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

July 17

Medieval Hinduism

I was surprised to discover the existence of Category:Medieval Hinduism, since the European Middle Ages didn't have a significant effect on Hindu regions. I was more surprised to discover that Medieval Hinduism is a redlink (why create the category if there's no article), but later I discovered Medieval India. So...is medieval Hinduism simply the Hinduism of medieval India, or is it more complicated than that? Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems there should indeed be an article, cf: The Medieval Period of Hinduism lasted from about 500 to 1500 A.D. (etc.) per:

• "Hinduism - Facts & Summary". HISTORY.com. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The term "medieval" is pedantically used for only European historiography, but is still frequently used outside of European history to refer to similar time periods in other cultures which either a) occurred over roughly the same time frame (i.e. 500-1500ish) or b) lie in the same place in that culture's historiography, that is in the "middle ages" of that culture, or between the "ancient" and "modern" periods of that culture's history, and it's used often enough to be common, i.e. here used in reference to Africa, This article, and several of its sources "Medieval Korea", This journal uses the term "Medieval China" frequently. The point is, don't get caught up in the pedantry of the Wikipedia article writer who restricts the term "Medieval" to a period of European history. Language is more fluid than that; while it is most common to use it in the European context, the terminology is well attested to refer to a similar period of history in any culture. --Jayron32 02:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend -- linguistically, 500 A.D. is conventionally about when Prakrit is considered to give way to Apabhramsa among living Indic languages. It was also probably roughly around the time when it started to become respectable to write down the Vedas and other Hindu holy texts (earlier there had been strong resistance among Brahmins to writing down the Vedas). And it was around that time that the synthetic philosophers who reconciled divergent manifestations of Hinduism arose (though the most famous of them Adi Shankara, was a few centuries later)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sticking with “medieval” as referring to Europe from perhaps 500 to 1500 CE, did European scholars or leaders know that India and environs existed and that many there were Hindus? If so were they regarded as another major religion, or just regarded as pagans or heathen who were prospects for missionary work? Were there any Hindus in Europe openly practicing their religion? Or would the Church have forcibly converted them or killed them as a matter of course? Edison (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

During that period, first the Persian empire, then afterwards Muslims, were interposed between the Mediterranean and India, so direct up-to-date information would not have been easy to obtain. At least some in Europe would have known of ancient Classical texts which spoke of "gymnosophists", "Sarmanes", and "Brachmanes", but without much information about Hindu doctrines as such. Any Hindus in Europe would likely have been perpetually itinerant merchants or sailors who were adept at blending into surrounding cultures. I doubt that most European scholars spent much time thinking about Indians, when the questions of what Muslims were up to, and who and when the next wave of Altaic horse-nomads into Central Asia would be, were much more immediately pressing issues. Many medieval European people's "knowledge" of India would have been pretty much limited to the legend of the Gold-digging ant... AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Medieval Europe probably knew a little bit about Buddhism, at least indirectly (like the story of Barlaam and Josaphat which is apparently ultimately about Buddha), but not really anything about Hinduism. There were lots of travellers/diplomats going as far as China, once the Mongols become a threat to Europe, as you said. I don't know how many of them visited India specifically. Even Marco Polo never really went to India, assuming he went anywhere at all. Europeans were interested in the ancient Christian communities they found along the way, and that would include India if they went there, but they typically ignored everyone else.

By the way, to expand on what Jayron said, there is such a thing as the "global Middle Ages", but it probably hasn't reached a wider audience yet. I'm not even sure there are publications that could be cited...it's more like an idea bounced around in conference sessions at this point. It's not meant to suggest that other parts of the world have a "middle ages" exactly - it's still true that the Middle Ages occurred specifically in the post-Roman world of Europe, the Near East and North Africa. But it does mean that medieval Europe did not exist in a complete vacuum, it was still in touch with the rest of the world. So for example, "medieval Indonesia" is seemingly anachronistic as there was no Indonesia at the time and it wasn't the Middle Ages there, but it's a way for historians of medieval Europe to recognize that history was still occurring in other parts of the world and there were connections between places that were very distant. (I use Indonesia as an example because there's a fascinating Twitter account about it!) Unfortunately the much narrower understanding of the Middle Ages is still the one used on Wikipedia, which is kind of arbitrary and frustrating for the moment. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course I spoke too soon, because Wikipedia informs me that medieval Hindus and Hindu festivals are mentioned by Jordan of Severac and Odoric of Pordenone. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

European-Asian cultural syncretism was well documented; there were Greek Buddhists in Central Asia, for example. --Jayron32 11:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

There were also documented Greco-Hindus, though less so. See, for example, Heliodorus (ambassador).--Jayron32 11:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

And we have Buddhist influences on Christianity and other associated articles. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- such syncretism took place mainly in the period before the rise of the Sassanid empire, when the Hellenistic Greeks were in direct contact with India (that's when those texts about gymnosophists that I mentioned were written). However, the question specified the period after 500 A.D., which was rather different... AnonMoos (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

How many Jews were evacuated from Minsk in 1941?

It states here that only 7,000 out of 72,000 Minsk Jews (less than 10%) were evacuated from there in 1941 (which was when Nazi Germany and its allies invaded the Soviet Union):

https://books.google.com/books?id=S7YsDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA79&dq=minsk+holocaust+7,000&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiamM3mwaDcAhXBOn0KHZCYBfEQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=minsk%20holocaust%207%2C000&f=false

However, the same link also states that much higher percentages of Jews were evacuated from both Vitebsk and Bobruisk during this time. In turn, this makes me wonder--is the data for Minsk in this book accurate? Or is this a typo?

Indeed, does anyone here have any additional information in regards to this?

Also, for what it's worth, this book does provide a source for its data for Minsk. However, I don't actually see the source itself. Futurist110 (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The same link in fact indicates a date very late for evacuating civilians (July 7), knowing that 320,000 troops were to be captured at the issue of the siege (July 11). --Askedonty (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

'In early July 1941,. a former official of the Minsk regional party committee wrote to Stalin, asserting that "the evacuation [of Minsk]... took part in such a disorganised fashion, that one is forced to reflect and pose the question, why did it happen this way"' From The Evacuation and Survival of Soviet Civilians, 1941-1946, Rebecca Manley, University of California, 2004 (p. 79) - Google "snippet view" - that's all I could see! Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

July 18

Wang Family Compound and cousin marriage

I am curious how a family compound can grow so large to the grand scale of 300 residence courtyards and 3,000 rooms even if 4 generations of a family live there. Does that mean extensive level of cousin marriage was practiced? I can't find any information on cousin marriage and the Wang Family Compound but from a generic anthropological approach does the large size of the clan in one site suggest a high level of inbreeding? Muzzleflash (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I would assume that many who lived in the compound were retainers and servants, ie not blood relations to the Wangs, but part of their broader “family” or household. Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's possible that the article is misnamed; I'm finding sources that refer to the Wangs as a clan - that is, a far bigger group than the single family you might be envisioning, and with looser geneological ties. See also Chinese clan, [1] and [2]. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing quite a lot of source which give it it that name. It's possible some of them have been influenced by us, but I doubt they all have. So I'm doubtful the name is wrong by wikipedia standards. Even by more general standards, the name in Chinese 王家大院 is given as. The relevant part seems to be wiktionary:家. I think the last 2 basically mean courtyard wiktionary:大院, and the first is the surname wiktionary:王. Or see wiktionary:王家, I think the part 'other than a set phrase' is what's relevant. Someone familiar with Chinese could comment further, but I suspect the Wang family compoung is a reasonable translation for the Chinese name. There's probably at least some element of the difficulties translating names across significant cultural and language barriers given the lack of perfect conjugates and different understandings of various constructs depending on contexts. In other words, while the OP's understanding of what family means here may be wrong since they aren't sufficiently familiar with Chinese traditions and cultural norms (and they also mentioned clan anyway), and in various contexts clan may be a more common translation for the grouping mentioned, 'family' isn't intrisicly wrong. See also these sources [3] [4] which may give some understanding of why these things can be complicated. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW, if you're really interested and can understand Chinese, you may be able to dig up a genealogy. I'm sure one existed at one stage, and it seems a wider Wang genealogy was published in the 19th century [5]. I don't know for sure that this branch is on it, but I suspect it would be given their apparent success. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

That's super interesting, thanks Nil Einne. I don't read Chinese at all. Do you think this is the geneology: [6] 70.67.222.124 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No, the timeframe is off since the one referred to in the paper must have been published in the 19th or 20th century based on what the paper says but that is from the 16th century. Also the one in the paper is said to be 105 volumes. But that one is only 4. The time frame suggests even if that one does cover the family/clan that was in the compound, it was before the compound really reached the size that we know now. The description is unclear, but I suspect that genealogy only really covers a clan/family in one specific area, which may not include those were the compound is. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The compound housed a very extended family and their servants. 家 can be translated as either family or clan; I think that clan gives a better sense of scale. Due to exponential growth, a few generations of descendants can easily amount to hundreds of people--and note that this compound has hundreds of years of history. For the contemporaneous Qiao Family Compound, which is ten times smaller, China Daily reports that "more than 170 servants worked in the dwellings". C0617470r (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Muzzleflash -- traditionally, people with the same Chinese surname were not supposed to marry, which suggests that patrilineal cousin marriage was not approved of. Marriage with a non-patrilineal cousin would not have been considered in-marriage... AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to the question, but I'm curious about one of the suppositions. If a family heavily used cousin marriage, surely they would need fewer rooms, not more. In a normal exogamous family, there's going to be a set of in-laws for every marriage, but that won't be the case in cousin marriage - the parents of the spouse would already be in the family. Matt Deres (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Traditionally same surname clans lived together in villages in some rural parts of China. They marry outside of their surnames either with a woman from a neighboring village or yes maternal cousins. I think the compound was just a clan village in a prettier veneer. Clan villages would usually led by the eldest male of the eldest male line. As for the woman. Any women from the Wang clan would marry into their husband’s clans and leave their father’s house, they would not have lived in the compound unless their husbands married into (ruzhui 入赘) their wives family. KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

July 19

What was the first civilization to reach a 50/50 urban/rural split?

When did it happen? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of a "civilization". It happened around WW1 in the United States[7]... AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep--but with Massachusetts and Rhode Island becoming urban-majority much earlier--specifically sometime between 1841 and 1850. Indeed, please take a look at this Wikipedia article (which, for the record, I myself previously created): Urbanization in the United States. Futurist110 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

And recent discoveries in paleontology have reshaped some ideas about Neolithic civilization. The oldest discovered structures at Göbekli Tepe appear to predate domestication of crops. If true, they were built by hunter-gatherers, which was previously thought impossible. So were they urban or rural? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, would they be considered urban by a typical 2018 country's definition? Or a typical very low industrialization or high industrialization country (i.e. US/non-Eastern Europe/Aus/NZ/Singapore/Japan/Canada/Israel). Interestingly, in the US certain kinds of remote "settlements" can never be urban even if they have enough people. (i.e. prisons). I haven't read the 2010 rules to see if this has changed since the 2000 Census. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• According to Urbanization, probably no earlier than the late 19th Century CE. "In England and Wales, the proportion of the population living in cities with more than 20,000 people jumped from 17% in 1801 to 54% in 1891." There is note in that article to a recent Yale University study that looks to directly address the OP's question as well. --Jayron32 11:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• We also have to define “Urban” and “Rural”... for example, was the Pueblo civilization urban? Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Why wasn't the compromise of giving up Catholic-majority parts of Northern Ireland more seriously considered?

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

See File:Map of predominant national identity in the 2011 census in Northern Ireland.png - good luck sorting that one out. Besides the difficulty of getting agreement to such a contentious scheme (imagine for example, a Texan being told that his home town was being transferred to Mexico), it might not be in the interests of the Nationalist community in the long run; see 'Catholic majority possible' in NI by 2021. So playing the long game might yield the cherished dream of a united Ireland, whereas stripping away Nationalist voters would just prolong Loyalist hegemony. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

A bit like the 40s partition of the Subcontinent where a contiguous and not too gerrymandered border can only minimize population in the "wrong country" no matter what they try? Now I'm wondering why so many British people wanted to live in those deep patches but not intermediate depth into Ulster. And I didn't know about the demographic game theory thing, perhaps most British and Irish people knew but not me. Was there ever "demographic war", trying to out-reproduce and out-immigrate the competition? (with sympathizers from each island moving to the Northern part of Ireland to try to outvote the contemporary majority or prevent that). That seems more humane than paramilitaries and bombings. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Partition of India here? Futurist110 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Are we talking about 1914? 1970s?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Since giving back Southern Ireland became seriously considered. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Britain nearly came to civil war with no assurance of the army's loyalty in 1914 as it is. I think if Asquith had pushed such a plan (which probably could not have been enacted until 1916 under the Parliament Act 1911), violence would have broken out. Not a bad thing, necessarily, it might have derailed the July Crisis.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Or World War I would have still broken out on schedule, but Germany would have won this war as a result of British--and U.S.--neutrality. Futurist110 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The demographic map is only partially relevant as the population would have moved quite a bit if it was split differently. However Northern Ireland would have just been a rump looking silly if that had been done, they wanted a viable sized country. It hasn't worked out because the unionists keep emphasizing their British identity rather than a Northern Ireland one, which means they are more likely to leave. Dmcq (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for my previous answer, I picked up the wrong end of the stick. The search for ‘statutory Ulster' describes the initial conception of a Northern Irish state during the Home Rule Bill crisis. Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, Gibraltar remains a British possession because a referendum was held and a majority of the population voted for it. In the case of Ireland, about 1922 there was a referendum, 26 counties voted for independence and six voted for union. These six counties became Northern Ireland. A few years ago there was another referendum and all six counties again voted for union, which is why they are still part of the United Kingdom. 86.133.26.146 (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you're recalling entirely correctly; there wasn't a referendum in 1922, instead an Irish Boundary Commission was appointed under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in December 1921. However, the Irish delegation were (by their account at least) threatened with the resumption of war if they failed to agree to partition. The British for their part thought that allowing an all-Ireland republic would result in an armed Protestant uprising and lacked Parliamentary backing for such a move anyway. Although an Ulster composed of the four counties which had a clear Protestant majority had been suggested in 1914, in the end, a six county province including the Catholic-majority counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone was demanded; the Nationalists had either to agree, or walk away without recognition of the Republic and face renewed hostilities. Many Irish people thought that they should have done just that, resulting in the Irish Civil War.

You are correct that there was a Northern Ireland border poll, 1973, which according to Referendums in the United Kingdom was the first referendum ever in the UK. It was boycotted by the Nationalist community (only 1% voted to leave the Union) but the end result would have been the same if they hadn't. The vote was counted across the whole province, rather than on a county-by-county basis; there was no option for one or two counties to opt out. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The trouble was mainly catholics being second class citizens in their own land which the Good Friday Agreement would right if it was actually being implemented, it is rather disquieting seeing the Knesset declaring itself a Jewish Parliament for a Jewish People. Dmcq (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Were no county by county results released? I looked at the article earlier before your comment and came to the same conclusion as you (i.e. although there was a boycott, since a majority of the electorate voted to remain anyway, it would have been same regardless ignoring the possibility of people voting differently) but couldn't find any info on whether the IP was likely correct that this applied to all counties. Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Alansplodge has given about as much as there is I believe. Going by the elections before partition only four counties would have been in Northern Ireland. In 1973 the votes were all counted at a central place to avoid giving any figures for individual counties. Dmcq (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A correction to my previous post - a 6-county Northern Ireland and a 26-county Southern Ireland were established by the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as an intended prelude to home rule within the UK. This established the Parliament of Northern Ireland in 1921; it's southern counterpart never came to pass due to the Irish War of Independence. Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, the original response while useful wasn't clear on the point of whether county by count results were simply considered irrelevant or not released. To give a simple example, the Brexit referendum was presented as a clear in or out referendum for the whole of UK albeit without total clarity on what that would mean other than article 50, wasn't counted in that way, which is one of the reasons why you now get people saying certain regions should remain in the EU. And this isn't uncommon in stuff like that. And the way election counting often happens means that even if there is no official results for sub-entities, it's often possible for there to be unofficial results at lower levels if there are sufficient observers willing to release them. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Well you can look at this republican history about it [8] which probably isn't too far off as far on this is concerned. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)All too true. When the London Borough of Hackney proposed to sell off six housing estates at the turn of the century it suckered the residents into co-operating by giving a solemn promise that any estate which voted "no" would not be privatised. One estate saw through the deception, organised its own ballot and was able to escape. This despite the Council saying that no repairs would be carried out unless the residents agreed. They then attempted to justify their action in a leaflet headed "Are we holding a gun to your heads? - No, of course not." The Council sent a polling organisation round another estate to ascertain residents' wishes but the one question they did not ask was "Do you want this estate to be privatised or not?" They rejected the decisive "no" in a poll conducted by the estate TA (they wanted to be shot of it because they suspected it was in such poor condition that it would have to be demolished) as windowpanes crashed into stairwells narrowly missing decapitating children, promising that the residents' wishes would be respected in the ballot when it came. Come the ballot, the votes were all taken from the estates to a central location, the boxes were opened and the votes mixed in together before counting, and after the count the Council announced it could not state which estates were in favour because it didn't know. 151.227.20.35 (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The majority in Northern Ireland do want to stay in the UK, and that includes at least 40% of the catholics and probably a lot more. And whatever about identifying as British unionists have just as much right to their views and a decent life in Northern Ireland as nationalists. There is no good peace if a majority dictates everything for a large minority - and that would still be true even if nationalists get to be a majority. Dmcq (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

What the article says is that the 1975 vote was the first ever national referendum in the U K. Prior to that (don't quote me on this) there were referenda across Wales on whether the public houses should open on Sundays. If a county voted to be "dry" it was subjected to further referenda every seven years until the Sunday drinkers got the result they wanted. 86.133.26.146 (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That's true, the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act 1881 article says: "The Act was repealed through the Licensing Act 1961, which allowed local authorities in Wales to hold polls of their residents on the continuation of the ban [on Sunday opening]".

Whether a local authority poll counts as a referendum is another matter; our UK referendums article says: "Referendums have been held in local areas in England, Wales and Scotland since 1913". "National" is a difficult word to define in British terms; the 1973 NI border vote was certainly national in respect of the Home Nations. Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

July 20

William Howe's wife

Who is Mrs. Howe mentioned in this source:

• London Missionary Society (1896). Register of Missionaries, Deputations, Etc., from 1796 to 1896. London Missionary Society. p. 119.

KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"William Howe was born in 1797 or 8, in Ireland. Ch.m., Manchester (Roby). Was Pastor at Hindley, Lancashire. Appointed to Samoa. Designated, Sept. 10, 1838, at Grosvenor St. Ch., Manchester. Married. Sailed, Nov. 8, Arrived at Sydney, April 5, and at Tahiti, Aug. 3, 1839, when, instead of going on to Samoa, he proceeded to Moorea, and settled at Afareaitu. At the close of 1844, in consequence of the aggressions of the French upon Moorea and Tahiti, he, with Mrs. Howe, and Mr. and Mrs. Joseph, returned to England, where they arrived, Jan. 27, While in England, he, with Mr. Joseph, revised and carried through the press the Tahitian Scriptures. The French Protectorate of Tahiti being fully established, he proceeded alone to that island. He sailed from England, Nov. 19, 1846, and arrived at Tahiti, Aug. 5, Mrs. Howe embarked for Tahiti Oct. 18, 1847, and arrived in April Mr. Howe maintained his position on the island in the face of very formidable obstacles, including criminal and civil actions in courts of law by the Roman Catholic Bishop, both of which were decided in Mr. Howe s favour. In 1856 he visited Melbourne with Mrs. Howe, arriving there on Nov. 28. He returned with Mrs. Howe to Tahiti in 1857, arriving there March 11. Protracted anxiety and failing health compelling him to seek a change, he proceeded to Rarotonga in the John Williams, and arrived there May 7, He died there, June 9, Mrs. Howe afterwards went on to Sydney and resided there. She died there, Sept. 3, 1882, aged 85". Jacobs, Augustus, The ship John Williams (p. 110). Alansplodge (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A very thorough Google search has failed to reveal her Christian names; she remains only "Mrs Howe". Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Me neither; I tried both their death dates to see if genealogies would come up but there are too many Howes and none seemed correct. Someone who has an account could search the parish records of Hindley or Manchester [9] for the record of the marriage (assuming they married there, which is only an assumption). I suppose, Kavebear, you could ask someone at WP:RX to do that? His specific church in Lancashire appears to have been St. Paul’s Chapel, Hindley, per [10]. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Since we have a precise date and place of death (Sydney NSW, 3 September 1882) there may well be a Sydney cemetery record somewhere. Searching the NSW Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages for women named Howe who died there in 1882 turns up two possible candidates: a Susan Howe and a Mary Howe. A report of William Howe's death[11] says he had a niece named Miss Stonier, who apparently accompanied the widowed Mrs. Howe to Sydney.[12] That information may be of some assistance with any genealogical research. --Muzilon (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

July 22

Manus manum lavat

I was reading some of our old pal Seneca and I found the familiar phrase "one hand washes the other." I thought, wow! That's Seneca? I thought that Jesus or Paul said that. I've only ever heard it used in religious contexts, meaning "we purify/support one another through solidarity and community" rather than the rawly quid pro quo as it appears in the Gourdification of Claudius.

I searched a little and couldn't find it in the Bible at all. Is it in there? If it isn't, how'd it come to be a churchy chestnut, or is my perception there totally off? Temerarius (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of washing of feet and clothes in the bible, and a few washings of hands and face, but no sentence in the bible has one hand washing the other. It's just a convenient metaphor picked up by church people (though I don't think I've ever heard it before -- I don't read Seneca!) Dbfirs 16:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The Polish version of this phrase (ręka rękę myje) is very popular in Poland, but its connotation is rather negative. We use it to talk about shady deals between cronies. I've never heard it used in a positive sense that Temerarius talks about. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a church person so I don't know the religious connotations, but there's definitely a kind of not-very-Christian aspect to it. It's specifically a fair deal with no generosity to it. Related to quid pro quo or tit for tat or even the decidedly Old Testament (and even older) eye for an eye. I would definitely say it's got some shady meanings; I'm surprised it's become popular among the church crowd. (Or, cynically speaking, not surprised). Matt Deres (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Foramen gloriosum

In Miles_Gloriosus_(play), "...the wise Palaestrio has cut a hole in the wall so the two lovers can see one another." Um, really? I'm no Plautus scholar, but from a brief looksee into his work it seems to me much more likely that this hole would be bored for reasons baser than looking in each other's eyes. In the next graf of the WP article, people are crawling through the hole--was it enlarged in the meantime?

Question's pretty simple: is this the earliest attested glory hole in fiction? Is it simply a lovely coincidence that the play is called Miles Gloriosus? (And why haven't dictionaries done a better job recording the etymology of the sexual sense of the term glory hole? And is the title of this correct?) Temerarius (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The sexual usage dates to the 1940s. The original term is way much older.[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The idea of lovers communicating through a wall is a familiar trope. A famous example is Pyramus and Thisbe, whose story is mangled in the Mechanicals' play in A Midsummer Night's Dream. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And the braggart soldier (Miles Gloriosus) is a stock character named without reference to the hole in question. - Nunh-huh 21:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

A violent prisoner serving a lengthy jail term remained behind bars during closely supervised visits from family members. One visit from the prisoner's wife resulted in the birth of a child nine months later. Prison officials were left wondering how this had come about. 86.133.26.146 (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Martha cacaturit

Does anyone have a codex of roman inscriptions handy? I can't find the Cacaturit graffito, in the House_of_the_Centenary, much less a photo of it. The English translation in Pompeii and Herculaneum Sourcebook is "This is Martha's dining room, as she shits in this dining room," while that WP page differs, giving note only to the one word "cacaturit," (being one-from-hapax,) translating as "wants to shit." It would be helpful to find it to create a page for it, it's an notable graffito in that it attests to Jewish presence in Pompeii, and provides an example of an idea midpoint between current-day "don't shit where you eat" and a similar sentiment in Deut. Temerarius (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No idea, but what's the connection to Jews? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Martha is a Jewish name. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

So's Elizabeth, but I'm not suggesting Her Majesty is Jewish. Wouldn't it prove the adoption of a Jewish name, rather than a Jewish person? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently it's number 4.5242 in the CIL, although I don't have a copy and it doesn't seem to be online. And yeah, in 79, there's no way a non-Jewish person would have been named Martha. The Romans just didn't name themselves that way. She could have converted to Judaism and changed her name, possibly. Or she could have been Christian, but that's also pretty unlikely in 79. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

July 23

Is news media in the USA becoming more opinionated?

Is news media in the USA becoming more opinionated? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion "news media" is too broad a term to allow any general conclusion. It's a bit like asking "Is food getting worse?" Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Food seems a bit complementary, implies fit for consumption. The US press in a general sense has a long and [dis]respectable history of highest and lowest standards. Opinion has been mixed with hard news continuously. Recently, however, topical and political diversity in the editorial stance of outlets has replaced a long period of geographic diversity. Based on your personal Overton window much of this may look like opinion, in comparison to right minded persons like yourself who read only hard reporting. While there is a lot of yellow sensationalism, advertorial, fringe politics and topical specialisation it still possible to readily locate outlets with high standards that clearly differentiate reporting and opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Do those outlets with high standards make any money? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Compared to when? The news media in early 1800s was extremely opinionated - lot more than it is today. The news media in the late 1900s was less opinionated than it is today. Blueboar (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The news media in the late 1900s was less opinionated than it is today." How do you know? Are you reading newspapers from the Edwardian era (1901 to 1910)? Dimadick (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We in Australia sent you Rupert Murdoch. I'm sure that has helped a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking for a quote from José Saramago's "The Gospel According to Jesus Christ"

I remember reading this book some years ago and one part stuck with me the most. It's a quote in reference to a lightning storm that's arriving. He describes it as a conflict between earth and the heavens, and describes the rain as a shield.

I would love to know the full paragraph or two that mentions this if anyone can help. Thank you.

2001:44C8:4403:6144:1:2:2AAF:1A6A (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's here: [14]. 86.133.26.146 (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much for that! I'm incredibly grateful.

2001:44C8:4403:6144:1:2:2AAF:1A6A (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Can a marriage like Romeo and Juliet occur in the modern day?

Nowadays, if a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old want to get married, and they know everyone will disapprove of the relationship, then can they ask a friar or a member of the church to marry them? SSS (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, Juliet is 13, since Shakespeare tells us she is "not yet" 14. Such a marriage without parental consent wouldn't be legal in the U.S. today, no matter what the church in question might believe. There are of course many countries where child marriages are legal. - Nunh-huh 23:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not, by modern Greek standards. Getting married (at any age) involves plenty of paperwork and the full knowledge of the civil authorities. See also: https://smartexpat.com/greece/how-to-guides/family/weddings-civil-partnerships/marriage-partnerships

• "Since 1982, both civil and religious marriage ceremonies have been recognised by Greek law. Foreign nationals (even those not resident in Greece) can marry in Greece, as long as they allow sufficient time for the local authorities to receive and process their application. This includes supplying all the necessary documentation required for a marriage licence. The process takes a minimum of eight working days but there are other administrative requirements prior to submitting the application which may take much longer to complete."
• "Foreign nationals in Greece may be married in a civil ceremony performed by a mayor, in a religious ceremony, or both. Foreign nationals do not need to be Greek residents, however, if either party is a resident of Greece and is required to have a residence permit (non-EU citizens), they must possess a valid residence permit in order to be married. Civil ceremonies may be performed in any location, with the permission of the local mayor."
• "The legal minimum age for marriage in Greece is 18 years for both men and women. Those younger than 18 must obtain permission from the courts in order to marry." Dimadick (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the operative law should be Italy, where 18 is the marriage age, lowered to 16 with court approval. - Nunh-huh 00:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't Romeo like 20 or something? Talk about creepy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Juliet's age is given rather precisely ("a fortnight and odd days" short of 14), but Romeo is described only as a "youth." In the source for Romeo and Juliet, which was The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke, Juliet was 16. Various reasons have been given for why Shakespeare trimmed three years from her age but no one really knows. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

July 24

Grass skirt

The article Grass skirt is not good. I am trying to find scholarly articles that talk about the garment in detail including use by other people group besides tourist-baiting hula dancers. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)