Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 July 11

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

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, 11 July 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, 12 July 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, 13 July 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, 14 July 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, 14 July 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, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, that was a weird thing to say, but a conversation killer? I beg you to differ! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 16 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)

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

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, 12 July 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, 12 July 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)