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 7

Did Bouguereau have English ancestry?

I ask because of his name (William). It is very much understandable for French people of English ancestry to have an English name (or the English version), for example Michael Lonsdale, William Waddington and Alfred Sisley. Bouguereau's article mentions nothing of Enlish ancestry and his surname is French. Is there any information about his mother? For, if she was English, she could have asked for an English name for her son (along with the French one, Adolphe). This is also reinforced by the fact that he preferred William to Adolphe, which may denote affection for his English mother.

Thank you in advance.--The Theosophist (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia article does mention that he was "a des origines anglaises.", but provides no source. This book claims his father was English, but doesn't explain why his surname is French. Maybe his parents weren't married, or he or his father simply adopted a French name. - Lindert (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Large numbers of Britons have French surnames, Peter de la Billière springs to mind. Many of them are descended from Huguenot refugees who came here following the Edict of Fontainebleau and the resulting unpleasantness directed at Protestants. There were more refugees during the 18th and 19th centuries from various revolutions, of which the French seem to be especially fond. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Lots of very old British families also have French surnames because of the influx of the Norman French people at the time of the Norman Conquest. Any of your various Fitz-<blank> names are of Norman-French origin (fitz = fils = son of), but so are many English family names which look even more "French" to modern eyes and which have been in the British Isles for a millennium, such as names like Grenville and Gascoyne and Granger (name) and the like. --Jayron32 02:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly many British people have French surnames. Walter de la Mare comes to mind first, along with many Beauchamps, Villiers′s and Zouche′s. Still, if a British family of French ancestry (re-)settles in France, it would be rather peculiar if they gave their French-born child an English name. Also, his article somehow leaves the impression that the family was long-established in La Rochelle, and his uncle being a priest with a French name furtherly reinforces it. We have to learn more about his mother, for sure.--The Traditionalist (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

People give their kids names, and sometimes, they just up and give them names from other cultures, I don't know, maybe because they like the sound of them. Maybe no one bothered to ask until you did just now, and now since their dead, we'll never know why Casimir Pierre Périer's parents gave him a Slavic first name. It happens. --Jayron32 07:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it certainly meant something to the family, given that his son added it to the family name.--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This site gives some of his ancestry, but nothing springs out as obviously English. Interestingly, his second wife was one Elizabeth Jane Gardner, who sounds like a typical English gel. William's mother opposed his remarrying after his first wife died in 1877, at least not till after she (his mother) had died herself, so as an obedient son he waited almost 20 years before making Elizabeth his spouse in 1896. (Personal note: I have long wanted to know the answer to the OP's question, as Bouguereau's Le ravissement de Psyché became my favourite painting from the moment I first laid eyes on it, but I have never come across any explanation for "William"). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that his wife being British is really relevant, even though it could signify an appreciation for this country by the whole family, but few people think like that. By the way, this painting is beautiful. I believe that Bouguereau was one of the greatest 19th century painters along with Ary Scheffer and pretty much everyone listed here.--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, William Bouguereau's grandfather was William Buggerall of East Norwich. When he was hired as Marie Antoinette's court milliner in 1789 he moved to Paris and changed his last name. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"A Balagvatan"

I've recently aquired a reproduction of a 1626 map of Asia by John Speed. Around the edge of the map are illustrations of various peoples of the region, e.g. "A SVMATRAN", "A CHINEAN", "A IAVAN", "MOSCOVIAN". Despite the spelling, capitalization, and inconsistant use of the indefinite article, I can work out what all of the nations and ethinicities are - except one: "A BALAGVATAN". I've tried Googling both "Balagvatan" and "Balaguatan", with no success. (The former gives a single result for a map site with a link to a low-res picture of the map in question but no explanation of the word, while the latter gives what appears to be a foreign-language site that I can't access). Does anyone know what people this is supposed to be? (I'm guessing it might refer to Balaghat in India, but I can see the name on the map, and it seems unlikely that the cartographer would have included a nationality without including their actual place of origin). If it helps, there is a better image of the map here - the person in question is the man in the bottom left corner wearing the off-the-shoulder tunic and bangles around his wrists and ankles. Iapetus (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that the final -an is evidently the demonym suffix, we'd have to search for "Balagvat" or "Balaguat" for the placename. Several 18th and early 19th century sources [1][2][3] mention an Indian province of "Balagate", "Balaguat" or "Balaghat" whose capital was Aurangabad, Maharashtra. We don't seem to have a Wikipedia entry for that specific region (the present city of Balaghat seems to be a bit further east), but the Balaghat mountain range [4] is also somewhere in that area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Funny hair color for an Indian. Contact Basemetal here 17:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Javan's skin and hair don't look very accurate either, so I don't think that those offer reliable evidence about the peoples labeled. Probably the artist hadn't seen or didn't know how to draw non-Europeans. Marco polo (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I was in Bangladesh a couple of years ago, and a lot of men there seem to dye their hair (or just beards) ginger. I don't know how contemporary Bangladeshi fashions compare to 17th Century Central Indian ones, but it could be that Balaguatans did the same. (The most impressive hair-styling in the illustrations though has the be the Tartarian, with his enormous moustach and pigtails). Iapetus (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Dying one's beard with henna is specifically a Muslim custom in imitation of Muhammad. See Henna#History. Google "henna beard" (image search) for some examples. Also some discussion here. Contact Basemetal here 16:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the "blond"-looking things on the heads of these figures are even supposed to be hair, but rather some form of headdress, aren't they? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You're certainly right for the Javan. It's a turban without any doubt. But as to the Balagvatan, even zooming in at 400% (in Chrome) it still looks like hair to me. @Wardog, since you own a hardcopy you could examine the Balagvatan with a magnifying glass and settle the question. Contact Basemetal here 18:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: @Wardog, if you're gonna use a magnifying glass, could you check if that fellow has an upavītam (sacred thread) hanging from the left shoulder. That would indicate a Brahmin or possibly a Parsi. It's hard to tell because part of his dress is also hanging from the left shoulder. Contact Basemetal here 18:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it is hair on his head, rather than a hat of some kind. I can't see any sign of a thread over his shoulder. Incidently, the colours in my version are somewhat different from the linked image. Most of the orangish colours (e.g. the Syrian woman's clothes, the Arabian's tunic, and the Balagutan's robe) are bluish or purplish, the Javan and Chinese clothes as browner, and the Moscovian is pale pink with white trim rather than red with orange trim. I'm guessing this is either do use a pigment error in the reproduction, or fading in the original it was coloured from, or possibly different versions of the originals being coloured in differently to begin with. Iapetus (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Could he be from Baluchistan? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the guy be from Afghanistan or thereabouts, the light hair colour (if it is his real hair colour, obviously, and not a pure fantasy portrait) would not be all that improbable. Blond hair is still found in some remote mountain regions, especially Nuristan, and fair eyes are even more widely spread in this part of the world – often suspected to be a heritage from the ancient Aryans (not to be confused with the Ancient Aliens), and a pointer to their European (though rather eastern than northern) origin. Scouring the web for images of people, particularly kids, from Afghanistan (especially Nuristani or Kalash) brings forth some surprising portraits. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't find Balaguat on the map, but I agree that somewhere in India sounds more likely; also, even if the person is supposed to be a Brahmin, and the hair colour roughly correct and natural (despite Wardog's arguments), I would still be surprised – in antiquity, apparently Brahmins could be blond, but in the 17th century? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

What ethnic group is the name "Ali Ag Wadossene" from?

Moved to the language desk

Store within a store

In the Store-within-a-store concept, who typically hires the staff? The actual store the store within a store is located in or the store within the store? 94.14.216.80 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If the "to be used by a different company to run another, independent store" part is true, that different independent company would do the hiring. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

Yep, my WP:OR niece worked at a Starbucks inside a Target store. From her end, the Target was irrelevant - all hiring, managing, etc was through Starbucks. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The only obvious need for coordination is that the inside store can't open before, or close after, the outside store, unless they have a separate entrance. In a sit-down restaurant, they also would need to allow people time to finish their meals before the outside store closes, so might need to have their last "sitting" an hour before that, or make special arrangements to keep one door open after closing time (typically with a guard posted to ensure people only leave via that door). StuRat (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Logically speaking, if the main store were doing the hiring, that would defeat the point of outsourcing the inner store. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Did Velázquez change his surname?

All Spanish people have two surnames: the maternal and the paternal. For example, Federico García Lorca, where García is the surname coming from his father and Lorca the one coming from his mother. Similarly, his father was Federico García Rodríguez and his mother was Vicenta Lorca Romero. Diego Velázquez′s full name was Diego Rodríguez de Silva Velázquez. It looks like he used his mother′s surname, which is not at all peculiar, as painters are certainly expected to have pseudonyms. His daughter, however, was called Francisca de Silva Velázquez Pacheco. Does this mean that he changed his surname, removing Rodríguez and adding Velázquez?--The Traditionalist (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In our article, Spanish naming customs#Generational transmission, it says "Patrilineal surname transmission was not always the norm in Spanish speaking societies. Prior to the mid-eighteenth century,[citation needed] when the current paternal-maternal surname combination norm came into existence, Hispanophone societies often practised matrilineal surname transmission, giving children the maternal surname..." Maybe Velazquez' family was following this tradition. Rojomoke (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Aren't Portuguese naming customs still like that? I think Velazquez was Portuguese on his father's side (father born in Spain but both paternal grandparents Portuguese)? Contact Basemetal here 22:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Basemetal: No, in Portugal too the child takes both surnames but the maternal goes first (e.g., Federico Lorca García). The paternal is transmitted as usual.--The Traditionalist (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

July 8

A question regarding recent work by David C. Mitchell on the Psalms

If you know or have access to David C. Mitchell's work on the Psalms and in particular the following three references:

1. David C. Mitchell "The Songs of Ascents: Psalms 120 to 134 in the Worship of Jerusalem's temples" (Campbell: Newton Mearns 2015)
2. David C. Mitchell "Resinging the Temple Psalmody", JSOT 36 (2012) pp. 355–378
3. David C. Mitchell "How Can We Sing the Lord's Song?" in S. Gillingham (ed.), "Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms" (OUP, 2013) pp. 119–133

could you help with the following question:

David C. Mitchell seems to have some credibility as a scholar of the Psalms (if we go by where his articles are published and who prefaces his books; for example the first book in the above list was prefaced by John Barton, professor at Oxford University).

On the other hand two recent contributions to WP ([5], [6]) claim that David C. Mitchell supports Haïk-Vantoura's proposed "decipherment" of the tropes of the Hebrew Bible.

I have a hard time understanding that anyone with any credibility can lend their support to her work and I suspect that anyone who's read her book and become acquainted with her "methodology" will be left as baffled as I am.

If you can help shed some light on this matter (eg what precisely David C. Mitchell had to say regarding Haïk-Vantoura's proposed reconstruction) I'll be very grateful.

Contact Basemetal here 01:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Accessing hard-to-find references is probably better to be asked of WP:REX rather than the ref desks. You may get better luck there. --Jayron32 02:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just filed a request. Contact Basemetal here 02:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the name Monthermer

Whence derives the medieval English name Monthermer, as used by the prominent lord Ralph de Monthermer? I presume it is a place somewhere in Normandy or elsewhere in northern France. Perhaps Monthermé in Champagne? Also, any general information about the origin of this family would be useful. Zacwill16 (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A similar research is to be found here while remaining unconclusive. ( The next answer in the same thread is not uninteresting at least as its conclusion, critical of the edition or version used in [7] the Wikisource entry dedicated to Ralph de Monthermer, seems sufficiently authoritative to perhaps be accurate) --Askedonty (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Canada / Australia confusion

On the radio this morning, I heard an interview with a politician who was supposed to attend a function in Bucharest, but had gone to Budapest instead. It reminded me of a well-publicized incident from about 15 years ago, when booking flights online was the latest hi-tech exciting thing to do: a couple wanted to go to Australia, but ended up in Canada. To assist me in looking it up, does anyone have any suggestions for the places involved? We need a town in Canada that isn't of international renown but which is big enough to have its own airport, and which has a name which is identical, or at least very similar, to a major city in Australia. Tevildo (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm reminded of an indident in The Book of Heroic Failures, where an opera set intended for Bayreuth ended up in Beirut. DuncanHill (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Along the same lines: many years ago (1985?) there was a poisoning scare around some Austrian wines which led Japanese customers to start avoiding Australian wines. I've also heard that (in the 1990s?) the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Quai d'Orsay) once summoned by mistake the Ambassador of Nigeria instead of that of Niger to tell them about something the French Government was unhappy about. The Nigerian ambassador was totally baffled. I'm less sure about this one. There's also got to be some stories of people confusing Slovakia and Slovenia but I don't know of any. Contact Basemetal here 22:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

According to this, the Slovakia/Slovenia confusion is indeed very common. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a Victoria in Canada, and another in Australia. The latter is not a city though. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sydney, Nova Scotia? There's an airport nearby. Contact Basemetal here 22:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Basemetal could be right - our article Sydney/J.A. Douglas McCurdy Airport says "Over the years, several travellers have been sent to this airport after their travel agents mistook it for the Sydney Airport in Australia." DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sydney it is - this is the story. Thanks very much! Tevildo (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

August. Not too bad. I'd love to see the face of someone who's booked a flight in order to escape European winter weather for a few days and who arrives in Sydney, Nova Scotia in the middle of January. Contact Basemetal here 22:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Give me Nova Scotia in January over New South Wales in January any day. DuncanHill (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If anyone finds a story on the net about a guy who thought he was going to Sydney, Nova Scotia, ended up in Sydney, New South Wales by mistake and complained about it, we know it's gotta be Duncan. Contact Basemetal here 01:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Then there was the time a would-be terrorist named Stosh hijacked a flight from Moscow to Warsaw, and demanded to be taken to Poland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Which is why it's properly called Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Three years ago the same thing happened to a bunch of Athletic Bilbao fans when they flew to see the Europa Cup final but went to Budapest while it was being held in Bucharest. MarnetteD|Talk 22:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is an article confirming a couple who were sent to Sydney airport in Canada when they wanted to go to Australia. It is only from five years ago so it could be a separate incident from the one that Tevildo is asking about. MarnetteD|Talk 22:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops I see that while I was typing they the incident from '02 was discovered. MarnetteD|Talk 22:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Similar... a friend of mine who works for an airline says baggage that is supposed to go to Auckland, NZ often ends up being sent to Oakland, CA (and vice-versa). He has not heard of this happening to passengers however. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The internet delivers. Hack (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

For a while Facebook places confused Sydney, NS with Sydney, NSW. Hack (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sidney, Montana also received a lost tourist.[8] Hack (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you should see the look on people's faces at Hobart International Airport when they discover they aren't in Tanzania.

(Not true of course: the pretentiously named Hobart "International" Airport hasn't had scheduled international flights since 1998. And those so-called "international" flights were to New Zealand.)

Apart from a six-month period in 2004 when flights to Fiji were scheduled, the equally pretentiously named Canberra International Airport has never had any scheduled international flights in the 17 years since it became "International". I'm all for positive affirmations and forward thinking, but this seems to be an extraordinarily long gestation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Imagine the disappointment on finding oneself in CIA when one expected another CIA entirely. DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Being forced to visit Canberra is a form of torture as some recent US visitors found out. Hack (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

They were hardly "visiting Canberra". They were diverted from a planned Sydney landing because of a hazard, and were stuck inside the plane, on the Canberra tarmac, for 4+ hours, because United Airlines chose to handle the situation that way and at no time did they request permission from the airport for their passengers to disembark. This reflects poorly on United Airlines, but on Canberra not at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 14:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Pete in New Zealand (as I plan to pretend I am for the duration of the 2015 Rugby World Cup) aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Couple flown to Grenada in the Caribbean and not Granada in Spain lose $34,000 lawsuit. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Might float someone's boat to compare Locations in Canada with an English name to Locations in Australia with an English name. Those English sure got around. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, July 9, 2015 (UTC)

Same with those Scots (except for article name consistency). See here and here. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, July 9, 2015 (UTC)

A few years ago a news article told of a Japanese man, who spoke no English, who wanted to fly from Japan to Washington DC for a vacation. He wound up in Washington state, and had a fine time, viewing public buildings in the state capitol of Olympia, and was not aware for some time that he was in the wrong place (perhaps not until he got home and showed people his snapshots). Edison (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A recent news story in the UK concerned a busload of Belgian football fans going to see their national side at the recent UEFA Euro 2016 qualifier in Cardiff, Wales, but ended up in Wales, South Yorkshire instead. [9] Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

And then there's the Italian family who went to meet their daughter's train in it:Monaco di Baviera rather than the other Monaco. —Tamfang (talk)

July 9

First Daguerreotype of Non-White

What is the earliest documented daguerreotype of a person of color (non-white)? Also the first daguerreotype of an African-American slave?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

For the second question, possibly the 1850 series commissioned by Louis Agassiz? See Agassiz Zealy slave portraits. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

For the other question, the first daguerreotypes of non-Europeans ( term in use by museum) were made by Louis-Auguste Bisson in Paris in 1841-42: "Type descendant de Canarien". When looking for links regarding Bisson an inconvenience in some links is the pictures of human skulls taken by Bisson as involved in ethnographic studies. Where of concern the first pictures of non-Whites in Africa, amongst them are the daguerreotypes by frigate Captain Charles Guillain in Somalia in 1846-48. One of those beautiful pictures by Guillain also here to be seen. --Askedonty (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Architectural style of the former building of the Royal College of Organists.

Could anyone please tell me the architectural style of this beautiful building in London? Neither Royal College of Organists nor Royal College of Music mention it. Thanks in advance, --Ann (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The style is (basically) Arts and Crafts, and the technique is sgraffito. See this article for more information. Tevildo (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Successful pre-Kindle self-published authors

What authors became successful through self-publishing in the paper book era? There must have been some (otherwise words like "self-publishing" and "vanity press" wouldn't have existed), but the only example I can think of is Virginia Woolf, who published everything through the Hogarth Press that she and her husband ran. Are there other examples of self-made self-published authors (not authors who briefly self-published and then got picked up by a professional press)? Smurrayinchester 05:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, but a distinction must be made between the quite common situation, such as the Hogarth Press mentioned above, when an author is also an editor, and a true self-published work. In the first case, the editor also publishes other writers, so it's not really what the OP is looking for. --Xuxl (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a lengthy discussion on the matter here. Amanda Hocking is one example. Note that "self-publishing" and "vanity publishing" are not the same thing. --Viennese Waltz 09:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Timothy Mo. DuncanHill (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Edward Tufte mortgaged his house to fund the printing of The Visual Display of Quantitative Information after discussions with publishers failed. I imagine the textbook publishers thought it wasn't textbook-y enough, and the popsci publishers thought no-one would pay $40 for a book about pie charts. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 11:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Late in his career, William Morris began published his own 1st book editions (often following their magazine serialization) via his own Kelmscott Press, but was of course already a successful author (etc.) so did not thus 'become' successful as the PO stipulates. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

A few centuries ago, almost all authors self-published (although they would use professional printers) ... most books prior to around 1800 (as a very rough estimate) would probably qualify as being "self-published" as we use that term today... at least initially. Copyright laws were also less clear back then, and so and it was not uncommon for a successful book to subsequently be re-published (illegally by today's standards) by a professional publisher trying to cash in on the book's success. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sequence of ancient Armenian kings

Which one came first, Artavasdes I of Armenia (Artavasdes I agrees with this one) or Tigranes I? The articles List of Armenian kings and Artaxiad dynasty have the dates basically swapped compared to the articles on the individual rulers. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you agree with one listing? Is there some source you have for this, or is it the memory of one? μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with either. I tried not to imply that, but I couldn't find a wording which avoided the implication (and then decided it wasn't all that important to take the time to find a wording which does). In short: Whatever. I just want to know the facts. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I read "Artevesdes" I agree with this one, not "Artavesdes I" agrees with this one due to my eyesight. I thought you had a source in mind with which you agreed and were looking to have your memory jogged. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Never mind! It seems this problem is more widespread, should that comfort you a little ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Although the second century Greek writer Appian stated that Tigranes' father was also named Tigranes, the majority of scholarly opinion holds that Tigranes was the son of Artavasdes. Tigranes' birth date of circa 140 B.C. is deduced from the tradition that he was eighty-five years old at the time of his death in 55 B.C.

Tigranes the Great. Dictionary of World Biography: The Ancient World. —eric 04:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused now ... does that mean that it is not even certain that Tigranes I (as distinct from Tigranes the Great) actually existed? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Tigranes II seems to have been a hostage during I's reign, precluding them from being the same. Even if we believe "other sources", somebody aside from Tigranes II had to be Tigranes I for at least a few years.

It was a long time ago, though. Hard to be certain of much. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:24, July 11, 2015 (UTC)

OK, I understand that we don't know very much about the Artaxiads preceding Tigranes the Great. But then we shouldn't pretend we could give precise dates for their reigns, and gloss over all difficulties. We should state the actual facts in the relevant articles, or at least admit to more uncertainty than the precise dates make it seem like. And the contradiction between the articles remains; not only do the dates not match at all, the sets of articles even contradict each other on the sequence of the kings – I don't think this should be tolerated.

Is there any chance of locating Wikipedians with even more knowledge of expertise on ancient history, especially of Armenia, who have a good handle on what we know and what we don't regarding the Artaxiads, and which solutions, sequences and dates are how plausible? Theoretically, talk pages of WikiProjects (and Portals) should be suitable (in this case Armenia, History and Classical Greece and Rome look appropriate), but they are often rather deserted or at least look that way, especially in the smaller WikiProjects. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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/enwiki/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)

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)

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 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 [10] 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 [11] 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)

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)

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[12] 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.[13]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)

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)

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)

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 [14] [15] 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 [16] [17]. 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)

• 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)

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: [18], [19]. 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 [20] (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) 17:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)