forced us to start over. If everyone self-reported, tabulating the results would still take time. Time to build up, time to break down. We'd be turn, turn, turning like Sisyphus, all for constantly outdated info. Some things are best left unknown. But I'll guess 3 feet, 7 inches. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the vale will change noticably over small timescales, but I'd be happy with a value from a few years ago. ;-)

Are there world estimates for each age range available? The table lists only country estimates, sometimes for the whole adult population. I'd be happy with a rough "back of the envelope" estimate. Since almost all countries listed have average woman height below 1,70m, the median of all humans is almost certainly below 1,70 m, but probably quite a bit lower - maybe 1,60m? An estimate of the average height instead of median would also be interesting if it's easier to find (for adults it probably makes little difference, but the addition of children will decrease the mean more than the median).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: I think 3 feet, 7 inches (1,10m-ish) is far too low; the majority of the world population is over 20 according to the world population pyramid linked above.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, not much more than 30% of the population will still have some growing to come, so children will make only a small difference to the median, perhaps as little as three or four inches, because including them will drag the adult median only about 15% on the almost-normal curve of adult population heights. As you mention, the mean will be dragged down considerably more (though not as much as 60 cm) because of the skewing. My guess would be a median of 5 foot 6 inches for adults, and perhaps 5 foot 2 inches (1.57 m) for the whole world including children (or perhaps an inch less for both figures). Dbfirs 21:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't a very good guess. Also overestimated the rate of elder shrinkage and number of undiscovered Pygmies. Stats and hangovers don't mix. I'll go with four feet, now that I'm feeling a bit better. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

Here are the WHO growth charts - you could use their middle lines to make estimates for the heights of under-19s and combine with Dbfirs's pyramid.184.147.116.58 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of entering those into a spreadsheet to combine with world population ratios to estimate the mean height, but those WHO figures are for Canada which has taller children than the world average. Are there similar world figures? If not, then I'll just accept InedibleHulk's estimate of four feet (or just over) for the mean height. The skewing makes the median significantly higher than the mean. Dbfirs 21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly easier: are there any estimates of the number of people over, say, 1.8 m? —Tamfang (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2

Were the ancient Egyptians Coptic

Were they?`Venustar84 03:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

See Copts, Coptic identity, and Pharaonism. The best answer is probably something like "No according to most scholars, Yes according to certain nationalists". Tevildo (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty much a matter of definition. There was considerable continuity between the different periods, but in modern usage the word "Coptic" usually refers to those who wrote the Egyptian language in a variant of the Greek alphabet, while those who wrote the Egyptian language in the hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic scripts are not called "Coptic"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Although the Coptic language is "grammatically closely akin to Late Egyptian, which was written in the Hieroglyphic script" according to our article. Alansplodge (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, one language is a later version of the other -- and the transition point between the two is usually taken to be the adoption of a slightly expanded Greek alphabet; this resulted in a radically simplified writing system which ignored many archaic relics of hieroglyphic/hieratic/demotic script, and caused vowel sounds to be fully written for the first time (whereas hieroglyphic/hieratic/demotic script had almost completely ignored vowels)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

As a language, Coptic is a later development of the language spoken by the ancient Egyptians. As a people, Coptic anda non-Coptic Egyptians of today are both the descendants of ancient Egyptians - one group (the majority) accepted Islam and took to speaking Arabic, the others didn't. PiCo (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

See also Muslim conquest of Egypt and Islamization of Egypt. Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The word 'Copt' is derived from the Ancient Egyptian word for Egypt, which was 'kmt' (vowels not wrtten), so yes, in a sense, all of them were Coptic. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Cities not connected to transportation network

I can think of obvious cases (cites in Hawaii, Vancouver Island, Newfoundland) but are there any major cities in North America (or the rest of the world) not connected to a physical transportation grid, ie. no paved, year-round roads? I'll accept rail-only or seasonal roads if it's all we've got. Both "major" and size of region that are unconnected are up to you, I suppose: I can't think of a way to be more specific. Continents and islands without bridges are obviously out, though. Mingmingla (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I would guess not. Since the development of railroads, it's been extremely hard for a new major city to develop without rail connexions, existing major cities without rail connexions have often languished, and the same has become true of road networks in the last century. Even smaller regional centers in some of the remotest parts of Russia, e.g. Magadan, are connected to the national road network. In North America, the biggest unconnected places are probably remote spots in the far north; only three Alaska cities on the mainland (i.e. excluding ones on islands without bridges) the largest Alaska cities not connected to the rest of the network are Barrow (population 4,212 in 2010), Bethel (6,080 in 2010), and Ketchikan (8,050 in 2010). Even the capital of Juneau, with no roads, has car-ferry service. Nyttend (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hm, never mind on the Russia bit. Norilsk (population 175,000 in 2010) in the far northern Krasnoyarsk Krai apparently has no road connexions (Google Maps claims that you can't even drive to the nearby city of Dudinka, c. 100km away), so it looks like most of its surface transportation consists of rail service to Dudinka, followed by shipping upriver to road-connected and rail-connected ports such as Yeniseysk and the capital, Krasnoyarsk. Can't imagine what they do in winter, though. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend -- for much of the Soviet period, the road network outside cities was notoriously underdeveloped even in parts of western Russia, since railways were used whenever possible. See M10 highway (Russia) connecting the two main cities of Russia (Moscow and Leningrad) -- "Other than in the vicinity of Moscow and Saint Petersburg, the M10 is basically a two-lane highway (one lane for each direction)". What westerners would call a real highway or motorway was just recently being built between the two cities: Moscow-Saint Petersburg motorway... AnonMoos (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I brought in Russia as an extreme example, since Mingmingla was asking about road connexions, not limited-access-four-lane-highway connexions, but I'm still surprised about Norilsk. Anyway, he was primarily interested in North America; I only gave Alaska because I couldn't answer for northern Canada. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

With Juneau being a ferry and not a fixed link, it fits what I'm curious about. I guess it's unlikely that there are any others, but if anybodies has any others... Mingmingla (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If we don't count ferry links, then there are other mainland settlements in Alaska and Northern Canada which are inaccessible by road from the North American transportation network, some only at various times of the year, and others always. You note Juneau, but several settlements along the Alaska panhandle also are just as inaccessible. Tuktoyaktuk can only be reached by road in winter, when the Tuktoyaktuk Winter Road freezes over allowing vehicles to cross the ice; there are other similar settlements in arctic Canada. IIRC, Carova Beach, North Carolina can only be reached by driving some distance down the beach sand from the end of North Carolina Highway 12 in Corolla, North Carolina. There are some small settlements in northern Maine which I know can only be accessed by unpaved private roads, some of which are closed in winter. As a random bit of trivia, I think that Lynchburg, Virginia is the largest city in the lower 48 states which is not serviced by the Interstate Highway System, though of course it is connected to the road network via US Highways, State Highways, and other roads. --Jayron32 06:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if it qualifies or not but Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut, has no road or rail service. The place has a population of just under 7,000 but is legally a city. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, but the largest city int he United States unserved by the interstates is usually considered to be Bakersfield, with a population of 348,000 to Lynchburg's 72,000. 71.194.214.138 (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Tuktoyaktuk is getting an all weather highway. They started construction in 2013. That leaves Paulatuk, Sachs Harbour and Ulukhaktok in the Northwest Territories, Old Crow, Yukon and every town in Nunavut without road/rail service. But of course they are all really small with Rankin Inlet (2,577) being the largest. There would still be quite a few fly in communities in the south, that is the bit south of the 60th parallel north but still in Canada. Several of the northern parts of the Provinces and territories of Canada will have fly in villages. Does the Cape Breton Regional Municipality count as it is only connected by the Canso Causeway? Other places in North America include the French islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. They have ferry service to Fortune, Newfoundland and Labrador and two airports which don't provide service to France directly but via Canada. The other place is Greenland. There are no roads connecting communities. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Triple portals in Gothic architecture

Here's what I'm talking about

Is there an official term for a three-portal Gothic church entrance? I'm talking about something like the entrance to Notre-Dame de Paris, pictured here, although I couldn't find anything in that article (or elsewhere) giving a term for such a structure, as opposed to a single entrance, a three-portal entrance of another style, etc. Nyttend (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Glancing over a couple of relevant books on medieval architecture, I can't find anything more specific than "triple portal". It's regularly mentioned as a highly standard feature of French gothic architecture, so if there were a more technical term for it, I guess those books would have mentioned it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you; it's good to know that I'm not omitting a standard term. Nyttend (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A Global History of Architecture by Mark M. Jarzombek, Vikramaditya Prakash says of Abbot Suger who reconstructed the Basilica of St Denis in the early 12th century; "He also redesigned the cathedral's facade, introducing a triple portal that served as symbol of the Trinity". Just in case you wondered why they didn't have two or four doors... Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Prince Louis of Luxembourg

Why was the marriage of Prince Louis of Luxembourg considered morganatic? It seems kind of outdated to considered a marriage morganatic especially in a current monarchy considering that both his mother, one of his sister in law and both his aunts were not even nobles much less royal prior to their marriage and thus would have been morganatic spouses. It seems like he did renounce his succession rights before his marriahe and also the marriage was planned after the couple's first son was born out of wedlock. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything specific online, but it seems that the royal household of Luxembourg has since come around to your way of thinking, because "On Luxembourg’s National Day in 2009, Grand Duke Henri granted Tessy the title of Princess of Luxembourg with the style of Her Royal Highness, and raised their children to Prince of Nassau, also with the style of Royal Highness." if this source is to be believed. I suspect that because their first child was born out of wedlock, it was easier for them to forgo their titles than face a battle with traditionalists, it being a Catholic country n'all. Anyway, all's well that ends well. Alansplodge (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm Prince Jean of Luxembourg did the same thing (including the first child born out of wedlock thing albeit a girl instead of a boy), longer ago but not that long ago. From what I can tell, despite gaining a title, they never regained their place in the Line of succession to the throne of Luxembourg. I wonder if having the children the initial heirs of the next generation, even if likely to be overtaken by the children of Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg or if he had none Prince Félix of Luxembourg (as has happened now albeit not under the old law). Particularly since neither were even married at the time. Beyond the Catholic thing, there also seems to be some expectation the spouse gets the nod of approval first with royals. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Modern Egyptians

Are any of the modern Egyptians descended from the ancients? Venustar84 21:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Our Population history of Egypt article says: "Blood typing and DNA sampling on ancient Egyptian mummies is scant; however, blood typing of dynastic mummies found ABO frequencies to be most similar to modern Egyptians. This is indicative of the fact that despite ancient Egypt being ruled by foreign powers in different stages, the genesis of the peoples remained largely un-altered". It is a contentious issue though, and this article explains why. Alansplodge (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep asking questions like this. I suggest you do some research on descent. However, to answer your question: It is statistically virtually certain that every modern Egyptian is descended from every person living during the reign of Tutankhamun (for example) who had any descendants beyond the second generation. Consider: a person born today has two parents. A generation previously - let's conservatively say 33 years - the person born today has four ancestors - their grandparents. Another 33 years, and that doubles again to 8 ancestors. And 100 years ago sees the birth of 16 ancestors of a person born today. At a rate of 16-fold increase per century, a person born today would be expected to have 16^10 ancestors at 1015 AD, 16^20 at the time of the death of Augustus, 16^30 in about 985 BC, and 2x16^33 at the time of Tutankhamun. But there were only less than 50 million people (somewhat more than 16^6) in the whole world in those days. So barring impossibilities (like a member of an uncontacted Amazon tribe being descended from an indigenous Australian), everyone now alive is descended from everyone alive during King Tut's reign who has descendants at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Every single modern Egyptian also descends from ultra-ancient sea worms, themselves with grandparents who came to the New World on meteorites. All genealogies get mighty fishy at a certain depth. The only thing that makes dating Acanthostega spawn worse is knowing (s)he's your actual cousin. Best to just forget our roots every couple of centuries, or we'd all start to feel ancient. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, January 2, 2015 (UTC)

This is why we can't have nice things. Evan (talk|contribs) 22:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't mean to sound rude, elitist, and generally jerk-like, but a lot of the questions you've been asking could be answered by basic research reading at articles on Wiki. Unfortunately, it makes you look bad asking such simple questions when you could make use of your own research skills. Come on, mate, a little self-reliance can go a long way! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12 Tevet 5775 02:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Beware. Editors have been raked over the coals for telling users to do their own research. And in fact that do-your-own advice could be given to almost anyone who posts a question here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Eh, I can take whatever editors throw at me unless it's valid criticism (which would be taken into account instead.) I do appreciate the warning though. I guess a talk page message would be a better way of getting the idea across that he's posting a lot of questionable questions on RefDesk. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12 Tevet 5775 02:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC) LOL @ "I can take anything that's thrown at me except valid criticism!" 212.96.61.236 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Criticism of other ref desk editors should definitely be taken to the ref desk talk page whenever possible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC) <admin hat on> If everyone on the ref desk adopted Sir William's admirable attitude, there would be far less dramaz at ref desk talk page or other drama-locations.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Attacking the OP hardly constitutes an "admirable" attitude. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Eh, I can take whatever editors throw at me unless it's valid criticism (which would be taken into account instead.) I do appreciate the warning though. I guess a talk page message would be a better way of getting the idea across that he's posting a lot of questionable questions on RefDesk. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Deja vu all over again. And thus you made the same mistake twice, unless Kristine (Venustar84) is actually a "he". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC) So "attacking" now includes rebuking? —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC) >Are any of the modern Egyptians descended from the ancients no, not one. the ancients' children all moved out and have had their mail forwarded. no descendent ever came back. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

January 3

Virgin martyrs

Is there some sort of alternate term, a synonym, for "virgin martyr"? To my surprise, I discovered today that we don't have an article on the concept, and literally nothing links to it except for an article to which I just added a link today. Run a Google search for "virgin martyr"; even after you ignore references to The Virgin Martyr, a play, you'll find plenty of relevant stuff — this isn't something I'm making up, but I can't figure out why the concept is so obscure. Nyttend (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Try virgin sacrifice ? I get about the same number of Ghits. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

But that's different. "Virgin martyr" conveys the sense of "Young Insertnamehere, who took a vow of celibacy, was caught by imperial troops and fed to the lions", while "virgin sacrifice" conveys the sense of "The gods command us to throw a young girl into the volcano. Let's pick Insertname for this honor". Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs virgin martyrs! — article content, that is, not your continence. Consecrated virgins need not apply. (But thanks to consecratedvirgins.org for their handy and pocket-size martyrology of "Virgins and Virgin/Martyr Saints of the Early Centuries")

I think it is just those two English words. Checked for alternate terms in virgin and martyr entries in Jones, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion 2e; Cross & Livingstone, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church 3e; as well as revised Catholic Encyclopedia and random articles. No synonym in English found.

1913 edition of the the Catholic Encyclopedia has it most often as two words, "virgin and martyr". One occurrence of "virgin, probably martyred", but not a single "martyr, probably virgin". Such Certainty! Reminds me of reading, years ago, the unabridged Golden Legend, that wonderful treasury of their tales.

Anglo-Norman times featured them by the dozen - perhaps reflecting changing marriage mores requiring consent, theoretically granting some women a little more say in partner. In any case, "Among twelfth- and early thirteenth-century Anglo-Norman lives of women saints, all except Mary Magdalene and Mary of Egypt are lives of consecrated virgins, virgin spouses, or virgin martyrs." (p 314 of Wogan-Browne, 1991 "Saints Lives and the Female Reader", Forum for Modern Language Studies 27:4, 314-332). Don't have a link to the article to share (PDF on request to article writer), but can't pass up this summary quote, same source (p. 315):

A typical profile of the female virgin martyr saint in this period runs like this: The virgin is young, beautiful, rich and noble. Her father is part of the pagan establishment, or, if he is absent, his narrative function is encoded in the pagan suitor and/or judge eventually encountered by the virgin. The virgin's mother is usually absent from the virgin's life, either through death, or through passive co-operation with, or secret opposition to, the virgin's father (all options which make the mother invisible in narrative terms). The virgin's counsels are thus her own and she is secretly a Christian. Sooner or later she is approached for marriage, seduction or rape and is persecuted by her tyrannous father and/or lustful suitor for her refusal of these options. They either hand her over to the public-pagan judges or already themselves hold these offices. Desired and tortured by officialdom, the virgin is threatened, then incarcerated, stripped naked, publicly flogged, lacerated, burnt and boiled, and dismembered in some way, as it might be with awls or razor-edged wheels. Her conduct during all this remains impeccable, her ability to reason unimpaired, and, to the frustration of the tyrant, her bearing and her arguments frequently convert his attendant soldiery and populace whom he then has to martyr as well. Finally, when the virgin and God have displayed enough of God's supreme rule over the world, she concludes her passion by going to formal execution by beheading, and then proceeds, with attendant doves and angelic hosts to the court of heaven, to be welcomed into the bower of the greatest and most handsome of bridegrooms, and into top rank at the heavenly court.

Lots more scholarly material. Let's see an article, or die trying! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive response. It seems to have been carried to the extreme in cases like St. Philomena, who was deemed a virgin martyr simply because they found an inscription Peace with you, Philomena, the skeleton of a female teenager, and a small glass phial with vestiges of what was taken to be blood; apparently the concept of her as a virgin martyr happened pretty much immediately, before a nun announced visions of Philomena, and even though marriage of teenage girls was common in ancient Rome. Or see Saint Ursula and her eleven thousand virginal companions, all of whom were beheaded by the Huns at Köln. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Could poor Italian peasants during and around Pope Alexander VI's time enter the clergy and rise to bishop?

Reading about the REAL Pope Alexander VI's life makes me think, "Gosh, those peasants must be screwed." Pope Alexander and a couple of other popes of his era were all selected by previous popes, simply because they came from well-connected families. Was there any chance that a humble peasant could enter the clergy and become a bishop? Or did becoming a bishop require making good connections with the aristocratic families? Can a peasant join the clergy at all? Were peasants lower or greater in social status than merchants? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Peasants were certainly lower in social status than merchants, although there would be some overlap. I'd expect that just about anyone could join the clergy, say as a monk or nun, but rising may very well have depended on connections. However, exceptions may have been made for those with exceptional abilities. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed! 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

For which part? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

All of it. StuRat gave what appears to be an educated (or not as the case may be) guess instead of a reference. This is supposed to be a reference desk, not the StuRat and Baseball Bugs pedantic guessing page, not that you'd know it by looking though. 76.175.68.81 (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You question the statement, "Peasants were certainly lower in social status than merchants"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte came from very humble origins and rose to be a cardinal. Of course, not everyone might care to follow that career path. PiCo (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP is quite right to call Sturat out on that little farrago of uneducated speculation. How exactly is a monk or nun supposed to demonstrate "exceptional abilities"? --Viennese Waltz 10:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• The question is quite oddly biased, since it asks about the mobility of peasants in general, then offers the very brief control of the Papacy by one family as a counter example. StuRat's answer is the standard one from all the history books, basically a truism, that entering the clergy was one of the biggest means of achieving social mobility in the Middle ages.
  

Then out of nowhere we get an anonymous driveby who's never edited the page (or is an obvious sock--take your pick) attacking Stu and Bugs and VW flapping down again to pick at someone's liver, with neither of them offering a source themselves, only a personal attack.

The topic is standardly covered in 9th grade level world history (maybe not any more that attacking the Church and America is all the rage in current curricula, but it was in the 70's and 80's). Simply googling clergy and social mobility gets scores of sources like this. Politely asking Stu to give a reference rather than cackling commands at him might have gotten a better response. Comments like "pedantic" and "uneducated farrago", besides their rudeness aren't even accurate. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The same way anyone else demonstrates exceptional abilities. For example, a monk employed to add art work to manuscripts might demonstrate artistic talent, or a nun given charge of the accounts at a nunnery might find discrepancies that her predecessor missed. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The big thing was that the afforded education, and capital and human resources of a monastic order made upward mobility possible for anyone who showed valuable skills. Look at what the existence of the Universities of Bologna and Paris meant for both Western civilization and for the civilization of westerners. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I geolocated 76.175.68.81. It appears that the IP is located in California. Oxnard, California. However, one shows up as Los Angeles? In any case, it's somewhere in California. One way I recognize IPs on Wikipedia is that I have a tendency to geolocate unfamiliar IPs and analyze the person's writing style and attitude. It's not a perfect method to identify IPs, but probability and experience tell me that the likelihood of finding two or more persons with a particular writing style in one approximate location at roughly the same time is very rare, making it easier for me to guess a general identity or pattern of behavior of the IP. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I googled the subject, and this suggests that it's not a simple yes/no answer, as it depends on the order and on other factors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that peasants and merchants, by definition, are in different social strata; peasants were the biggest part of the lower classes, and merchants one of the earliest-established parts of the middle classes. Nyttend (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Pope Sixtus IV is described as being from "modest circumstances", though he also had family connections. Pope Adrian VI's father was a carpenter. Peasants were certainly permitted to become monks, and a young man joining a monastic order would have been able to obtain an education and progress within his order. This could eventually lead to a bishopric. Parts of the church, particularly at the higher levels, were dominated by a small number of aristocratic families, but recall that the church was also a large academic and administrative organisation/business. A competent manager with good interpersonal skills and the ability to be useful to his aristocratic colleagues would be able to use the church as a route to advancement. To find a specific example you would have to read the biographies of every bishop, but the path, though difficult, was not closed. RomanSpa (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I found Cardinal Tamás Bakócz (1442-1521) whose father was a wagoner (although this book says that he was from "a peasant family"). Not Italian though. An article called Church In the Middle Ages by Simon Newman says; "The leaders of the church came from privileged, wealthy families of the nobility... While the bishops and archbishops hailed from richer families, the priests who oversaw the parishes had very little education and had humble origins. At the bottom of the hierarchy was the village priest who was responsible for caring and ministering to the sick and old, and taught the youth how to read the Bible and how to speak in Latin". The Middle Ages by Morris Bishop (p. 153) says; "The bishops and prelates generally came from the nobility; the parish priests from the peasantry". Thomas Becket was made Archbishop of Canterbury without ever having been a priest, apparently on the grounds that he was the king's best buddy. Alansplodge (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So, Latin was like a second language in the Middle Ages, eh? It's not really a dead language, because commoners learned how to speak it, as they would do in Roman times! 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it may well have been just sufficient to say the prayers at the mass. The last book linked in my post tells the story of the story of the Bishop of Durham who was unable to read out the word metropolitanus at his enthronement. It goes on to say that the parish priests were not really supervised and often just did the minimum, not bothering to preach or instruct their congregations. Their own education would have depended on the priest who instructed them in childhood. Alansplodge (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Amusing but not really relevant anecdote. Alansplodge (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This reminds me of a story I once heard – many times. But since Wikipedia demands verifiability not truth – I googled it. [12] America that gives every opportunity to immigrants (don't know if they had to have a green card back in those days ) presented one such newbie to Mr Khrushchev on his first visit to the US. This immigrant said in effect: that he came to America with nothing but look at me now! The chance I had is Only Possible in America!. Mr Khrushchev replied: There was once', he said, 'a simple shepherd boy, born on the borderland of the Ukraine. The boy had an ambition to do more than tend sheep, he moved onwards and downwards into the coal mines and then upwards into a factory. Then he took a three-year night course at a workers' educational institute and look at him now! Only possible in the USSR! Eisenhower never recovered from that faux pas. The rest of he world was laughing behind his back. The Russians where putting Sputniks into obit and American rockets were still blowing up on the launch pad. So if a Greek can beome head of an American film studio, surly a Italian peasant can become mayor, in charges of a town in a Spaghetti Western.--Aspro (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Not sure what you mean by Eisenhower "never recovered" from that little incident. Although, as we all know, the USSR went on to land the first man on the moon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Especially as it wasn't Eisenhower that made the gaff. "Eisenhower became the first U.S. president to be constitutionally prevented from running for re-election to the office, having served the maximum two terms". Anyway, it was a funny story and thanks for sharing it. Now we've REALLY gone off-topic. Alansplodge (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Nikita's own little gaffe, with the Cuban missile situation, led to his return to ordinariness and virtual erasure from the public record. Only in the USSR! (and China). Maybe Ike "never recovered" from Nikita's cute little joke in some observers minds, but he was revered as a war hero in America and also consulted with his successor, JFK, during the Cuban crisis. In contrast, I doubt that Brezhnev ever felt the need to consult with Nikita. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

January 4

Can anyone help me identify the subject of this painting?

I'm currently expanding Lady Mary Hamilton and am looking for an image to use. I came across this by Joshua Reynolds but am not positive that this is the same subject. She married in 1762 (becoming Lady Mary Hamilton), but the subject of this painting uses her maiden name (Lady Mary Leslie) and is dated 1764. Is it standard for artists to use the maiden name of a subject? I just want to be sure before I upload it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 02:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This says the portrait is of the daughter of John Leslie, 10th Earl of Rothes (and who became the wife of William Colyear, 3rd Earl of Portmore). Thincat (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's as I feared. The subject seemed too young as well for the person I'm working on. I'll keep looking. Thanks again! Ruby 2010/2013 18:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Now We are Free

I know the song in Gladiator is sung in gibberish, but I have been listening to it (one of my cycling songs in the early morning), and I can make out a few words of Aramaic (irrelevant to the film), but nothing that sounds anything like Latin. Does anyone know if it was intentionally sung in gibberish, and for what reason? Just to make it sound exotic? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 07:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

One person at least thinks the song is translatable in full. Maybe you can tell us whether this is all Aramaic apart from the one word of Latin there: flavum, "yellow". --Antiquary (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That translation is completely wrong, if it is indeed a 'translation' of what I believe to be a made-up language. I can pick out words from Aramaic, and indeed that one Latin word (with variations thereof), but none of it makes sense, and certainly makes no reference to Jesus. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a second stab then. The soundtrack to Gladiator is by Lisa Gerrard and Hans Zimmer, and the Lisa Gerrard page tells us that she

...sings many of her songs, such as "Now We Are Free", "Come Tenderness", "Serenity", "The Valley of the Moon", "Tempest", "Pilgrimage of Lost Children", "Coming Home" and "Sanvean" in idioglossia.

No reference is given. The same page also says

...she collaborated with Hans Zimmer on such songs as "Now We Are Free." With respect to such work she has said, "I sing in the language of the Heart. It's an invented language that I've had for a very long time. I believe I started singing in it when I was about 12. Roughly that time. And I believed that I was speaking to God when I sang in that language."

This time the only reference is to IMDb. I think that's the only motive for writing the song in gibberish you're going to find. --Antiquary (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Number of married people

How many married people are there in the world, approximately? According to [13], a majority of 30-34 year old women was married in almost all countries as of 2002, but the proportion among the total (or total female) population will likely be far lower due to most children not being married and many widows among the elderly. Which countries have the highest proportions of married people? From the link given and its low birth rate, I expect China to be among the highest... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Napoleon in Russia

Why didn't Napoleon occupy St. Petersburg in his Russian campaign? It was the Russian capital and following the Baltic coastline with possible assistance from Sweden or Denmark would have been safer than conducting a land invasion into the heart of Russia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Presumably Napoleon knew the Russians could use Moscow as a temporary capital, rebuild their troops, and launch attacks from there, so defeating Russia meant driving a steak into it's heart. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

See French invasion of Russia. Napoleon wasn't after the occupation of Russia, he wanted to defeat the Russian Army in the field to bring the Tsar to the negotiating table. Thus, the French army went wherever the Russian Army went, and the Russians kept falling back towards Moscow, until the French eventually caught up with them at Borodino. Mogism (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Per Mogism, Napoleon wasn't after occupying territory, per se. His main goal was to destroy the ability of his enemies to fight, and then to negotiate an "alliance" with them (i.e. make them vassals of the French Empire). It left the local structures in place, but took a potential enemy out of the equation and allowed Napoleon to spread French Revolutionary ideals throughout Europe (always a goal of his). This entire system of establishing European "alliances" by defeating their armies in the field was known as the Continental System and had the threefold objectives of: 1) Spreading French Revolutionary ideals 2) Eliminating potential enemies and 3) Isolating Great Britain from any potential allies. Napoleon's strategy was actually a continuation of the Republican strategy before him, several Sister Republics were established as client states of the French Republic during the early years of the French Revolutionary Wars. Napoleon adapted it, and established his own system of client states, either with his own hand-picked monarchs (i.e. Spain, Joseph Bonaparte) or subjugated states which kept their own monarchs, but had to agree to terms of "alliance" with France. Russia was actually an ally of Napoleon after its defeat in the War of the Fourth Coalition, Napoleon invaded when Russia refused to keep its terms of the alliance. See Treaties of Tilsit and Congress of Erfurt which explain the alliance between Napoleon and Russia. --Jayron32 23:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Who proposed this theory?

Who is the person who proposed the theory that modern greeks are mainly descended from slavs, not ancient greeks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.152 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, who is often described as having promoted something like that (although I wouldn't be too confident in judging what he really did write based only on the way his ideas are presented by angry Greeks today, as they tend to treat him a bit as an ideological bogeyman.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Saints in the Roman Catholic Church

I have a calendar of saints in the Roman Catholic Church. On each date, the calendar lists which individual saints have a designated "feast day" for that date. Next to the saint's name, it will list specific designations, titles, or honors for that saint. For example, the list might include designations such as: Pope; Martyr; Patron Saint of (such-and-such); Founder of (such-and-such); Priest; Abbott; Apostle; Bishop; Archangel; and so forth. There are two specific designations about which I am curious. One is "widow/widower". The other is "virgin". Why would it be considered a religious or saintly "honor" or designation that an individual is a widow/widower? That simply means that one's spouse has died, correct? Why would that be considered a title of honor? Same question for "virgin". Is it considered "saintly" and a "virtue" if a woman dies a virgin? If so, that seems to contradict the importance of perpetuating the human race and families. Does that same "honor" (virgin) ever get applied to males? Why are these two titles (widow/widower and virgin) important in a list of saints? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for whoever created the calendar, but I would expect that the designation of "widow" is applied primarily to women who have been widows for most of their lives (and likewise for the widowers). It may be implied that they chose to remain unmarried (just like saints who died as virgins) in order to devote their life to the service of God. - Lindert (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Lots of complex questions! Briefly, the odd-seeming confluence of virgins and widows in your contemporary calendar of saints has its justification and counterpart in the contemporary (1993) Catechism of the Catholic Church §922 "Consecrated Virgins and Widows" - see article Consecrated life for more connections. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro - traditionally there has been some reluctance to canonize women who were in an ordinary marriage at the time of their deaths, so most female saints fall into the categories of "virgin" (never married) or "widowed"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)