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 10

Help identifying Novel

I am trying to find a book which I think is part of a series & from what I can remember it's about a either WWI or WWII warship that passes through time portal into a alternate timeline/ universe where Humans don't exist but there are two native species, one I think descendant from a dinosaur species & the other is mammalian ( I am thinking Lemur descendant, but not sure).
Any ideas ? 80.195.85.92 (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert Moore Williams wrote a story called The Lost Warship where the USS Idaho is cast back to the dinosaur age. DuncanHill (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that in the novel, the alternate timeline/ universe that the ship travels to is still in present day & the other two species there have their own fleets of ships that are based on a ship(s) that travelled from the 17th or 18th century, through the same portal. 80.195.85.92 (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

We have a List of fiction employing parallel universes but I couldn't see anything there that matched. DuncanHill (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that the OP's description is entirely accurate, because I read this novel around a year ago (no publication date can be inferred from this as I buy many 2nd-hand books).

Unfortunately I can't recall the author (it wasn't Williams) or title, I'm at work, and my home PC died last week so I won't be able to post a further reply this evening (I'm collecting the replacement tomorrow :-) ).

However, I'm 95% certain that the dimensional transfer occurred during the Second Battle of the Java Sea, so I'll look at that and see if I can remember more details. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Got it! Into the Storm by Taylor Anderson, 1st of the Destroyermen series. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the one, thanks for that. I just couldn't remember the name of either the book or the series. 80.195.85.92 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Odyssey of Flight 33 is very good and viewable here. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The OP might also like The Ship That Sailed the Time Stream (and its sequel) by G. C. Edmondson, which involves time- rather than dimensional-slippage but is otherwise quite similar to Anderson's series, and I suspect inspired it. (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

My first thought was the alleged Philadelphia Experiment, so I went to Philadelphia Experiment#In popular culture, but got side-tracked when I didn't find anything fitting ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

July 11

The witch drowning test: True or myth?

I don't know whether it's true or just a myth. The powers-that-were, I assume in Salem or thereabouts, reasoned that a witch would be able to extract herself from a life-threatening situation, so they devised the drowning test. If she drowned, she wasn't a witch. If she was a witch, presumably, she was then hanged. Thus, if you were accused of being a witch by such people, you were pretty much screwed. Since witches don't actually exist, I assume all those subjected to the drowning test passed it with flying colors. Obviously, these people failed to reason that a witch would also escape the noose, but living in an environment infested by witches is not conducive to rational thought.

My question is: True or myth? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether 'witches' exist is largely one of semantics. Whatever the case, they aren't magical. But that doesn't necessarily mean that no person could ever survive an attempted drowning not attempted under controlled conditions. That said, whilst there were indeed such 'trials' to see whether a suspected witch would float (not a particularly reliable indicator of anything in particular), the idea that the person would die either way seems to be a modern contrivance.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether they were magical is also down to semantics, and their audience's level of ignorance on how the natural world works. If nobody but the witches knew about static electricity and psilocybin, levitation and hallucination would appear magical. Even today, a weak sorcerer can pull a quarter out of many kids' ears, even though that shouldn't be possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:53, July 11, 2015 (UTC)

True. But we intuitively know what is meant by 'magical' here, as indicated by your contrast with appearing magical or with the work of an illusionist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Didn't mean to contrast. Not much difference between a witch's tricks and an illusionist's. All rely on obfuscating the actual mundane cause of an effect with strong suggestions of an arcane one. The old ones were just better at keeping secrets, something akin to older pro wrestlers. Now that the cat's (more or less) out of the bag, it's hard for the enlightened to imagine the older rubes as anything but gullible. But we'll look the same way to someone else about something "obvious", someday. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:36, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

We have articles about the practice, e.g. Dunking, Trial by ordeal#Witch-hunts, the History Channel has it as #1 in its list of 7 Bizarre Witch Trial Tests, and it shows up in several books, so it appears to be true. (Never doubt Monty Python.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Our Cucking stool article has a section called Use in identifying witches, which cites this reference for the practice: Behringer, Wolfgang (2004). Witches and witch-hunts: a global history. Themes in history. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 164. ISBN 0-7456-2718-8.. BTW, ducking women for "scolding" was still legal in New Jersey until 1972 according to the same article. Alansplodge (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, you have to put yourself into the mindset of people of the time. Lifespans were short, in any case, so one spent a great deal of time worrying about the "next life". Thus, whether you were buried in consecrated ground and thus allowed into heaven was more important than if you died sooner or later. In that context, determining whether somebody was a witch or not was far more important than how and when they died.

To try to understand this better, imagine that in the future we figure out how to achieve immortality by having the body regenerate itself, but car crashes remain as potentially deadly as they are now. At that point driving a car would seem insane, and people looking back on us doing so now would wonder what we were thinking. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• The suspect needn't drown to be innocent, if the idea was that water would reject a witch as unnatural; just make sure she sinks below the surface (without swimming), and then pull her out. —Tamfang (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I thought all humans float, at least without exhaling. (though if there's any waves and help is hours away you're probably screwed if you can't swim). Are some humans unable to sink if they make a deep exhalation? It's a very bad idea to do things that seem witchy if you're fat, big boobed and/or female, those humans float better. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the water, too. Salt is a magic ingredient, and nobody sinks in the Dead Sea. That was outside the witch-hunting zone, but American freshwater sometimes does weird things. Even a house can "float", if you don't see the poles. A famous skinny, flat-chested sorcerer once (apparently) walked on water, but was there a slightly sunken step-stone bridge? His lips are sealed. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, July 13, 2015 (UTC)

Listing of relatives in an obituary: how can an individual have two mothers-in-law?

I recently read in an obituary something that really threw me for a loop. I had to re-read it several times, and I puzzled over it quite a bit in an attempt to decipher what it meant. It said something like "She is survived by her mothers-in-law, Jane Doe and Jane Smith". I had never seen anything like that. So, how, exactly, does a person have two mothers-in-law? I came up with a few scenarios, but none particularly plausible (although, technically, possible). Any thoughts? I was trying to "read between the lines", but came up empty-handed. Any ideas? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The only things I came up with were these. Scenario "A": The decedent had been married to Husband #1, thereby gaining Mother-in-law #1. Husband died; wife remarried to Husband #2, thereby gaining Mother-in-law #2. After Husband #1 died, and the decedent married Husband #2, the decedent remained close to her "first" mother-in-law (close enough to list her in the obituary). However, that didn't quite seem to "fit" because the obituary would have said "She was predeceased by Husband #1". Scenario "B": Same as Scenario "A", except that Husband #1 left the picture via divorce, as opposed to death. This would also seem quite odd that the deceased would mention the (former) mother-in-law from the side of the husband whom she divorced. If the decedent were still close to and amicable with Husband #1, she would probably also mention him as a "surviving relative" in the obituary (and not just mention his mother). If the divorce were bitter and acrimonious, the decedent would not mention Husband #1. But, certainly, she would not mention Mother-in-law #1, either. I assume. Scenario "C": The decedent had a husband (or former husband). And that guy had two lesbian women as parents, meaning that he had two "mothers" and no "father". But that seems unlikely, given the age of the husband and the mothers-in-law and other facts. So, I am baffled. Any ideas? Also, the wording itself did not lend itself to be some form of a "typo" or error. "She is survived by her mothers-in-law, Jane Doe and Jane Smith" seems like a definitive description, not an error in word choice or a typo. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Or she was a polygamist. Or her husband had biological and adoptive parents. Or her husband's father had a sex change.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. But none plausible in your list. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

All more plausible than your suggestions. The middle one is most likely. Or it's figurative. Or an error.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I never said that my suggestions were plausible. In fact, I specifically stated that indeed they were not. Also, this isn't a contest. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Her husband was adopted. Only later in his life did his birth mother become an important relation. Bus stop (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Already covered that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed that. Sorry. Bus stop (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

No apology necessary. But since Joseph wants to consider the most likely scenario implausible, it doesn't really matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, it's implausible. By definition. In any event, if that were the scenario, the decedent then would also have two fathers-in-law. Correct? The natural father and the adoptive father. Of which there is no mention. So, again, knowing what little I know, that theory is implausible. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Never mind the number of mothers-in-law, I have never seen that usage and I think it's incorrect. One is survived by blood relatives and adopted children, etc, but not parents-in-law. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. But, maybe the wording was "she leaves behind ..." and not specifically "she is survived by ...". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Duh. The fathers-in-law were deceased.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Duh?" What are you, twelve? And if they were deceased, they would be listed as "she was pre-deceased by ...". Duh. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to put a great deal of stock in what you think 'should' have been printed. Assuming you've provided correct and complete information in the first place, plausible explanations have already been provided. Whether those satisfy your curiosity/ego is unimportant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how that answered my question. In fact, it deliberately avoids my question (i.e., to deflect the issue elsewhere). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

So what? Possible explanations have been provided, and there is insufficient information to know the actual circumstances. It's no one else's problem that you don't like the possible answers to what in practical terms is just a riddle based on an anecdote. You could call the funeral home, but chances are they'll tell you it's none of your business.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Dude, take a fucking chill pill. You do realize that this is a Help Desk internet question and answer board. Yes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Answers were provided that are appropriate to the information available in the question. Dude. Don't ask an ambiguous question and expect random people on the Internet to know the exact circumstances of an unsourced anecdote.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah real good point, dude. Yeah, I was really expecting random internet people to give me the exact circumstances. Yes, that is exactly what I was after. I need the "exact circumstances" explained to me. So, I came to a Wikipedia random chat board. You also realize that you do not have to participate in this discussion. Yes? You seem very defensive and angry, quite frankly. I read a strange obituary. It seemed strange to me. And, I can assure you, it would seem strange to 99.9999999% of the population. So, I asked about it. Not sure why this scenario offends you so much. If you don't want to participate in the conversation, don't. Got it? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And the question is not in any way ambiguous. It's quite clear. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Plausible answers were provided to the degree that the question was specific.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You are 100% right. And I was 100% wrong. Not sure what I was thinking. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Childish retorts aside, there is not sufficient information to know who is correct or to what degree. And no specific explanation has been asserted as 'the' definite explanation. If the answers provided (which may or may not include the correct explanation) don't satisfy your curiosity, there's nothing more that can be done for you here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, again, 100% correct. Thanks for the clarification! (LOL. A person who enters a conversation with "duh" is complaining about "childish retorts".) Love it. You can't make this stuff up. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I entered the conversation with possible explanations for the text. And I'm not the only one who has told you plausible explanations have been provided. You don't have to snap at people just because you don't like the answers you've received.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I like how your reply (explanation) completely glosses over your "duh" comment. How convenient for you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line would seem to be, "Your guess is as good as ours." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Other than ad hominem, it's not necessary to dwell on my use of "duh" in response to your apparent inability to establish why the fathers-in-law are not mentioned as survivors, and it isn't where I entered the conversation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Translation: you are right, I am wrong. Thanks for clarifying! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, your statement about where I entered the conversation was indeed wrong. The other commenting editors seem to agree that adoption is an entirely plausible explanation for this minor mystery. You're welcome.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Really? So, your "take" on all this is that the critical aspect is where/when exactly you "entered" the conversation? And not your "duh" comment? That is your take on this? Really? Again, how convenient for you. It's quite the truism, people believe exactly what they want to believe. LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Well yeah, the fact of where I entered the conversation is certainly more relevant to your claim of where I entered the conversation than my subsequent mildly humorous use of "duh". It's odd that you see it some other way.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What planet are you on? The issue (and the only issue) is your "childlike retort" of "duh" as a response to my post. There was never any issue about the precise moment at which you "entered" the conversation. (Any idiot can read the black-and-white words on this page and see all those facts that are in no way in dispute. The statements indeed are all time-stamped. So, how on earth can that be "the" issue? When you did or did not "enter".) It's odd that you see it some other way. What happened was this. In the same sentence, I happened to mention: (1) your entering the conversation; and (2) your childlike retort of "duh". So, to make it seem like I had no valid point and you did have a valid point, you focused your subsequent replies solely on irrelevant Point 1 and entirely neglected relevant Point 2. Again, your subsequent replies were all designed to deflect the issue and to give the appearance that you were right and I was wrong. Again, by your microscopically placing a focus on when you "entered" the conversation, whilst 100% ignoring your use of the childlike retort "duh". In my relevant post above, there was no issue whatsoever of the exact moment when you entered the conversation. The issue was your "duh" comment. Again, it's odd that you see it some other way. Not totally odd. Since your goal was to deflect the real issue and to focus on some minutiae that had no relevance whatsoever. Again, people believe what they want to believe. Including you. Now, it's quite clear that you want to "have the last word". So, go ahead, post again. And we can end this silliness. Let's just all agree that you are 100% right and I am 100% wrong. That's what you want to hear. Thanks. Post once more, so that you can have your desired "last word" on the topic. Then, we can be done. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's quite a rant. You're obviously deeply concerned about an offhand comment, and were so concerned about it that you felt the need to entirely misrepresent my involvement in the discussion by falsely claiming that I entered the conversation with that remark. Since I had actually provided the answers to your question when I entered the conversation, it's not clear why you're so rapt by a subsequent flippant comment. Maybe you simply want an apology for the 'deeply offensive' use of "duh". Okay, I'm sorry you were offended. It wasn't intended to be anything more than an offhand comment about your apparent inability to recognise that the fathers-in-law would not be mentioned as "survivors" if they were already deceased (and there is also no basis for your claim that they would in that case 'have to be' mentioned as 'pre-deceased').--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. As I said in my prior post, I'd let you get in the last word, as I suspected that you wanted to do. So, let's both move on. I accept your apology and offer mine, as well. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If he gets the last word, this thread won't eventually come down to one column, and we're so close! So, I disagree with both of you on everything. Prove me wrong! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Whether or not the thread gets reduced to just one column is a function of your individual settings and preferences. My thread is nowhere near being reduced to just one column. I believe that, with different settings and different preferences, different editors see very different things on their screen (Wikipedia page). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Aye, but there's a limit on how small a font can get before humans can't read it. One by one, all the world's browsers will fall in line. I'm not exactly close close, but so relatively close! And isn't relativity what this whole equality thing's about? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Definitely an indent record in my experience, if not Guinness-worthy. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We have only just begun to indent. Bus stop (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Even the best of indentions can lead to editors being on edge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The road to hell is paved with good indentions. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

More of a cul de sac than a road, at least for Joan Cusack's mother's daughter's brother. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:39, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I've not read every American obituary, of course, but in my genealogy research I've never seen anything but surviving spouse and immediate blood relatives, typically parents, siblings, and descendants. But even if parents-in-law were listed, no one has more than one mother-in-law and one father-in-law at any given time (unless there was a same-sex marriage involved, OR an [illegal] bigamous situation.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A number of scenarios have already been given where it is entirely possible for a person to have more than one mother-in-law. The most likely involving a person with biological and adoptive parents. It's entirely probable that an obituary might mention mothers-in-law if they are the only surviving relatives.The greatest element of doubt is whether the story has been correctly reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically. But suppose the father-in-law dies and the mother-in-law marries another woman. That woman is not a second mother-in-law, because she's not the mother of the widow. She could be called a stepmother-in-law, perhaps. If I were in the OP's shoes and was really, really curious about it, I would call the funeral home and see if they're willing to provide an explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: In your above post, is the word "widow" correct? I can't make sense of that sentence? In my mind, I am replacing the word "widow" with "surviving husband". No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I should have said "widower". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Sorry, I still don't follow. You said "she is not the mother of the widow". Now, you amend that to "she is not the mother of the widower". Who is the widower here? I think (?) you meant to say "surviving husband". No? The mother-in-law to the deceased woman/wife (the subject of the obituary) would be the mother to the surviving husband of the deceased woman/wife (the subject of the obituary). Where is a widower coming into play? I am totally lost. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. Got it now. Yes, now I understand what your above post means. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Strawman (or in this case strawwoman-in-law).--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

The suggestion that "the mother-in-law marries another woman" and the subsequent refutation is a straw man. It's not clear why you brought it up.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "subsequent refutation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Refutation: "That woman is not a second mother-in-law, because she's not the mother of the widow. She could be called a stepmother-in-law, perhaps."--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

According to Parent-in-law, the normal situation is to have one of each. So the question is to try to figure out exceptions, referenced or not. But even if we do, if there are multiple possible answers (which it looks like there are), then the OP would have to try to guess which one (if any) is the right answer in this case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the newspaper would probably just print whatever was submitted to them, it's also possible that the person who submitted the text simply didn't know (or didn't care) about the distinction.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That would certainly be the simplest explanation. And there's no way anyone here can know with certainty whether it was a mistake or typo; or done on purpose but mistakenly; or done on purpose and somehow factual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Story? What "story" are you referring to? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow. It's not a "newspaper story". It's an obituary. Those are (typically) written by the family members, not by some journalist or news writer. Also, as stated above, the specific wording seemed very deliberate and not the product of a "typo". Don't you agree? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The family usually provides the info, but someone at the newspaper posts it, and errors can certainly creep in. Anyway, Jeffro clarified below. And I say again, if you're just dying of curiosity, call the funeral home and see if they're willing to talk to you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, as stated above, the specific wording seemed very deliberate and not the product of a "typo". Don't you agree? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What seems to be, and what actually is, are not necessarily the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But please explain/clarify. If the wording were "She is survived by her mothers-in-law, Jane Doe and Jane Smith", what might be the likely typo? It seems pretty deliberate that they listed two female names. The whole "text" of the sentence (sentence structure, word choice, etc.) suggests it to be deliberate and not a typo. To me, at least. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Various plausible scenarios have been described here, but unless you contact someone, or if somehow a relative of the deceased is a Wikipedia ref desk reader, you're not going to know for sure. One thing: Is this a relative, or someone unrelated? If the latter, and if the obit is public, you could provide a link to it. Maybe it's even on findagrave.com. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I just went and re-read the obituary. The exact words were: "She is also survived by her mothers-in-law, FEMALE NAME #1 and FEMALE NAME #2." I would post the link, but another editor in this thread makes me uncomfortable. To be quite honest. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You're just getting exasperated with each other. Maybe see if you can find the entry on findagrave.com. If someone has set it up right, the situation might become clearer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear how posting a link would affect your unwarranted discomfort. However, the specific text provides only one unique result on Google, so it is either the person indicated by that search result, or the description is not unique.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a famous person. Just a regular average everyday person. So there is no reason they would be on Find A Grave website. I re-read the entire obituary. And there is nothing in there at all (reading as much as one can between the lines) that indicates adoption, gay marriage, bigamy, etc. Any of the above proposed theories. Again, I said "reading between the lines as much as one can do so". Of course, an obituary is not going to explicitly state: "oh, by the way, this family contains members who are adopted" or "oh, by the way, this family contains members who engaged in same-sex marriage" or the like. But, still, reading the names and relationshipss obviously offers some clues. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Findagrave has been open to ordinary people for a number of years now. Don't just make assumptions that something won't work - that's self-defeating. Try it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I never knew that. I just assumed that Find A Grave was for famous people. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You may even find a relative. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason why the obituary should delve into (or even hint at) the childhood circumstances or parentage of the deceased person's husband.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It could, though, if the relatives felt like getting into that kind of detail. In my experience, the texts of the obits are usually written by and for the family. They may contain info that looks mysterious to the general public but which totally makes sense to the family. AND, those obits can include mistakes sometimes. I've seen many an obit that had known mistakes in them. I've seen obvious errors on tombstones, too. Talk about etched in stone! These things happen sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that the family is probably paying by the word, so they might avoid too much detail even if they were otherwise OK with sharing family secrets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the anecdote related in the opening question rather than the obituary itself. Since there is no source, we can only assume that the details provided are accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

An obit could also be considered a "story" in the way that term is used in the newspaper business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It could. But that's not what I said.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

True. But this semantics debate doesn't answer the OP's question. Since it's a rather unusual listing, he would need to ask someone who knows. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, I could call the funeral home. And, I am sure that their answer would be "we can't discuss that with you" or "we can't provide that information" or "we print whatever the family tells us". If the next suggestion is that I call the family to inquire, I doubt that's a feasible option. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't know unless you try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is a somewhat convoluted case in California that discusses the possibility of having three or more legal parents. It's too recent to apply in this obit, but if you marry someone that has three legal parents, theoretically you could have multiple mothers-in-law (and/or fathers-in-law). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The assumption that relationships listed in an obituary must be legal or formal relationships is erroneous. People often pay for obits and they have word limits. They say what they believe is most important immediately following a family tragedy. I have an adopted sister who I love who was very close to my mother who raised her, but who also re-established a good relationship with her birth mother as an adult. If my sister's husband said that he has two mothers-in-law, that would be entirely his right, and who could argue with that? Or even consider it worthy of debate and dissection? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That scenario would make sense too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

―Mandruss ☎ 07:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Another possibility, not (as far as I can tell) mentioned above, is if her husband's father had divorced and re-married. His second wife will be her husband's step-mother, but it doesn't sound unreasonable to describe her as the deceased's "mother-in-law"; remember, the family are paying by the word, and "mothers-in-law" is cheaper than "mother-in-law and step-mother-in-law", even though it might be less accurate. Tevildo (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tevildo: Thanks. Now, that is something that had not occurred to me. And, quite frankly, seems the most plausible and/or realistic. More so than gay marriage, bigamy, etc. Thanks. And I disagree that this thread has been unproductive. Quite the opposite. It took this far down to get to it, but your suggestion was very helpful (i.e., productive). I had never thought of that and, yes, that makes a great deal of sense. In any event, I assume that 99.999999999% of the population would indeed find this phrasing odd (i.e., "I have two mothers-in-law."). (In fact, someone mentioned that, in a Google search, across millions of obituaries, this phrase came up exactly once.) So, clearly, it is an anomaly. And that is why I came to this Question Board. Which I almost regret. Too bad some people are the way that they are. Agree with Jack (below) that some people are a disgrace to Wikipedia. Let's remember folks, this is a Help desk. (As in, someone is asking for "help".) It's not a "Let me impress the world with how much I know and how much smarter I am than the OP" Desk. Am I right? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, a Google search for the phrase, "I have two mothers-in-law" turns up a few thousand results. It is the specific phrase, "She is also survived by her mothers-in-law" that produces only one result.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, unreal. The issue is the "fact" that a person claims to have two mothers-in-law. Whether it is stated one way ("I have two mothers-in-law") or another ("She is also survived by her mothers-in-law") is totally irrelevant. Again, the issue is a person claiming to have two mothers-in-law (regardless of the specific words they use to relate that sentiment). Geez. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You have again missed the point. Although it appears that only one obituary mentions the exact phrase "She is also survived by her mothers-in-law", the results for the phrase "I have two mothers-in-law" yields results that indicate that having two mothers-in-law is not so rare that "99.999999999%" (which incidentally, leaves less than one person) would find it odd.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it the one about the doctor in Florida? If it is, the Findagrave entry merely copies the obit verbatim MINUS the "survived by" portion, so no new clues directly. But the mothers-in-law can be found separately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

And if that's the one, it took all of about 10 minutes to figure out that the two women are a same-sex couple. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. The OP declined to specify whether that was the obituary in question, and expressed some degree of "discomfort" about being more specific. I therefore decided it was not worthwhile to focus on the fact that the case in question appears to be readily identifiable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the 'Scenario B' initially proposed (and rejected) by the OP. It seems less likely than adoption. If the obituary is the same one found on Google by searching for the phrase indicated, the obituary provided by the funeral home comprises several paragraphs, and unlikely to be impeded by the word-count issue suggested.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, the OP's Scenario B is for the deceased to have two husbands, each with one mother - my scenario gives her one husband, who has a mother and a step-mother. But I agree with Jack below that elements of this discussion are unproductive. Tevildo (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Quite right, I must have skimmed over the husband's father. But as before, if it's the instance that can be located using Google, word limit does not seem to be a concern. It is a shame though that the OP became so obstreperous regarding other possibilities even though one of those may actually be the case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Certain scenarios have been proposed. Some are perhaps more likely than others. Apart from that, we cannot possibly shed any more light on this particular case, without doing some more research. End of story. (Much of the above argy-bargy is an utter disgrace to this reference desk, by the way.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don′t know why I was rolled back when I suggested that this went to Wikipedia:Talk page highlights. 2A02:582:C55:2A00:C8C6:9BF9:7425:E42F (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You've never been rolled back - you only have the one edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ummm... no. IPs change, you know. This edit was rolled back https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=prev&oldid=671011262 2A02:582:C55:2A00:C8C6:9BF9:7425:E42F (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

How is anyone supposed to know what other IP's you've edited under? As to that entry, how would it have helped in answering the OP's question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, when two edits with pretty much the same content are done by two IPs both starting with the same digits and geolocating to the same place chances are that it is the same person, no? Also, I don′t think that all users′ edits always help in answering OP's question. 2A02:582:C55:2A00:C8C6:9BF9:7425:E42F (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I only saw one edit like that. Must have missed the other one. You may be right that not all responses are useful to answering the OP's question. Tell me how yours is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I never claimed that it was. 2A02:582:C55:2A00:C8C6:9BF9:7425:E42F (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That utter disgrace I referred to above is obviously continuing apace. Can you guys just get a grip, get a life, let go, and move on. It's disruptive; but the real cardinal sin is the vulgarity of it all. One is tarnished by association, and I may have to cross the street to avoid meeting you people in future from now on going forward. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

We run an elevated establishment. Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, assuming I found the right obit, the answer to your question is that the mother of the surviving husband is currently married to another woman. In this particular case, that's how you get two mothers-in-law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

In Slavic languages, the same word is used to refer to a mother-in-law and a grandmother-in-law. Could it be that one of the women was her husband's grandmother? Surtsicna (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, I found three online obituaries mentioning "mothers-in-law". If someone is up for stalkingGoogling, I'm sure each one could be explained. Surtsicna (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, three. I would not have even guessed that many. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Which leads me to wonder. I wonder if "fathers-in-law" is more common, less common, or about equal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to those who were helpful in this discussion. Much appreciated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Stations of the cross

At a Catholic church, a parishioner guided me at the stations of the cross and gave a brief description at each station. The parishioner also mentioned that people would pray at the stations of the cross during the season of Lent, which was also a season of fasting and prayer and charity in preparation of the big day of Easter. I thought, "Cool. I must see this." However, I am not sure how all the parishioners, hundreds or thousands of them, would fit at a certain station. How do Catholics proceed through the stations of the cross during Lent? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Lent is traditionally 40 days long, giving everyone plenty of time. And I assume you are talking about some replica stations of the cross, not the actual stations of the cross in Jerusalem, along the Via Dolorosa, which may indeed get very crowded. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

See also About the Stations of the Cross. It's one of many extra observances during Lent, and I think many parish churches would be very pleased to have "hundreds or thousands" in attendance for all of them. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

1) As noted, many parishioners are Lapsed Catholics, or "Christmas and Easter Catholics", meaning they only go to Mass on those two days of the year. 2) Of those that do regularly attend Catholic Mass weekly, a large number of those only go to the regular weekly masses (usually Sunday morning or Saturday afternoon) and don't often attend weekday masses or participate in many of the extra observances of the church. Catholics, who wish to, traditionally do the stations of the cross on Good Friday (though they are free to do so any day of Lent, or even the year, as they choose). There generally go through them at their own pace, praying at each station on their own. Good Friday, the traditional day to do the Stations of the Cross, is not one a Holy day of obligation, meaning that observant Catholics are not under any pressure under canon law to attend those services, or do the stations. --Jayron32 17:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been my experience. If individuals physically "visit" each station, that is done on an individual basis, not as a collective group. In other words, one or two people will do it now; one or two people will do it tomorrow; one or two people will do it later this evening; and so on. There is not a "big crowd" at any one time. If it is a collective group that is praying the Stations of the Cross (let's say, the entire Church congregation of 100 people), then they don't physically "visit" each station. The leader (priest) says what he says (prayers, description of that specific station, etc.). And the congregation will raise their heads and look at that station (from their seats). No one will "get up" from their seat and actually go to physically "visit" that station. Hope this helps. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really germane to the question, but the Stations of the Cross liturgy has been revived in some Anglo-Catholic and High Church parishes and, at least in some cases, the custom is for the congregation to follow the clergy around the stations (see Church of the Advent, Boston and Durham Cathedral). Alansplodge (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have attended a church where the entire congregation (there were perhaps 200 people in attendance) lined up and processed to each station (depicted on plaques between the windows). As the priest reached each station, the procession would halt... the priest would pray, and then the procession continued on to the next station. The congregation stayed in line (two by two), and did not crowd around at each halt... which meant that those at the end of the line were physically standing quite a distance from the station when we halted (in fact, the back of the line did not reach the plaque depicting the first station until the priest at the front of the line had physically reached the last). However, it was understood from the context that everyone was symbolically at the front of the line (with the priest) as he visited each station. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems very odd. So, when the priest is at Station Number 10, the people at the back of the line are still at Station Number 1 or so. That sort of defeats the purpose, no? Also, when the priest is finished and has left the last station, the rest of the congregation (who are still way back at Station Number 1 or 2) does what? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, the congregation remains in the pews, standing, and turns toward the priest who goes from station to station with deacons, cross- or candle-bearing altar boys, and the like. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Mine, also. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

In Catholicism, is eating the Body of Christ better than discarding it?

I once saw the communion wafer dropped on the floor. The priest picked it up. After the liturgy, I asked the priest what happened to the wafer; he told me he ate it. So, is eating the Body of Christ better than discarding it? Is there a correct way to dispose the Body of Christ? What would happen if none of the priests could not eat it because they had gluten-intolerance and their bodies would react negatively to the gluten? Would it just be put in the tabernacle then? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The article on the Eucharist [1] has a section on matter for the sacrament (i.e. the question of wheat and gluten-free wafers). As far as dropping the wafer, here's a website [2] that addresses some of that. No sure how authoritative it is, but it suggests that people have devoted some thought to the different scenarios. Herbivore (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

See also Catholic Straight Answers - What should a person do if a Host is accidentally dropped?; which says that if the wafer or "Host" can't be consumed, it can be washed away in a Sacrarium, a basin for disposal of holy water that drains into the ground rather than a sewer. Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It can only be washed away after dissolving it in water so that it no longer has the form of bread: once it loses the form of bread, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are no longer considered present in the same way (that substance is no longer present), and so it is merely something sacred to be disposed of respectfully (in the sacrarium, for example). 5.66.152.215 (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

When did the Middle Ages end according to the first people to use the idea?

I got this question after reading this section of the article "Middle Ages." It explains that the first person to use tripartite periodization for history, which means breaking history up into ancient, middle, and modern periods, was Leonardo Bruni in 1442, and in 1702 Christoph Cellarius popularized and standardized it. Of course, there's no one answer to when the Middle Ages ended, but today some common dates are the sack of Constantinople in the 1450s, the discovery of America in 1492 or the Protestant Reformation in 1517. What I want to know is, when did Leonardo Bruni and Christoph Cellarius think the Middle Ages ended? Obviously, for Bruni, it wasn't the sack of Constantinople! If anyone knows the answer please tell me! Thanks! Jonathan ^talk 23:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Bruni gives a specific date, but he evidently thought the Middle Ages had already ended. So, for him it probably ended with the generation before him, in the mid-to-late-14th century, the age of Petrarch and Boccaccio. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that gives me the context I needed. Jonathan ^talk 14:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I see that in the introduction to James Hankins' edition/translation of History of the Florentine People, Hankins says Leonardo dated the Middle Ages from the fall of Rome in 476 to "the revival of city life sometime in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries — a period marked by Germanic invasions and..." (that's all I can see on Google!). So, for Bruni it lasts up to the emergence of the Italian maritime republics, what we normally consider nowadays to be the central Middle Ages. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That last phrase isn't in the link, but I like it. More neutral than the "High" way. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed you also thought that on the Talk Page, seven years ago. Not trying to parrot/plagiarise you, just agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

A Google search on your quote gives a larger part in [3] which continues "... weak claims to imperial authority; and a modern period, beginning with the demise of the Holy Roman Empire as a force in Italian politics in the second half of the thirteenth century". PrimeHunter (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

July 12

Which one is the most useful housing affordability indicator? Listing price, sale price, or valuation?

I'm playing around with this housing price heat map thingy[4] and was wondering out of the three options (listing price, sale price, and valuation) which one is the most useful for someone looking for an affordable home. My other car is a cadr (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

For one specific person looking for an affordable home, the final sales prices seem most useful. However:

1) What you get for that price is also important. If you only get a one room apartment condo in one place for a given price, and get a 3 bedroom house for that in another, then the first option is out if you have a large family.

2) If you are looking at whether people who live there can afford houses, then you also need to consider local incomes. StuRat (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Pandectae in Novum Ordinem

Hi Guys Just interested, since our family name "Italici" is rare & we are all related, how my name: Jane Italici features in this book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.208.208 (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't - it's a scanning error that shows up in a 1782 edition/commentary of the Digest of Justinian (or the "Pandectae") on Google Books. It's a discussion of a law about whether Italians (i.e. people who lived in Italy but were not "ethnically Roman") were subject to Roman taxes in the Roman Empire. It actually says "sane Italici...", "surely the Italians..." Adam Bishop (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Teaching the Catechism in the Roman Catholic Church

I have heard before that the Roman Catholic Church teaches the catechism by a question-and-answer format, from the teacher/parent to the young child. Is there a reason to learn this way? Is the purpose to make sure that the individual gets the meaning and exact wording correctly to prevent any heresy? Does the concept apply to adult converts as well? Are there any concrete explanations of the highly abstract theological concepts, or is the point just to memorize it? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

For much of the Catholic church's history, most of its members were illiterate. This would make memorizing the core doctrines all the more necessary, especially since the priest's educational standards weren't much better until 500 years ago. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean modern-day Catholic children and adult converts have to memorize the catechism? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

From what I can find, a lot of Catholics say they're supposed to, but they don't necessarily do so. Looking over forum posts and blogs (which fail our normal reliable sourcing guidelines) leads me to believe that it's the major catechism in particular that most people want memorized (since the major catechism is religion-defining stuff like the Trinity, Incarnation, Resurrection, and so on). Advocates of memorizing minor catechisms (which elaborate on the major catechism) recommend it on the grounds that it helps internalize their teachings on ethics. For a similar example from personal experience, I had a religion professor who would fail any student who did not memorize Clifford Geertz's definition of religion verbatim. Even though I couldn't recite it now, I can still apply the interpretation of religion as 'a cultural system of symbols meant to give the world structure' to academic study (instead of my grandfather's definition of religion). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope you are aware that the word Catechism often means a document set up in a question and answer format. It is easy to teach that way because it is written that way. However the Catechism of the Catholic Church isn't written in Q&A format but also isn't supposed to be a teaching tool but a resource to make local teaching catechisms like Youcat which is a youth teaching catechism in Q&A format.[5]Rmhermen (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Baltimore Catechism was the standard text in America until Vatican II, I have a copy in storage, and my father was taught it at Catholic school, as was my brother-in-law in religion class (which is the main reason he is an atheist). It was out of style except in parochial schools by the time I was of age, and since I was confirmed at baptism (as is normal in the Byzantine rite) I did not attend confirmation lessons with the Latin rite kids.

My Grandfather converted to Catholicism on his deathbed, although he had attended mass for 50 years. He was required to make a show of studying the catechism. Everything I know was taught by my father who answered questions my sisters and I had after sunday mass. Basically my "formal" education was to be drilled in prayers, the 10 Commandments, and watered-down morality lessons.

The only real Catholicism I ever felt I got was from a crazy italian nun who heard voices. She taught the rosary, and the idea of offering up one's suffering to God, rather than complaining. Basically a form of mystical stoicism.

μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a catechism in Q&A format in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer - see here - described as "an instruction to be learned of every person before he be brought to be confirmed by the Bishop". (In my case the Bishop in question was Mervyn Stockwood, perhaps best remembered now for his embarrassing TV appearance criticising Monty Python's Life of Brian, but even in those days (1965 I think) we didn't have to learn the Catechism.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

http://usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/index.cfm —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

July 13

Transition from "Early" to "High" Middle Ages

What defines the transition from the "Early" to "High" Middle Ages? I can't see an explanation in the relevant articles. I know in the UK (or at least England), this is usually defined by the Norman Conquest, which marks a significant change here, but is I presume pretty irrelivent to the rest of Europe. Iapetus (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The defining features of the transition are the end of invasions by non-Christian non-state peoples (or barbarians) in the western European heartland along with the spread of Christianity to Scandinavia and the Baltic, the development of universities, and the development of merchant cities in northern Europe. (Urbanism had never entirely disappeared in southern Europe.) These factors came together during the 11th century and contributed to an expansion in population and new cultural developments. By the way, the "high middle ages" were a European phenomenon. This historical period doesn't make sense outside of Europe. Marco polo (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that its typically defined in terms of the fall of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, does "the middle ages" in general make much sense outside Europe and its immediate neighbours? Iapetus (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort in the Americas. Columbus "finding" them coincided with the dawn of the Renaissance, part of the "Modern Age". But we had a Medieval Warm Period named for the European thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

• Oddly enough, Wikipedia has an article titled Middle Ages (and articles on the Early Middle Ages and High Middle Ages and the Late Middle Ages too) which the OP is allowed to read and come to their own understanding of prevailing scholarship on the idea. --Jayron32 11:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I looked at all those articles, but while they discussed general trends within the various periods, I couldn't see a clear definition of what defined the transitions between the Early and High periods. (The Hight/Late transition seems to be clearer). Hence why the OP says What defines the transition from the "Early" to "High" Middle Ages? I can't see an explanation in the relevant articles. Iapetus (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

movie about the Arab Israeli conflict

Okay, so I don't know where this stumper should go, so here goes. There is a film that begins with a planned ambush on a busload of children by a bunch of stock baddies wearing kaffiyeh and sunglasses. Some of the bus passengers are armed and shoot back, all within the opening credits. The movie looks very late 1960s-early 1970s and can date to no later than 1983, I saw it as a kid. Any ideas?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I changed title to "movie" rather than "movies", since it's about one specific movie. StuRat (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hollywood movie, or miscellaneous? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Warhead seems to sort of fit, if the bus exploded in yours. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

If that's not it, I suggest asking on the Entertainment desk. --174.88.133.35 (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk you're incredible! How did you do that? If that's not it, it must have a twin. Fantastic, thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Googled "site:imdb.com schoolbus attack israeli". Nothing incredible about it, and I'm not just saying that to avoid a lawsuit. But you're welcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Holy water and dilution

I recall a Jesuit telling me there was no such thing as "half-holy water" - e.g. 1 L holy water and 1 L tap water make 2 L holy water - the idea being it doesn't make sense to speak of diluted holiness, and water is either holy or is not. Some quick googling [6] [7] suggests that some dilution is allowed, but that it shouldn't be diluted "too much" in some sense. This seems nonsensical to me. At least some of the discussions I've read apply the notion that putting a drop of holy water into a large tank does not make the whole tank holy.

From a theological perspective, it seems like there is an apparent paradox - either believers accept that all water is holy water, because it cannot be diluted (i.e. we can safely assume that at least some was lost at sea, and then entered the atmosphere, water cycle, etc.) or they accept that holy water can be diluted, and there is some threshold of dilution at which the "holiness" property goes away.

The question: Is there any serious discourse on this matter by theologians? The more reliable sources are preferred - official positions of churches or famous theologians rather than some priests' blog post. I don't care which denomination, or even non-Christian religions if they have some sense of holy water. I know this is kind of a weird thing to try to force a rational/scientific framework onto a religious topic, but keep in mind several very serious theologians have spilled much ink (and sometime blood) over "logical" answers to How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

(Oh, and in case anyone's curious, when pressed, said Jesuit told me that technically, yes, all water is holy and ocean water would do for sacramental use in a pinch, but priests like to bless things anyway: it's a tradition and also sort of their job. I just have no idea how orthodox or common his perspective was). SemanticMantis (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

See 86% Of Holy Water Teeming With E. Coli And Other Bacteria Found In Fecal Matter—Medical Daily (September 16, 2013)

and Holy springs and holy water: underestimated sources of illness?—PubMed (September 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not an official church statement, but Haggai 2:12-13 seems relevant because it appears to establish the principle that holiness, unlike uncleanliness, is not 'contagious', in other words, touching something holy does not make something holy. - Lindert (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the source itself is certainly apt, but I'm not so sure content is appropriate. I guess it comes down to whether mixing is interpreted as a type of "touching". Most sources I've seen seem to indicate that adding a bit of tap water to previously blessed tap water results in 100% holy water, not water that is 90% holy or anything like that. Here are a few other sources that say some added non-holy water keeps holy water's holiness intact [8] [9]. Very few refs though, even for weird claims that 1:2 ratio is OK, or that as long as more than half of the final volume was holy, the mixture remains holy. I understand that opinions on this will vary, I'm just looking for more credible sources. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's another answer from a Fr. Robert Levis, supporting a 50% rule: [10]. The book "Holy water and its significance for Catholics" [11] says something similar: "(d) Another question. If the holy water at hand might not be sufficient for the occasion, may water that is not blessed be added? Yes. But care must be taken not to add as great a quantity as there is of holy water." Note that the questions "Is it still holy water if diluted?" and "Should one dilute holy water?" are different questions and do not necessarily have the same answer. You can find guidelines about how one ought to prepare and reverently handle holy water, but that doesn't mean that any deviation immediately and definitely renders it non-holy-water. --Amble (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Lets keep this simple. Holy water can be that which comes from holy spring or dihydrogen monoxide that priest/vicar got out off his water faucet and blessed. It is the symbolic attribute given to it that matters. I once heard a vicar say that his was asked to baptize a chid with a bottle of water that her parents brought back form the river of Jordan. It was so rank and mucky that he boiled it for 15 minutes. P.S. Should any one bring home some holy water and a Customs & Excise Officer suggest that it smell like poitín – all you need to say is : Oh. Another blessed miracle ;-)--Aspro (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware that scientific rules of chemical composition, dilution and stochiometry won't apply to the concept of holiness of water. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You can destroy holy water very easily by adding enough blood or urine or soda or milk etc. Well at least the baptismal grade stuff. I'm not sure on the rules if it was blessed as water but then reddened with blood. You can bless non-water things but I don't know what happens if it changes form (like from lemon juice to lemonade). I don't know if it's still holy after freezing and melting but it cannot be used for baptism while still frozen and has to be enough to flow. But the Catholic Encyclopedia says that it's usable for baptism only if men would call it water. It lists things like ice, tears, blood, oil and I think milk, steam, sweat, saliva and maybe fire as examples of not water, many of which presumably are because of possibilities like somebody someday might rationalize in a salvation emergency that the blood gushing out of the soldier's wound is like 99% water. So if you don't use water to dilute it you could dilute it with a very small parts per million of blood, as blood makes water look bloody at very small concentrations. I don't know if food coloring disqualifies it, personally I'd call it colored water but disqualify pink water contaminated by blood. Maybe it said you should try to get as much holy water-skin contact as possible (wiping off any sweat, cleaning the area first) to apply directly to the forehead or could just baptise any attached hair even if the person died before the water ever flowed on their skin. I don't remember. I believe it made a judgement on seawater and maybe brackish water. Maybe it's okay. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Calamity Jane's cap

In Calamity Jane (film), Doris Day often wears what appears to be a blue Union Army forage cap which bears gold insignia. This looks, to me, to be two crossed cannons with a 5 above and a G (I really don't think it's a C) below. Some okay-ish photos are on these pages: [12], [13]. The prop cap looks quite a lot like this artillery cap. So:

• Is a specific unit denoted by the 5 G?
• Is there anything in the film which explains why Jane is wearing this specific cap?

Thanks. 87.114.100.65 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

On this page [14] (do a find on "1858 DRESS") there's a fancy dress hat with those insignia, but with crossed swords instead of cannons. It means "5th Regiment, Company G", according to the text. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Like this? I agree with StuRat (that doesn't happen often) that the number represents the regiment and the letter the company, or battery in the case of artillery, or troop if it was horse artillery. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I think this answer may be intended for the question above. Tevildo (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. now moved.--Aspro (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

European Union Referendum Bill

Has the bill been blocked? I went here today to see if it has reached its Third Reading and saw that it was where I had left it (Committee stage, 18 June), with the Report stage "not anounced yet". I browsed some newspapers and from their utter vagueness I figured out that Sir Bill Cash and a team of rebel Eurosceptic Tories nearly blocked the bill with an amendment concerning the date of the referendum. The only vote, however, involving Tory rebels that I could find was this one, but it was not about the date, it was about the publication of campaign material. I stand a little confused, which is not normally the case...--The Traditionalist (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It all looks fine to me. It's perhaps worth remembering that the commons rise for the summer recess a week yesterday and don't return until the seventh of September ([15]) and in the next week have to deal with various other things. (Like beginning to approve the announcements in the budget that require legislation). Fixing detailed dates six weeks in advance is probably unnecessary. In support of this, I will point out that of the government bills before the commons ([16], and make appropriate selections at the top), only the Finance and Work & Welfare Reform Bills have dates for their next stages, and both of them are in July. 128.232.236.110 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful banter

Isn't that "Euroskeptic" ? A "Eurosceptic" sounds like a spray you use to get rid of all those nasty Europeans crawling about. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC) "Eurosceptic" is British English, "Euroskeptic" is American English. Source: I'm a British sub-editor (copy editor) for an American newspaper. "Euroskeptic" looks weird to me. 36.225.127.230 (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, see Euroscepticism and Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC) And note that sceptic is pronounced like skeptic, not like septic. --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC) A gathering of positive-thinking British individuals could be called an antisceptic tank. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Curiously, the Cockney rhyming slang for an American person is "septic tank" (rhymes with "Yank"). Alansplodge (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC) And I can think of some things that rhyme with "Brit". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC) @Baseball Bugs: Pitt?--The Traditionalist (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC) The trick with rhyming slang is that the rhyme itself should not be profane, even though it might allude to something that is. Those are the rules. Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Wake Island claimed by Marshall Islands?

Our article states that Wake is claimed by the Marshall Islands. Its source - and the only source, from what I can find - is a single sentence in the CIA World Factbook. Is there any further evidence of this? Either a first party source, or a third party source specifically citing something other than the CIA World Factbook? --Golbez (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a claim that seems to be being pressed very vigorously, but it has been asserted from time to time. See, for example, [17], [18]. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hrm. Thank you for these. The second source is exactly the problem; I can find lots of sources saying it's claimed with absolutely nothing backing it up. I'm starting to wonder if everyone's quoting everyone else and it's taken on a life of its own. However, the first source is by far the most info I've found on the subject, even giving a year (1990) and a person making the claim. Unfortunately, that source seems to be the only one on the Internet with this information, making it difficult to verify. The best I suppose I could do is search the Congressional Record in 1990 for mentions of Guam and Wake but that still doesn't give me info on the claim. --Golbez (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You could try contacting the Marshallese Embassy and see if they have any information. For what it's worth, though, I'd note the obvious fact that the CIA World Factbook is a U.S. Government publication. It's hard to imagine that that particular source would mention another country's claim to U.S. territory unless the country had actually asserted the claim in some way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is true, but misstatements can have inertia, and it's also odd that the World Factbook appears to be the only US government publication that even alludes to this dispute. --Golbez (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Circumventing ATM problem in Greece

I'm not naive enough to think a million other people haven't already thought about this and a thousand other things, I just ask because I don't know the answer. I have heard there is a limit to how much cash people can get out of ATM machines in Greece. Supposing a Greek has a lot in their account, do most have debit cards for their bank accounts? As an American, it is a common experience for me to be able to, when buying groceries at the supermarket, request "cash back" so that my food bill + $X is taken out of my account and I can get $X cash in change. Do supermarkets in Greece, or elsewhere in Europe offer "cash back"? Of course if supermarkets are getting as squeezed as citizens are, I could understand if they didn't offer this.

One more question: If the answer to my previous question is "Yes, there is cash back in Europe," what if a Greek with money they wanted to get out of their account but couldn't because of the withdrawal restrictions took a trip to Italy, bought some celery, and asked for a bunch of cash back? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well first off, I wonder why you would have a bank account without a debit card, unless it's a long term savings or investment account or the like. Of course there is cashback. Card payments may be limited in Greece at the moment though, apparently lots of shops are insisting on cash. Haven't heard anything about cashback. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Could Greeks get 10 times the cash in one go if they don't withdraw for 10 days? Not that that could help anyone beyond a little convenience. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if they could, the Greek economy currently is grounded to a halt. And that's a problem not at the level of the individual: "it’s dangerous to have money in your account". Besides of it, the Greek law, and in the same way several other European countries all put a limitation on cash payments [19]. --Askedonty (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, you'd be stupid to not take it out every day. But I wasn't sure it was technically impossible. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, ATM for your comfort. I also tend to think of the "teller" in "ATM" as of one sort of Oracle, not as a dish, which is what "Teller" stands for in German. --Askedonty (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Supermarkets in the UK certainly offer cashback, though usually only up to (I think) £50 per transaction. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no cashback possibility in Greece (there wasn't before capital controls). When using a debit/credit card or web/mobile banking for a transaction there is no limit for purchases/transfers within Greece (except the pre-existing daily,monthly or whatever limits). Finally, the daily ATM withdrawal limit applies always, even if one hasn't withdrawn during previous days. 79.107.43.132 (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it common, or even possible, for Greeks to have a second account with a different bank? In the UK it is fairly trivial to open as many as you want, if you can visit all the relevant bank branches and you don't need overdrafts. Then you could make transfers between the accounts and withdraw €60 per account per day. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if one already had many accounts/cards (before the banks were closed), they could withdraw many times, and indeed this is quite common. Anyway, there haven't been major problems of shortage of cash for simple everyday transactions. The main problem of course concerns buisiness transactions with other countries. Also, a very large number of elderly pensioners who had no bank cards could only withdraw 120 euros per week in some banks open only for them. 79.107.21.73 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, I would think no supermarket or other business is going to accept a greek credit or debit card these days, whether for "cashback" or purchases. The "payment" would be purely theoretical, as the business would have no way of utilizing the customer's money which has been transferred into their (for all practical purposes, frozen) business banking account. 121.219.62.223 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

July 14

What is going on here?

What is going on here? This seems like some kind of Russian talent show. Why do the judges, or whatever they are, sit so that they can't see the singer? And then, why are they hitting that button, and turning their chairs around? Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the video but that sounds like The Voice (TV series). Hack (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup. From our article on the franchise:

"Contestants are aspiring singers drawn from public auditions. The show's format features four stages of competition. The first is the blind auditions, in which the four coaches, all noteworthy recording artists, listen to the contestants in chairs facing opposite the stage so as to avoid seeing them. If a coach likes what they hear from that contestant, they press a button to rotate their chairs to signify that they are interested in working with that contestant. If more than one coach presses their button, the contestant chooses the coach he or she wants to work with. The blind auditions end when each coach has a set number of contestants to work with."

AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. That is an interesting arrangement. Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's spelt out right there in the notes to the clip: "The Voice Kids Russia - Season 1 - Irina Morozova - Non, je ne regrette rien". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you're right, I did not even notice that. Bus stop (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I notice you didn't apologise for your gross failure. Does that mean that tous ne regrettes rien, aussi? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am riddled with regret. Bus stop (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Eeeexcellent! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

lol Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that the reason to not see them is so they can be evaluated based on their singing alone, as opposed to their attractiveness, hairstyle, clothes, race, etc. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is non-religious male genital mutilation considered normal in the US?

This has always bothered me. Male genital mutilation (euphemistically called 'circumcision' here on wiki) is traditionally a religious procedure. Now, religions condone many barbaric practices, and this is not my question. I wonder why the general population in the US (ie not Muslims or Jew) practice male genital mutilation. Here in Europe is is practically unheard of, and indeed there is a movement to ban it. Can someone explain to me why an unnecessary and indeed likely damaging 'medical procedure' on infants is considered normal in the US? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi 131.251.254.154—from where do you derive that circumcision is considered normal in the United States? If your premise is incorrect, does it make any sense trying to answer your question? And you are characterizing circumcision as male genital mutilation. Can you ask your question without the use of characterization? Would you be able to pose your question in neutral terms? Or is the characterization of circumcision as male genital mutilation essential to your question? Bus stop (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There is an interesting article on changing attitudes in Britain, the US and elsewhere here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Our article on prevalence of circumcision contains statistics for various countries and regions. For the US it says "The CDC reported in 2011 that, following an earlier increase in neonatal circumcision rates, rates decreased in the period 1999 to 2010. Citing three different data sources, most recent rates were 56.9% in 2008 (NHDS) 56.3% in 2008 (NIS), and 54.7% in 2010 (CDM)". These figures are higher than the statistics given for most European countries, which are generally between 10% and 20%. The statistics do not distinguish between religious and non-religious circumcision - indeed, I'm not sure how you could reliably make a distinction between religious circumcision and cultural/traditional circumcision. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"Here in Europe"? It is very widespread in the part of Europe in which I live. Surtsicna (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

History of male circumcision#Revival in the English-speaking world. -- ToE 11:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't get away with your presumption that circumcision is "mutilation". In my day, it was generally done, for sanitation reasons. And unless the doctor royally screws up, it's no loss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Not taking any side on this rather inflammatory OP, but the sanitation argument is complete nonsense. There is such a thing as washing. Fgf10 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The ignorance of some people is astounding. Try to get over your bias for a minute and do some basic research. Circumcision on males is completely justified by medical science. While you can wash your dingus it does get dirty before it's washed... Circumcision as done properly by western medical doctors comes with no ill side effects. For ethical reasons it should be performed shortly after birth rather that waiting until personhood has developed. Now with penile cancer the penis has to be surgically removed in order for a man to keep living. However being a man without a penis can be devastating. 99% of men who get penile cancer were uncircumcised. So just by being circumcised you can significantly reduce the chance of penile cancer. Many people prefer circumcised penis's because it is more sanitary and pleasant (extra skin adds no fun value). I wish I could post references but due to the nature of the subject I will not be.. Sorry is this seems snarky but people really should do basic research before coming to the reference desk. Void burn (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow! How about some references for those rather grand, and most certainly incorrect claims? Personal preference is of course just due to cultural bias. Fgf10 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha!!!!! That's why every normal guy has his penis either rot off from filth or from cancer? That's a ludicrous statement. And extra skin adds no fun? Really?! During intercourse it won't matter, but during masturbation? Get real. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Void burn, you need to provide evidence for the "comes with no ill side effects". How about the loss of sensation? It is reported as the most sensitive part of the male body, so there could very well be a side effect when it is removed. Obviously if you have been circumcised as a child, you could not know by personal experience. --Lgriot (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That has been thoroughly debunked. If the procedure is done properly there are no ill side effects Void burn (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do 30 minutes of research to liberate yourself of your ignorance before trying to start debates on the reference desk. Your reading comprehension could also use some work. Out of the men who do get penile cancer 99% of them are uncircumcised. Read that carefully, twice if you need to. you said "That's why every normal guy has his penis either rot off from filth or from cancer". Depending on where you live in the world "normal" can constitute either uncircumcised or circumcised. The fact is about the percentage of men WHO GET penile cancer to begin with. Void burn (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(correct indenting). I am a research scientist. I am more than capable of judging evidence. Provide me with some. The studies I've seen suggest a mild protective effect of circumcision for penile cancer. Most certainly there's not a 99% clear cut thing. Provide me with evidence to the contrary or stop your dogmatic shouting at everyone. The same for you rather bold sensation claim. Fgf10 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you live in the Europe, penile cancer chance is 0.001 % in your entire lifetime according to cancer.org [20]. Given that tiny figure, I am glad my parents made the choice they made. Are you claiming that there is no loss of sensation? How can you have the sensation without the nerve endings? They are definitely cut off with the skin... Are you claming the nerve endings grow back afterwards? I am just really confused, Void burn, since you provide no reference. --Lgriot (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's mostly left-over custom from the late 19th to early 20th century, people like the Kelloggs thought that circumcision was a good way to reduce the "sin" of masturbation (it's not). See Will_Keith_Kellogg and John_Harvey_Kellogg#Masturbation_prevention - he also thought it was a good idea to rub phenol on a girl's clitoris. Also they were really in to enemas. So make of that what you will. Here's a site that has some good historical references [21]. As for "mutilation" - that is a very loaded term, so perhaps you should use more neutral language like "non-consensual removal of parts of an infant's genital tissue" - nobody can really disagree with that. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's offensively wordy to this nobody. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:00, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

I thought circumcision occurred waaaay before the 19th century. I think it was first invented by neo pagan jews who hacked some flesh off the dingus with a sharp rock? It has evolved in many different ways throughout history. Perhaps coincidence that something that originated as an insane religious belief turned out to be a useful/ethical practice thousands of years later? Void burn (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

How is it a) Useful and b) ethical if it's a non-necessary medical procedure on a non-consenting individual? Fgf10 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Circumcised kids didn't ask to be born and didn't need to be, either. But once they're delivered, they find their purpose and happiness along the way. So do their dicks. If they later make the informed decision that they like the cut look/feel, that justifies the cutter's decision. If they find they don't, that's a character-building hardship to eventually overcome. Like Marge Simpson said, God tested Moses in the desert, not teased. Works in mysterious ways. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:56, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Circumcision is of course much older. Unlike many of the other responses, I was addressing why and when it rose in popularity among certain groups in the USA. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read my responses in the middle of this post. I have answered your questions there. Void burn (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please follow our WP:INDENT] conventions. I have added an indentation to this response. When you reply without indent, it makes it look like the following comments are responding to you. Correct indentation style helps keep long discussions readable. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the Skeptoid article on circumcision. I encourage everyone to read it. It's general points are:

-Regardless of sanitation claims (they're there, the problem is whether they're worthwhile outside of Subsaharan Africa) circumcision is not harmful if done properly

-Loss of sensation cannot be shown to occur: "While it's clear that circumcised men can and do enjoy sex, some argue that they are missing out on an even better experience, though studies have not yet shown this to be the case."

-The consent argument is flawed: babies and even children don't have the capacity to give their informed consent to anything, which is why their parents' job. Not in article, but if you want to argue that the state can/should override the parent's consent on this issue, you need to demonstrate that it significantly benefits everyone else (as with vaccination and mandatory education), or you're opening the door letting voters argue that all children should be made to attend Sunday school, or raised vegan, or whatever. Unless you just want to follow Plato and argue that all children should be raised by the state.

Calm articles like that that do weigh all aspects are more convincing than sensationalism. If anyone here really wants to discourage circumcision, follow the path given in the Skeptoid article. If anyone wants to convince people that anti-circumcisionists are a bunch of baby-cock-worshiping psychos, behave like the comment section of that article: call it mutilation (and do a disservice to victims of real genital mutilation), scream about loss of sensation (no matter how many circumcised men successfully have sex everyday), and hell, go on and say circumcised men aren't whole (as if people are defined by their genitals instead of their accomplishments).

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That an infant doesn't have the capacity to consent isn't a flaw in the argument - it's the core of the argument. This is mentioned a few times, with references, at Ethics_of_circumcision. I'm relatively certain that people who object to infant circumcision on these grounds have no problem with voluntary circumcision performed on a consenting adult. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say that it is a flaw in the argument? I said the argument itself is flawed. The Skeptoid article points out "The problem with this argument lies in the fact that infants don't have bodily autonomy. Parents have the legal ability and duty to consent over changes to a child's body, with the requirement that such changes are made in the child's best interest." The article you mention says "Regardless of these issues, the general practice of the medical community is to receive surrogate informed consent or permission from parents or legal guardians for non-therapeutic circumcision of children." Whatever the medical community says about the child's right to consent, they still side with the parents. As the Skeptoid article points out, that's where it needs to be left until society ceases carrying out circumcision of its own accord: removing the choice from the parents will lead some of them to carry it out in non-medical conditions -- a net loss. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's England's National Health Service on the issue. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Introduction.aspx Some of the proponents here may be surprised to see how much the pendulum has swung against the practice. The original question has still not been answered: why such a difference between the USA and some other English-speaking countries? I think it may indeed go back to the Kelloggs. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for bringing this back to topic. I'll repost here History_of_male_circumcision - which also mentions the advocacy of some Brits - Jonathan_Hutchinson wrote " "I am inclined to believe that [circumcision] may often accomplish much, both in breaking the habit [of masturbation] as an immediate result, and in diminishing the temptation to it subsequently." Lewis_Sayre was another American who was a strong proponent of circumcising all males. It seems the Americans who promoted as a way of reducing sinful masturbation were perhaps just more successful than their UK counterparts. I found some nice historical info on Australai [22], showing that prevalence of neonatal circumcision started increasing at the start of the 20th century, and peaking in the 1970s. This source for the USA [23] shows a similar trend, but USA reached 70% circumcision by 2000, while AU has been declining since its peak in 1955. Another key player seems to be Claude_François_Lallemand - this [24] page says he thought that loss of sperm was dangerous to health, and that "His ideas were not taken up in Europe, but fell on fertile ground in Britain and USA." So it seems the USA was really sold on the idea that it was a moral good to reduce masturbation, and the medical justifications came later. For more on Kellogg, check out a complete text here [25], where he explains that masturbation is heinous, evil and vile, akin to sodomy, and that it cause pimples, and is in fact the cause of most health problems. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

DFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rojomoke (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC) big jewry and white Christian europeans Why does big jewry try to wipeout/undermine white christians by pushing cultural marxism and encouraging nonwhite iimmigration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almightyman244 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Why does big trollery try to undermine the Wikipedia reference desk by pushing unfounded, ill-defined and utterly unanswerable questions, in an effort to foment heated discussion and massive disruption? Sorry, but we're not playing that game any more. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Jack obviouly works for big jewry.

Lawrence E. Stager

Good Morning! What is the full name of Lawrence E. Stager? What name is the E.? Thanks... --195.32.24.254 (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes, he's Lawrence G. Stager. No clue which is right. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:03, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Why don't English speakers learn Latin anymore?

Since when did English speakers stop using Latin in important documents? Writers in the 19th century seem to use a lot of Latin-derived words. Was Latin a requirement for the educated class back then, and as a result, it became natural to create English words derived from Latin? I noticed that early scientists also spoke Latin as the lingua franca and gave themselves Latin personal names. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker, and I learned Latin. We have some relevant info at lingua franca, List_of_lingua_francas#Greek_and_Latin, Contemporary_Latin#In_science. Currently English is the lingua franca of academics, and you'll see plenty of e.g. German and Chinese researchers publishing papers in English-language journals. This book [26] seems like it would have a lot to say about Latin's decline as a lingua franca. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Learning and using a dead language rather than communicate in the common language was one way for the upper class to put themselves above commoners. This was always bad for commoners, who couldn't understand Latin, making them unaware of what their lawyers, doctors, and priests were saying. Thus, as the world has become more democratic, use of Latin has declined. Even those with total contempt for the common man now see the benefit in pretending to be a common man. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Priests and lawyers and doctors didn't communicate with illiterate people in Latin. They might write things in Latin that their clients couldn't read, but they weren't speaking to them in an incomprehensible language. That would have been a bit counterproductive... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Also, to a layperson, a modern lawyer's or doctor's technobabble is so incomprehensible they might as well use Latin. (Not to mention that tons of technical terms are Latinisms, but even if they were formed from native Germanic material as common in German, technical jargon would still baffle laypeople.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the replacement of Latin by English as a lingua franca is a big improvement – unless you've grown up Anglophone in the first place, of course. The advantage of Latin that Latinophiles like to point out is that it is a foreign language for everyone, so nobody has an unfair advantage (the same argument is used in favour of Esperanto and other conlangs/auxlangs). Granted, Italians, for example, did have an advantage over Germans and Europeans over Asians when Latin was used, but the advantage was far less pronounced than with English, where Anglophones – and to a smaller extent native speakers of any Germanic language – have a huge advantage over non-Anglophones (or non-Germanic-speakers in general, respectively), which constitutes a language-based form of privilege on the part of Anglophones, and a form of structural discrimination of non-Anglophones. (In the case of Esperanto and other IE-based conlangs/auxlangs, the situation is similar to Latin – they're far from optimal from the point of view of non-Europeans, but still considerably more democratic/egalitarian choices. The advantage of native speakers of Germanic languages with regard to English is not much greater than that of Italians with regard to Latin or IE-based conlangs/auxlangs, but at least barely anybody has a bigger advantage in those cases.) Basically, the Anglophone world engages in a form of linguistic colonisation. (The rise of the auxlangs was only possible due to the gap between the decline of Latin and later French as linguae francae and the rise of German and later English to replace them.) A final point, Latin was no more a "dead language" in the medieval and early modern period than Arabic is now. (Even English has "dead language" aspects – a great divide between the written and the spoken everyday common language –, mainly the orthography, which is notoriously 600 years out of date. That makes English roughly as "dead" as Late Latin was in Romance-speaking Europe.)

To recap: If anything, Latin is a more democratic lingua franca than English. Your idea that it is otherwise reveals a glaring Anglophone bias, and is an exemplary demonstration of privilege blindness. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Modern linguists have admitted that English is a Germanic language and consequently stopped trying to force the language into a Latin-

based grammatical framework. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Huh? That has nothing to do with the original question. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Li Yong

Magpies and Wild Rabbits (Li Yong)

This page says the artist lived from c. 1430 - 1495 and that the picture is from the 13th century. How does this fit? -- Cherubino (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Like a square peg in a round hole. But seriously, what worries me more is that I can find no trace of that Li Yong fellow. The only site I could find that mentions him is the site you linked to. Contact Basemetal here 18:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

PS One Google Books result does mention a Tang painter named Li Yong but I still couldn't find anything from the period(s) relevant to your painting. Odd. Contact Basemetal here 18:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The source is clearly unreliable. I suggest you contact the people who run that website.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Offshore processing of refugees and irregular migrants to the European Union

Is there any suitably large island the EU might be able to use for a migrant processing centre, where people rescued from the Mediterranean could be humanely looked after and the genuine refugees sorted from the other chancers, who would be flown home? Seems like the only real options at the moment are to let them drown, or set them free in Italy or Greece to go wherever they want, neither of which seems like a good idea. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Britain? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Lol :D 213.205.251.155 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

But seriously. Is there somewhere big enough, in the Mediterranean, not currently inhabited by people, used for anything much, or important to an endangered species of plant or animal, that could be made safe and secure for this? 213.205.251.155 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't make a lot of sense. Uninhabited usually means uninhabitable, these days. It'd cost a lot to staff the place, and to ship the migrants where you think they should end up. And then that boat might capsize.

Better to set up in the place where most seek refuge. That way, only the "undesirable" need a long trip to elsewhere (from a real airport), and the "legitimate" ones are already pretty much there. Somewhere like Britain. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

We could fit handholds underneath all the Eurostar train carriages too, for maximum efficiency. Assuming you're being totally serious of course. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There's Gavdos. Might work, hypothetically. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

That's the sort of place I was thinking of. From the description in the article, it seems like it could even use the investment. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Mediterranean islands are rather popular for holidays: Cyprus, Malta, Crete, Corfu, Capri, Ibiza, to name but a few. Rockall is uninhabited but has disadvantages. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Might work for the babies, if they're not the rolling sort. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Round hole, square pegs only please. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You might want to look at List of islands in the Mediterranean. 184.147.127.87 (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Migrants don't want to be processed. They would not go to such an island (as they know their plea may get refused) . They just want to get to the promised land as soon as possible; where British ATM's advertise that they offer free cash free to use cash machines and they can get welfare housing with all bills paid.--Aspro (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I was implying they wouldn't be given a choice. When boats were intercepted, presumably by an EU member state's navy, the people in them could be taken to the processing centre. At gunpoint if necessary. We owe migrants safety, but not necessarily a free pass to go anywhere no matter what their reasons were. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me but it seems to me you're making one of two assumptions here, either that if only such an island could be found (and incidentally what chances are there that the EU just never thought of looking at a map?) the EU's immigration policy could be made to start making sense, or that the EU's immigration policy does not simply because no such island could be found? I think I would question either assumption. But leaving that aside, what would you say is "suitably large" and how have you determined that? Do you know how many people would have to be processed? How long their processing (and thus their stay on such an island) would take? How many people would be required to process them? How many people would be required to run such a facility, to feed them, watch over them, keep them from trying to swim away if the island was too close to the shore, keep them from killing each other, supply them with water, food, dispose of the waste they would produce, build the facility, bring in fuel, fly those accepted into Europe and those denied out of Europe and so on and so forth? For 15 years there have been thousands of illegal immigrants crowding into the Pas-de-Calais area in France, trying to get into Britain through the Channel Tunnel (a daft idea in itself it seems: how many have actually managed to cross?) and Europe has not even tried to do anything about it. What likelihood is there that a sensible European immigration policy only depends on the presence of a suitable island in the Mediterranean? Contact Basemetal here 21:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Australian policy of sending all refugees to islands in the Pacific, which I did think had cut the numbers of boat people quite a lot, and quite quickly. If they are actual refugees, Nauru is safe. If they just fancy a nice life in Australia, which Australians don't seem to believe they owe them, Nauru is a deterrent. But you're right, for Europe, I really don't know what sort of size the processing centre might need to be. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also occurred to me that if this island was in Greece, which is bust, building the facilities and hiring staff could be a useful bit of investment from the rest of the EU. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's an open question how much the Pacific Solution or in particular the offshore processing (as the latest Pacific Solution includes trying to settle them there if possible) actually stopped the boats compared to other factors. Be it other facets of the Australian policy (i.e. pull factors) such as forcing the boats to return, towing them if necessary and apparently even paying the "criminal scum" (or whatever the current Australian buzz word is for people smugglers) themselves and possibly turning a blind eye to sinking boats if possible (and keeping quiet about them if it isn't election season) and of course the latest policy of never letting them settle in Australia. Or be changes in the number of people near Australia looking for a new home due to various geopolitic events (i.e. push factors).

See for example these largely counterpoints of view [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]] [33] [34] (last two same thing I think). And note that both the Howard and Abbott policies have relied on a great deal of secrecy over what's actually happening, which they and supporters (see the later Quandrant link) claim are a necessary part of the policy. But this makes it very easy for them to claim great success.

One more thing these sources do hint at, that I also saw in others I'm lazy to find again, is the possibily some of the effects are temporary or a one time thing, e.g. people are first unsure and the numbers drop, but once they realise that after living through the hellhole offshore processing centre, they'll make it to their destination, things heat up again. (If you try the earlier mentioned new Australian policy of actually settling them somewhere else, this may have a somewhat different effect, but this wasn't your question and you need to find someone to accept them that will comply with your legal requirements which as Australia with their small number of refugees have found, isn't easy.)

And one thing not really mentioned in these is the possibility of third party countries policies and actions also affecting the situation. (This can be seen as either a push factor or pull factor depending on your POV.)

Also unfortunately most of these are old and don't well consider stuff post 2013, however I think the first link is interesting, it did predict the current fall and also mentions how it didn't seem to have fallen yet (at the time) despite Gillard's policies. While I'm sure Abbott government supporters will have plenty of reasons on why they say he was successful but Gillard (and Rudd the second time around) weren't even though their policies were similar (but as the first source says, Gillard's policies at least didn't seem to have so much of an effect). E.g. people not believing they were serious or whatever [35].

A final point is as much as the offshore processing may have an effect without the other factors, it's not really clear if it's politicial or legally possible to do the same in the EU. In other words, you don't need to just find an island, but you may need to make it as much of a hell hole and be as slow at processing as they are in Australia and you need to get the people and the ECHR to allow it.

And note this may include denying media access, and a compliant media so people don't really know how bad it is. Successful demonisation of boat people helps, such that the media and people aren't so interested in counter POV. It also means there's little politicial opposition to such policies. (These also apply to the wider secrecy and wider policies.)

One "advantage" the EU does have in terms of making it a hell hole (not so much in terms of finding a place) is the numbers they're dealing with compared to Australia. One big disadvantage is the wide diversity between countries, so even if, for example, people in the UK may be willing to accept Australia's solution, it doesn't mean most people in all other countries in the EU will.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing the assumption is that, by keeping them offshore, they would not be entitled to all the generous benefits they get once they manage to land in an EU nation. I'm not sure if this is the case. But, if it is, perhaps those boats full of immigrants that are intercepted could be redirected to anchored barges, modified to house the illegal immigrants. Of course, we really also need to eliminate the cause of all this illegal immigration. For example, NATO (Europe and the US) needs to wipe out ISIS and the various other terrorist organizations in Africa and the Middle East, so those people can all stay (or return) home. Then there's the economic problems that cause immigration. Time for a Marshall Plan to solve those, again paid for by the EU and US (maybe Japan would help, and who knows, perhaps even China). Yes, this will all be very costly, but ignoring the problems will only make them bigger and more expensive to fix. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My assumptions were that a huge and growing number of people want to make the trip, that not all of them are genuine refugees, that they have delusions about Europe being the Promised Land where everything is perfect, and that we have no chance of solving the problem humanely unless providing safety gets detached from providing a free pass to go anywhere. I don't believe letting them all in is politically sustainable in Europe, but stopping them crossing at all would mean a naval blockade of the entire south and east Mediterranean coast, and would be the worst possible option in humanitarian terms. There needs to be a deterrent that they would notice before even deciding to leave their own countries. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, warehousing them on an island doesn't actually solve the problem, it just delays it. That is, people will just accumulate there until any location you pick will fill up, and even providing them with the basics will become prohibitively expensive (you can ship some back, but sending those facing starvation or who came from a war zone back would be tantamount to murder). It might work short-term, just to give the EU a breather, but then you do need to actually use that time to solve the problem. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if the actual refugees with a good claim were resettled in Europe proper, while the rest were deported all the way home as fast as they were identified? Plus the deterrent effect of this warehouse camp even existing? 213.205.251.155 (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how we could "solve the problem" in terms of making everyone on earth happy to stay put in their own countries, or by convincing Europe to allow unlimited immigration. Tony Blair thought he could perfect the world by force, and look how that ended up. A place like I suggested seems like the best realistic option. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to make the world perfect, just end the current violence on a massive scale and improve the economy to the point where people can make a living at home. Most people have a natural reluctance to move to a foreign nation, so, as long as they think they can survive at home, most will stay there. As for Tony Blair, the reason not to take out Saddam was that he might be replaced by somebody worse. Well, this is the somebody worse. It can't get much worse than ISIS, so they should be taken out next. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Even that seems a long way beyond the abilities of any EU member states, and certainly much harder than processing refugee claims competently. Even if the West was to wipe out ISIS, I'm sure someone would find a way of making a new mess in the space thus created. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We've taken out far tougher enemies than ISIS in the past. Right now they are like the Nazi's who bicycled into the Rhineland, easily defeated if we would just make the effort. Later on, who knows. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Not disputing that NATO could flatten ISIS, at least back to being a mere insurgency. I just doubt anything stable would arise in their place, since they wouldn't have been overthrown by the locals. If the West builds another useless puppet government with no local support beyond a few bandits and looters, it will fall to bits once our troops are eventually withdrawn - and I think we both know that eventually they would be. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone who replied. My question was answered (Gavdos) by InedibleHulk. Now I just need to become dictator of Europe, and start building. Same thing we do every Tuesday night, Pinky... 213.205.251.155 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to get you started on your newly found vocation: "Sieg heil mein fuhrer" and as its Tuesday night, who's going to buy the first round? Its no good asking Goebbels as he has no xxxx'x at all.--Aspro (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

July 15

Trying to recall short story

I think the name was something like Shall These Bones Live?, but that gets too many irrelevant hits.

Goes something like this: A woman wakes up in the wilderness, and can find no other humans around. She tries to figure out why, and the answer comes to her in a dream: Humanity is extinct, but she has been resurrected from her remains by a species that does that sort of thing. Just her, no one else. But they can resurrect the whole human race if they want to. She communicates with them by asking questions in her head before going to sleep, and the answer comes in a dream.

Ring any bells? --Trovatore (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Did Philip José Farmer ever write a short story (featuring Alice Liddell maybe?) as an early version of the Riverworld story? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a short story, but the basic plot reminds me of Octavia Butler's Lilith's Brood series.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Trovatore, I believe you're thinking of Ted Reynolds's Hugo-nominated story "Can These Bones Live?" (1979). If you can see this Google Books search result, click on the "Page 344" link for a brief description. Deor (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Deor: has it! Thanks very much to all. --Trovatore (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Admin roles

Do people who work in admin roles get stuck in admin roles? do they ever become a manager? 90.192.122.101 (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(a) Yes, often. (b) Yes, often. Do you really want references for this?-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

They can often end up as managers of the other people in those admin roles. Dismas|^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

My wife worked in admin for a year, and then was made a manager, so with a sample size of 1, there's a data point for you. --Jayron32 11:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Can the same be said for customer service jobs? 46.233.116.68 (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"Admin roles" can mean different things to different people. But even so, I'm pretty sure Jack's answers are spot-on. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

What about an admin role in an operational environment such as retail or transport hubs? 90.192.122.101 (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Deicide-by-human in non-Christian religions

Our article on Deicide only includes one actual supposed example of a belief of humans committing this act - the death of Jesus. Most of the rest of the article is filled with references to fictional works.

There's mention of Ragnarök, but reading that article boggles my brain. It appears that the foretold deaths of the various gods will not occur by human hands.

My question is this: Are there any religions (even "niche" ones) besides Christianity, which profess the belief that it is possible (even theoretically) for A God to experience death at the hands of A Human or Humans?

(I'm specifically excluding beliefs of Gods killing each other, which, I believe, do exist). 121.219.62.223 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Jesus was human. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a slippery slope question. Many would say that the "death of jesus" is not based on fact. Many denominations of Christianity have different interpretations.

Christianity is very ambiguous (like many religions) here Void burn (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgetting the debate about whether Jesus actually existed, the conventional Christian belief is that Jesus was a physically mortal being. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am skeptical of Mr. Bug's claim of "conventional belief". There are denominations of Christianity that believe jesus is god. Void burn (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity of Christianity Void burn (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Of the historical Christian sects that lasted beyond the fall of Rome (and for more than a generation or two) but are older than the Louisiana Purchase, Jesus was held to be 100% God and 100% human, only debating which should be listed first and which was in charge. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Back on topic, Attis/Adonis was killed by a stray boar in some myths, so he probably could have been killed by a human. However, he could have also been deified after death. I can't remember the title, but the cycle that Cath Maige Tuired is a part of is followed by the human ancestors of the Irish waltzing into Ireland and kicking their gods' asses. Couldn't tell you if they were worshiping the survivors (which would fit your question), or if the gods (though defeated) were still immortal, or if this was later Christian interpolation (like the Irish being descended from a granddaughter of Noah who built her own boat). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Krishna died after being mortally wounded in a hunting accident. 184.147.127.87 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)