Revision as of 11:41, 8 January 2015

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

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.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 1

new brunswick place names

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technically 47 days, minus the Sundays. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Median height of world population?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for all the answers so far! I'll still be happy if someone can find more concrete data to narrow down an answer to this question... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2

Were the ancient Egyptians Coptic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cities not connected to transportation network

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect. While the urban core does not have an interstate running through it, Interstate 5 passes within 6-8 miles of the center of Bakersfield, and the city limits of Bakersfield do encompass a tiny sliver of Interstate 5. It is clearly "served" by an interstate, though one doesn't run through the dead center of the city. See . Lynchburg, on the other hand, is some 30-40 miles from the nearest Interstate. See No city as large as Lynchburg is as far from an interstate. Indeed, no city as large is farther than probably 10 miles from one. --Jayron32 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I had a bit of a brain fart. While I said Bakersfield, I meant Fresno. Population 509,000 and about 50 miles from I-5. 71.194.214.138 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I think the OP was discounting Islands for obvious reasons, else places like Victoria, British Columbia would qualify: there is no bridge connection between Vancouver Island and the Mainland. There are dozens of such Islands in the U.S., which are populated but inaccessible by cars (Mackinac Island, Ocracoke Island, the Isles of Shoals, the Elizabeth Islands, Santa Catalina and the other Channel Islands of California, the entire Aleutian Islands chain, Kodiak Island in Alaska, etc.) excepting those cars brought to the island by boat. --Jayron32 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Natashquan, on the north shore of the Gulf of Saint-Lawrence used to be unconnected by road until 1996, when highway 138 was completed. Harrington Harbour is still unconnected by road; it's on an island just off the shore, but there is no road on the shore either. There are a few towns up the coast of Labrador which are also only reachable by ship or air. Davis Inlet is a famous case. --Xuxl (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Moosonee, Ontario. Rail-only, even though it's south of London, England. Hayttom 06:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

Triple portals in Gothic architecture

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

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

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

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

Prince Louis of Luxembourg

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

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

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

Modern Egyptians

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

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

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

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

January 3

Virgin martyrs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So far as I know, "virgin martyr" is not necessarily a single term, but a composite of "virgin" and "martyr". There are quite a few Christian saints who were said to be both, though, and on that basis the term has seemingly been taken as being a separate term unto itself. It might well be possible to make a List of virgin martyrs as a sublist of List of saints indicating all those who have been officially called virgins and martyrs, or virgin martyrs, though. John Carter (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

For which part? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

You question the statement, "Peasants were certainly lower in social status than merchants"??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Hating this before a reply misses out that Nikita said clearly to JFK : "We and you ought not to pull on the ends of a rope which you have tied the knots of war. Because the more the two of us pull, the tighter the knot will be tied. And then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction. For such is the logic of war. If people do not display wisdom, they will clash like blind moles and then mutual annihilation will commence." Khrushchev After, very, very, quietly, the US missiles in Turkey (on the USSR boarder), where also likewise removed. A win win for peace but by whom? JFK? This is recorded history which some may be ignorant of. Also, in later decades, it started to become clearer that JFK's medication may have not left fit him to control a nuclear arsenal. OK. Khruschchev may have been head of an 'evil empire' but don't you think you should bless your little cotton sock’s that Nikita wisdom of years (over JFK's), (his country lost some 50 million during the second world war against the US ½ million remember) saw through a young doped-up president, his brothers, manic advisers, etc., and avoided World War Three. America's population is more concentrated in cities, The USSR's less so. Who would have won – with those new city-busting bombs? It does not bear thinking about. So the US nuclear arsenal of missiles were quietly withdrawn from Turkey there after. --Aspro (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hating? Anyway, Niki did show wisdom at one point, by backing down over the Cuban missiles issue. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and got the US nuclear missile off his door step in Turkey – that was the point. It not only did it give the World a breathing space but bought about the creation of the Hotline#USA.E2.80.93Russia and kept the cold war cold... What would have happened if Khrushchev had, had, medical induced feelings of grandeur also? It just doesn't bear thinking about. What you may have forgotten, that upon Bay of Pigs Two, Castro had Soviet nuclear tipped missiles at the ready- which it turned out he did not need to use because of a US military cock-up - that invasion cock-up was fortunate for the residence of Florida- wasn't it! Yet what would have happened if it went to plan? Cuba ain't that far away as the crow - or - missile flies. Boy, did we all breath a sigh of relive in the 60's when commons sense broke out!--Aspro (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

January 4

Can anyone help me identify the subject of this painting?

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

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

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

Now We are Free

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

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

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

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

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

No reference is given. The same page also says

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

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

Number of married people

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

Table 3 of the United Nations Demographic Yearbook has some related information: it gives the total number of heads of households in each country and the number that are married. Multiplying the number that are married by 2 might give a rough estimate, but this would be a lot of work. Dividing by total population in each country would give an idea of the proportion. Some countries, such as Vietnam, don't seem to be in the table. The totals may be correlated elsewhere on the website.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The number of married heads of household should indeed give a rough estimate for the individual countries, but no exact value since some married couples will not lead their own household. E.g. in India, you get 330 million married people from this, but the average size of a household is >6, so there'll be many households with several "nuclei". And (mainland) China is also missing in the table...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Napoleon in Russia

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

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

Would that have been a T-bone? Dismas| 00:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet more Russian hearts (and hearts worldwide), have been stopped by excessive consumption of steaks than by wooden stakes. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think they would just make stroganoff out of it... --Jayron32 00:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Commonly available in bistros. -- Jack of Oz 01:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Who proposed this theory?

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

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

During most of the 7th through 10th centuries A.D., Slavs inhabited much of interior western Greece (in the 7th century A.D., even the Peloponnese), and the area where the most native speakers of Greek lived was actually Anatolia (not Greece proper)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Saints in the Roman Catholic Church

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

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

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

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

Consider a couple of spots where widows are mentioned in the New Testament: Anna the Prophetess, who had a short marriage and then lived as a widow for a long time (the translation is uncertain), and a large chunk of 1 Timothy 5, which praises godly-and-poor widows and includes a passage (verses 11-12) with a frequently-disputed meaning that discusses remarriage. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Building on the virgins bit, throughout history the relevant chunks of 1 Corinthians 7 have often been taken to say basically "marriage is good, but celibacy is better, if you can do it". Also see the editors' intro to St. Augustine's writings on marriage, as published by New Advent. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sexual morality is a big deal in Catholic and Christian history. "Virgin" status was seen for several centuries as being an "ideal" state, but it was not thought to be unreasonable to designate women who had been married, and presumably sexually active, but became (presumably) celibate after the sometimes quite early death of their spouse. There are even cases reported of married couples who mutually agreed to live a celibate, non-sexually-active, lifestyle in marriage. Also, unfortunately, earlier history being what it was, there weren't a lot of other "achievements" most women would be thought able to generally arise to. They clearly don't generally historically often make it to the level of archbishop, or doctor of the church, or some of the other "major" or at least less frequent titles given to saints. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

January 5

Really old tallest buildings

This says that Cincinnati was one of the last American cities who's tallest building was built before WWII. Built in 1930, it retained its crown till almost today.

Now what are the majorest cities with older tallest buildings than Cincinnati had? North America only, there are too many non-North American examples like second and first-rate cities of European countries. Are there any non-tiny ones before the meat of the 20s/early 30s building boom?, Like pre-1928? The only one I can think of is Washington, DC, but only for the tallest freestanding structure (an obelisk, 1884), the 160 foot high law was waived for a new cathedral in 1959. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you only asking for cities that currently have a pre-1930 tallest building? Or are you also interested in ones like Cincinnati that only recently built a taller building? Philadelphia fits into the latter, with its 547-foot-tall City Hall constructed circa 1900; see Curse of Billy Penn. I can't immediately provide anything that fits into the former. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Terminal Tower was the tallest building in Cleveland from 1930 till 1991. --Jayron32 03:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not quite what you're looking for, but I believe after the 9-11 attacks, the Empire State Building was again the tallest building in NYC, until the replacement tower was built. See List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City#Tallest_buildings. StuRat (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's correct. And if the Twin Towers had been built the way the Empire State was, they might still be standing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Even the Twin Towers are beat now, they've just made a square box that's 2% taller and 222% narrower at 432 Park Avenue. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Penobscot Building in Detroit was the tallest in Detroit from 1928 until 1977. --Jayron32 03:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Bank of America Building (Providence) is still the tallest building in Providence, and was built in 1928. As a current "tallest building in the skyline", it beats the OP's building by two years. --Jayron32 03:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana State Capitol is the tallest building in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (and a genuine Skyscraper) and was completed in 1932. Not quite as old as the Providence one, but close. --Jayron32 03:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

National Newark Building is still the tallest in Newark, New Jersey and built in 1931. --Jayron32 04:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Camden City Hall 1931, is the tallest in Camden, New Jersey. --Jayron32 04:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth I and Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester

Would the marriage of Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester and Elizabeth I had been consider suitable in terms of rank (morganatic union did ever exist in England and other monarchs Edward IV, John, Henry IV and Henry VIII had married native English nobility)? His brother Lord Guildford Dudley was the de facto consort of Lady Jane Grey. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Morganatic marriage never existed in England; thus the concept of 'suitable in terms of rank' has no rigorous definition in this case. But a comparison with the marriage of Elizabeth's parents suggests there would have been no social obstacle. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I think it's generally pretty well-accepted that the obstacle was diplomatic, ie Elizabeth's use of her potential marriage to various European candidates as a way to fend off the European powers. GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This is my Indonesian brother Darryl, and this is my other Indonesian brother Darryl.

How do Indonesians avoid mass confusion with single names? Are there other equally depraved societies? (Darryl and Darryl refer to a recurring gag on Newhart - see Newhart#Larry, Darryl, and Darryl.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Um, would care to reconsider your reference to Indonesian society as 'depraved'? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean "deprived", Clarityfiend. And nothing in that article says it's common for siblings to have the same name, so I think you're inventing a source of confusion. (In your everyday life, you probably use first names by themselves most of the time, right?)

===> humor <=== Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the existence of other naming systems with similar potential for confusion, one is Icelandic names. They are usually patronymic, and the result is a set of similar enough names that phone books often list occupation as further distinction. (Which is actually the origin of quite a few Western surnames — John the Fisher and John the Smith can simply be distinguished as John Fisher and John Smith.) ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 12:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The use of surnames wasn't usual among Muslims in Turkey until it was made compulsory in 1934. That's according to our page Surname Law. --Antiquary (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The patronymic system is also used by Mongolians. Since 2000 they've officially had clan names as well, although "In practice, these clan names seem to have had no significant effect," says Mongolian name#Mongolia. I'm not altogether sure what that means. --Antiquary (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the practice of having a small number of common given names and also naming a child after their father or mother can be equally confusing in some circumstances. It can mean some additional differentiator like a different shortened form, a surname, a second given name/middle or "numbering" (e.g. junior) frequently needs to be used instead of just the given name even with a relatively small number of people and given a relatively long polysyllabic name (e.g. Elizabeth).

About patronyms, I don't know much about the situation in Iceland, but Malay names are generally patronymic similarly to some Arabic names, but I'm not sure you have the same level of confusion even with certain names being relatively common (like Muhammad), which is not to say you won't get people with the same name. (In terms of written records, on advantage is that Malay is usually written in the Latin alphabet but transliterations an vary. But there's probably only one correct transliteration for a particular person's name as record in government records and used by the person, although people may not know it.) A fair few Malaysian Indians and some others also use patronyms. Ultimately I'm not sure if a patronym necessarily has much more reason to be confusing than a surname, it depends on the length of the name, the frequency etc.

Meanwhile, a surname is of limited use as a differentiator if it's the same as others. Of course there are various common surnames like Smith and Wáng (王). But what I'm particularly thinking of is Singh and Kaur. While some Sikh do have middles names (and articles say some use these as middle names), for any without who do use these as their surnames out of what they feel is a religious obligation, having this surname is obviously not any more helpful as a differentiator compared to Sikhs who do the same. (Of course some non Sikhs use these names too, particularly Singh.) In fact our article notes some controversy in Canada over this.

Also, although I mentioned middle names or second given name, these may not be necessary or may not help. Again it depends on the frequency, length etc of the entire given name. The primary reason why middle names frequently do help is, I think, because many cultures do have a limited number of common names. Middle names are usually at least partially independent from the first given name even if often from a pool that's similar. So statisticly it tends to mean a far wider pool of common entire given names. However you will have a similar result if your pool of given names is generally wider, e.g. Chinese given name. Of course the later also highlights another issue, the concept of a second given name or middle name doesn't necessarily transfer well to traditions in some cultures anyway.

P.S. I know it was a joke but while some East Asians use Generation names, I don't know if there's anyone who commonly gives the same entire given name to their child. Beyond the fact people tend to just refer to a child by their given name or derivative thereof or sometimes some other term such as a term of endearment, even if you were to include the surname it's not going to help unless the child has a different surname for some reason which is uncommon if the parents are the same.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarityfiend -- During the late Roman republic period, women of traditional Roman families didn't really have official individual names as we would think of them. If you take a typical Roman three-part name, such as "Gaius Julius Caesar", then all daughters born into the clan indicated by the second name (usually) would be named identically as "Julia" as far as their officially-recognized name (though they would of course often have informal personal nicknames). This explains why Claudius Marcellus had two daughters named Marcella, why Mark Antony had two daughters named Antonia (nicknamed "Antonia Major" and "Antonia Minor"), etc. AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Having taught in Indonesia for going on six years now, let me say one thing: although the Javanese and many other ethnic groups from Indonesia used to only have one name (Suharto, Sukarno, Sudirman, etc.) it's not uncommon now for children to be given five or six names. My ex had four names, and roughly translated it would have meant "A gift – a flower – from God in the month of April". You'd be hard pressed to find urban Indonesians with one name now. Might be more common in rural areas, though.

Also, we've got to remember that such a system developed in a time when communities were fairly small and tight-knit. A single village might have fifty people, so single names wouldn't have been much of a problem, if any. Urbanization's changed that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what I'm looking for. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. Good point. But how do they avoid mass confusion today? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thought I mentioned that in my first sentence. They get more than one name. It's generally not a family name as the West would recognize it, but it's more than one name. See, for instance, the cast lists of many of our articles on recent Indonesian films (?, The Mirror Never Lies, or The Raid: Redemption, for instance). Almost nobody has a single name. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Until the 1940s the Inuit were without multiple names. At that point the Government of Canada began using disc numbers to identify Inuit. The numbers were eventually replaced with surnames. Abe Okpik visited every community and camp from 1968-1971 to record surnames. Given the size of the Northwest Territories, which then included Nunavut, and Nunavik that must have been extremely difficult as there would have still been a lot of people who were not living in one of the communities. One thing that happened with that is the people actually recording the names didn't always get the spelling correct. The disc numbers were brought in because bureaucrats were confused by the lack of surnames. After Project Surname there was still some minor confusion for non-Inuit in individual communities. When people picked their surnames they often used the traditional name they had been given at birth. This of course would lead to adult brothers all having different surnames. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Gaokao questions

What resources are freely available online containing old "gaokao" (National Higher Education Entrance Examination) test questions? There are quite a few articles about the somewhat mysterious humanities questions that cite a few examples each, and a few about the maths, but can you point to a systematic/comprehensive collection? Especially the biology questions would seem useful to set an objective point of reference for a Wikiversity or other curriculum. Wnt (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Religion of Robert Kirk

This has been going on for years now, so I would appreciate some guidance from the refdesk. What religion was Robert Kirk? I suspect that the problem is that there are sources that say he was Presbyterian and others that say he was Episcopalian. When I first started the article, I noted that he was Episcopalian per the sources. However, this keeps getting changed. I would like a way forward, please. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Observe that Kirk became a minister in 1664. Then note that, per our article on the Scottish Episcopal Church, "Following the Restoration of the monarch in 1660, the government of Charles II reimposed episcopancy, and required all clergymen to swear allegiance to the king and bishops and renounce the Covenants, or be prevented from preaching in church. Up to a third, at least 270, of the ministry refused, mostly in the south-west of Scotland, and numerous ministers also took to preaching in the open fields in conventicles across the south of Scotland, often attracting thousands of worshippers. This was forcibly repressed by the government, in actions later dubbed The Killing Time. The conflict continued under King James VII (James II of England) until the Glorious Revolution led to his removal from power." If there is no evidence that Kirk got into trouble with the King at this time (and the article doesn't suggest that he did) it seems reasonable to infer that Kirk was Episcopalian at the time of his ordination, at least. The final triumph of Presbyterianism in Scotland didn't occur until 1689; presumably at this time Kirk would (in common with many others) have had to decide which of the two successor churches to join, though he may have been able to retain his benefice as an Episcopalian following the Comprehension Act of 1690. The definitive answer probably lies in records of which clergy made which choice; these are presumably held in Edinburgh. Perhaps a helpful way forward is to note in the article that Kirk was ordained at a time when the official church was Episcopalian, then note that he may later have remained an Episcopalian or become a Presbyterian, and add a footnote saying that this topic is currently being researched. RomanSpa (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm entirely unsurprised that this subject is a highly contentious one, though as an atheist member of the Church of England it's not really my business. RomanSpa (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The solution is to avoid convenient but inaccurate labels where they are inaccurate, even if they are convenient. Call him a Christian clergyman if you must, but there is no need to get more specific, where getting more specific is disputable. Instead, explain what RomanSpa explained above in the article regarding the complex political situation within British Isles Christianity at the time when Kirk served. Where multiple labels are all in dispute, use no labels. Instead, explain the nature of the dispute, and avoid labels altogether. No one can claim he wasn't Christian, and if you explain the complex political situation that existed at the time he served as a clergyman, you can avoid the conflict altogether. --Jayron32 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

See Covenanter and The Killing Time for more information. Why don't you just give his religion as "Church of Scotland"? It's more precise than "Protestant" and much more precise than "Christian", and at the same time it doesn't avoid the ambiguity that's causing the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Church of Scotland is the relevant article. Alansplodge (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

January 6

Titles and authors of novels

Are there reference books or web sites that can identify novels and authors based on plot lines, principal characters, historical settings, etc.?173.67.38.55 (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Goodreads is a popular website that some of those features. --Jayron32 01:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

AbeBooks has such a forum here. --Antiquary (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Or you can try us here! --Viennese Waltz 10:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Presumably the categorization of articles should help the OP. There's no guarantee it's exhaustive, but it should be a good start. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Tsar's children

According to Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia's article The Tsar's children were raised as simply as possible, sleeping on hard camp cots unless they were ill, taking cold baths every morning. Servants called Olga and her siblings by their first names and patronyms rather than by their imperial titles." What was the purpose of this almost Spartan style of raising these children? Was it something only Nicholas II did to his children or was it a Russian imperial tradition for all the tsar's children? How were the children of his predecessor's (Nicholas I down to Alexander III) raised?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason, presumably, would be to keep them from growing up as spoiled brats, which in turn might make them poor leaders and potentially lead to them being removed from power. StuRat (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but by all accounts Nicholas was a very nice guy. He took his responsibilities very seriously and conscientiously and really loved his family. Kind of like Louis XVI, who was also a much nicer guy than his predecessors. Of course, in both cases, a more ruthless guy might have had a better chance of keeping things under control and of surviving. As things went, he got no respect from anybody and most Russians think of him as one of the worst rulers ever. --Ornil (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems Nicholas II and his siblings were raised in the same Spartan manner. Was it just a practice that Alexander III introduce and later his son follow?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pure speculation on my part, but I do know that Alexander III's wife, Maria Feodorovna, had been raised with relatively little money (based on what I know of her sister, Alexandra of Denmark). So perhaps Maria raised their children in a Spartan-like manner, and her son Nicholas II continued his mother's approach? Ruby 2010/2013 17:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Two term limits in Rwanda and DR Congo

Do Rwanda have a two term limit restriction for presidential elections? Paul Kagame were elected as president of Rwanda in 2000 and the next election is 2016. Will Paul Kagame still be eligible to elect as president, or he will be prohibited from next election? Does Republic of Congo and DR Congo have a two term restrictions for president election. I remember on other day I was researching President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo it said for Joseph Kabila the term length is five years renewable once, for Denis sassou Nguesso it just said seven years. Will they still be eligible to re-elect as president at next term?--107.202.105.233 (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Two terms only in Rwanda. Rwandan constitution Article 101. --jpgordon 06:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

With regards to the DRC, Article 70 of the constitution states clearly that the President is elected for a five-year mandate which can be renewed only once. . For the other Congo, the presidential mandate is seven years and only two mandates are allowed; moreover a candidate cannot be over 70 (Sassou Nguesso is now 71). . In both cases the constitution would need to either be changed or ignored for them to run again. --Xuxl (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"Rescuing" a pirate

In the Pirates of Penzance, Frederick appeals to the maidens "to rescue him from his unfortunate position" by marrying him. Obviously, a "fallen woman" could be "rescued" that way, she automatically became respectable in that case. I always took this to be the intended joke - gender reversal. I do wonder if indeed it was somehow possible in Victorian times to improve a disreputable man's standing by a respectable marriage in the same fashion, or would the audience of G&S find this to be an obvious intended nonsense. Any thoughts? --Ornil (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd think it's always possible. Not automatically, but impress the right influential father, and he'll vouch for you. The more despicable you've been, the higher you'll need to go, but the higher you go, the less impressive your despicable acts become. Only the lowest of the low reach the very top, but you wouldn't know it to hear it from their friends.

But yeah, in this case, seems to be for laughs. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

It's apparently been prevalent throughout history. That paper starts with a Renaissance case. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that's true, but it was a rare enough thing. I am trying to figure it out if it was intended to be taken as a joke. --Ornil (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I never took it as a joke, nor to have anything to do with his social standing per se. Frederic's "unfortunate position" is his lack of beautiful young female companionship. His piratehood doesn't have much to do with that except that it's what he's begging to be forgiven for. --Trovatore (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No small part of his "unfortunate position" is that he was apprenticed as a pirate for what he thought was seven years - but because the contract read seven birthdays, and he was born onf February 29, he's apparently stuck with this role for 28 years. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

21 birthdays! "That birthday will not be reached by me till 1940". This enables us to date the setting of the operetta quite precisely to 28 February or 1 March 1873 (Frederick's birth date being 29 February 1852) - not the best time of year to paddle in the sea in Cornwall, but it is fictional. Tevildo (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Worse than I remembered. And definitely an "unfortunate position." It's interesting to ponder how far away the year 1940 must have seemed to an audience of the 1870s. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Pirates of Penzance was introduced late in 1879. If his 84 years were to end in 1940, that would imply an 1856 birthdate and a setting of 1877. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

1900 wasn't a leap year. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

D'oh! You're right. In any case, it should be clear what Fred's "unfortunate position" was. Of course he found a way out of it, or rather someone else found it. But that would be a "spoiler". :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

But was this commonly remembered decades beforehand? I remember reading at least one work in which this was a key plot device. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think G&S worried about the fine details. After all, they wrote an entire work called "The Yeomen of the Guard" which was actually about The Yeoman Warders of the Tower, an (almost) entirely different body. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Trovatore, it can't be about his being single, because where's the "moral beauty" or "sense of duty" in rescuing someone from that? He strongly implies that it would be a sacrifice to marry him, but one that is ethically uplifting. Ornil (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The sacrifice would be she would have to wait until he's 88 years old. And she says she's willing to wait. So the guy must be some catch! ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

At the time Frederic sings this, he still thinks he has already been released from his indentures, so there's no "waiting till 1940" implied at this time. But I think Ornil is being a little too "picky" for G&S exegesis. Frederic is in a bad way because he's been on a ship since he was a baby, with no girls or women around except Ruth, and all of a sudden he's exposed to Mabel and her "sisters". He phrases his desire for them as duty and sacrifice (on their part) because he thinks of everything in terms of duty (the full title is The Pirates of Penzance, or, the Slave of Duty). I really don't think it has anything to do with them elevating his social status. --Trovatore (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he sees it as about social status, but about moral one. My take on it that he thinks marrying a respectable woman makes him redeemed morally, in the same way as I mentioned in the original post. --Ornil (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, consider Mabel's answer to her sisters. She mentions that "he has strayed", and her love will help with his "peace of mind". I think it's clearly the case that she is rescuing him from a moral predicament, at least ostensibly. Of course her sisters suggest a different motive. But none of them say that Frederick is crazy for framing it in terms of duty - they all accept that as a valid thing for him to say. Of course everyone in this story leaves in an intentionally crazy upside-down world, and I think in it duty is hugely important for everyone, not just Frederick. Though pirates clearly care even more about poetry and Queen Victoria:). --Ornil (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, consider the stanzas of his plea. In the first one, he is being modest, suggesting that he's not worthy etc etc (O is there not one maiden breast/that does not feel the moral beauty/of making worldly interest/subordinate to sense of duty). When that doesn't work, in his next stanza, he gets a little mean (O is there not one maiden here/whose homely face and bad complexion/has caused all hope to disappear/of ever winning man's affection). --Trovatore (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Come on, that's not mean, that's just super-naive. That would be a totally plausible bargain, and it must have happened a lot too, it's just not something you could say aloud. But he has no way of knowing that in his circumstances. Ornil (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hakaristi

Does the Finnish Army still use the Hakaristi symbol? 49.226.54.98 (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Western use of the swastika in the early 20th_century#Finland the hakaristi (swastika) is still used by the Finnish air force and the Utti Jaeger Regiment, and still appears on Finnish medals. Yes, I was surprised too. --Antiquary (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not used in the roundel (as it was until the end of WW2), but it's used in certain air force flags, and in an attenuated form on the Finnish presidential flag)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Deaths/Punishments of Prophets/False Prophets, Apostles, Messengers, Oracles, Gods, Goddess, Demigods, Messiahs/False Messiahs…

Hello!

Does anyone know any stories similar to the death of the Pharoah III whose death was exemplified by God? Or punishments? Names with a short definition would be helpful, or only names would be fine.

Regards.

(Russell.mo (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC))

Could you be a little more specific? Who is "Pharoah III"? - Lindert (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Book of Exodus does not state that the pharaoh dies, but only that his first-born son is killed during the tenth plague of Egypt (Exodus 12:29), if that is what the OP is referring to. WP:WHAAOE: Pharaohs in the Bible. --Xuxl (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect "Pharoah III" would refer to Ramesses III, maybe confusing him with Ramesses II, the alleged pharaoh of the biblical exodus and one of the main characters in Ridley Scott's recent Exodus: Gods and Kings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The latest version of the heavenly book does apparently, i.e. the Qur'an. I'm talking about the one who was mummified. I read in one[REDACTED] article where it was stated "Pharoah III", as a link, I thought that's what he is called. I can't recall his real name. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

With regard to stories of the sort suggested by this thread's heading, you might find the article Simon Magus of interest. Deor (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what I'm writing peeps:

"Some of God’s descendants/incarnations became celestial during living their test of life after passing the first phase (when their time came) then continued with their second phase; some of their destiny was told to others before they were born and or to themselves after they were born, e.g., Jesus (Isa), Muhammad, Zoroaster, Oedipus, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Samson, John the Baptist, Prometheus, Perseus, and some of their destiny was exemplified by God, e.g., Pharaoh (Fir’awn) and many more."

I have a rough idea of most of their story, and I'm assuming only one of them posses a death/punishment sentence i.e. mummification. I require names of people with death/punishments now as most of the embolden ones I have are about their fortune foretold before or after they were born, to themselves or to their heirs.

(Russell.mo (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for - people that were bodily resurrected after dying? Would Lazarrus be an example? Or people to who are the subject of prophecies? Then take a look at List of oracular statements from Delphi. Croesus is a fine example. Basically all Pharaos were mummified - it was one of the defining parts of ancient Egypt's culture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well that's new to me; everyone's mummified!?!

I heard a story of a Pharoah who died because he tried to claim heaven on Earth, what he said he created to his followers. He died right before he tried to step on the door of the so called heaven he made on Earth, and this was his punishment by God for providing false belief to his followers, as no one can create Heaven but God... This is apparently in the Qur'an. I'm thinking now that this could be the reason why mummification started for claiming to be God... I'm looking for similar kind of stories (definitions) with names who were punished by God or died due to some kind of stupidity. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

Ancient Egyptians believed that the quality of life (or death?) in the afterlife depended on the preservation of the body, on the quality and preservation of symbolic grave goods, and on continued religious services. Thus, everybody tried to have their corpse preserved as well as possible, and the more power and influence one had, the better the mummification process. See Mummy and Ancient Egyptian burial customs. For your list, take a look at Loki from the Norse mythology. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• The false messiah Shabtai Tzvi was held in a birdcage by the Sultan until he converted to Islam. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WW2 Eastern Front Morale

In the film The Great Escape, one of the Germans mentions that going to the Eastern Front is a reproachable fate, and that as a punishment soldiers were sent there. This doesn't wash with me because surely the Germans would want their soldiers to feel good about going to the Eastern Front in order to boost their morale. To what extent is this true? Thanks, 49.226.54.98 (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The soldiers weren't stupid: they knew the Western Front was relatively quiet, with most duties in occupied territories not being particularly dangerous (until the D-Day landing, that is) and living conditions quite comfortable. On the other hand, the Eastern front was the site of furious combat, often in very difficult climatic conditions (see Battle of Stalingrad, e.g.) --Xuxl (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you couldn't really put out an appeal for civilians to donate winter clothing only months after the campaign had started and then pretend that everything was going well. "Here the German population could get a first really clear picture that things had gone drastically wrong". A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II by Gerhard L. Weinberg (p. 294). Even after D-Day, it was preferable to be captured by the Western Allies than by the Soviets. Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The OP might be interested by the works of Sven Hassel. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

All the books of whom were ghost written by his wife, except for the first one. She had no first hand experience of fighting in a penal unit. In the book 'Monte Cassino', she even mentions an attack on the German positions by a Japanese regiment in the American army, brandishing samurai swords, which is completely ridiculous. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Aside from their own risk of being killed in action, the genocide was also quite out in the open on the Eastern front, unlike elsewhere where Jews and "undesirables" merely appeared to be deported to labor camps. This would have two negative effects on morale:

1) Those who felt that genocide was morally wrong would have lower morale for this reason.

2) Those who felt they would be treated brutally, in return, should they fall into the hands of their enemies, would have low morale for that reason, especially later on when it became quite clear they were losing and would eventually be forced to surrender. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As Alansplodge notes, falling into the hands of the Russians was far worse than falling into the hands of the Western Allies. As the war was ending, large numbers of Germans fled from the Red Army to the West; look at the Niall Ferguson quote in the German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union article. They presumably weren't aware that Article 58 was used to punish Soviet soldiers who escaped and returned to Soviet lines, but it was still well known that one would not be treated well as a prisoner of the USSR. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Alteration of winter solstice content.

I recently visited your site to gather information about winter solstice practices documented from earliest human experience, i noticed that the information has changed and some information completely deleted, the particular aspect in question is the ancient greek festival under the the former heading of lanaea, is there some page where this information is still stored or has it been deleted completely and if so, why? I would have thought any and all aspects of human experience that teach, guide and enlighten those who wish to learn of ancient practices be granted such information, but to alter/delete any information would be seen as showing a bias against the areas of experience said information is pertinant too, thus[REDACTED] fails to provide the truth of the content it allows to be accessed by visitors to its website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.202.69 (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not delete old versions of articles, except in rare cases, e.g. if it includes highly offensive or libellous material. You can still view an old revision of an article by clicking on the "View History" tab at the top of the page. When editors make changes to an article, sometimes they remove material. There are many reasons for this (e.g. because the material is unverifiable or not relevant), but fundamentally, the reason is that the editors thought that removing it would improve the article. If you disagree with a change to an article, you can edit the page yourself, in order to improve it, but make sure that you follow Misplaced Pages's policies for editing. You can also leave a comment at the article's "Talk" page (click the "Talk"-tab). - Lindert (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The information was removed by editor:Crumpled Fire just over a year ago with the explanation that the article is about the solstice, not about related festivals. Here is the information removed:

Influenced by the Ancient Greek Lenaia festival, Brumalia was an ancient Roman solstice festival honoring Bacchus, generally held for a month and ending December 25. The festival included drinking and merriment. The name is derived from the Latin word bruma, meaning "shortest day" or "winter solstice". The festivities almost always occurred on the night of December 24.

You can find fuller accounts at the articles Brumalia and Lenaia. Dbfirs 13:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Why did Roosevelt support Taft in 1908?

Why did President Roosevelt, a progressive, support a conservative like Taft in 1908 for president? Wasn't it obvious for TR before the election that Taft would not continue progressive reforms after the election? Or was their friendship the only reason? --62.153.225.50 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Roosevelt had expected Taft to follow his lead, and when he didn't he formed the Bull Moose Party ticket to run against him. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't quite that simple. To say that Taft wasn't progressive isn't exactly right. Taft had many progressive issues: he was public supporter of the reforms of Booker T. Washington, he carried on Roosevelt's Trust busting programs, etc. Part of the issue was the influence of OTHER more conservative Republicans in his cabinet, which wielded some power and pushed the administration in directions that Taft lacked the political willpower or skill to stop. Personally, he was as progressive in his political viewpoints as Roosevelt. But he didn't have the political skill of Roosevelt, and when the conservative wing under people like Philander C. Knox and Nelson W. Aldrich began to assert their control over policy, Taft basically let them. It wasn't his personal views (which were close to Roosevelt's, which is why he was Roosevelt's protege and chosen successor) it was his political skill that led him to be abandoned by Roosevelt and the progressive Republicans. It is important to note that Taft wasn't a politician per se. He was a jurist first, and knew more about running a courtroom than running an administration. Those failings and lack of political skill are why he was driven out of the Presidency after only 1 term, but also later named to the Supreme Court. He was still a very well respected jurist, and knew the law more than he knew politics. He's the only person to have very served in both realms, and was far more successful (and respected) as a Supreme Court justice than as President. --Jayron32 00:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It counts entirely as OR, but my 11th grade US History II teacher in high school spent a good three months on McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft (I wrote my senior thesis on Wilson's responsibility for WWII) and he kept emphasizing Roosevelt's growing resentment for Taft, whom Roosevelt saw as a rebellious protege, for Roosevelt's attempt at a third term. I don't disagree with Jayron's facts, if I would place the emphasis differently. Glenn Beck spent quite some time on these presidencies when he was on Fox. The material was available on YouTube but was taken down at some point. I am not sure if it's available there or elsewhere now, but it was pretty accurate and comprehensive. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of Tafts political problem was that he didn't hold necessarily strong convictions. He tended to be easily swayed by those around him: When he kept company with Roosevelt, he was an ardent progressive. When he was around Knox, he became an ardent conservative. Which isn't to say his beliefs (in either direction) weren't earnest, or that he deliberately changed his opinion for his own political gain. He just seemed to have that personality that tended to find earnest agreement with whoever had his ear. Once Roosevelt didn't have that ear, he found he couldn't count on him anymore, and cut him loose. He wasn't a terrible person (and as noted in many biographies, was a damned good judge). He just wasn't a great president. --Jayron32 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The recent PBS series on the Roosevelts squares pretty well with Jayron's description. Something to consider: If TR had won the presidency in 1912, we probably would have gone to war in Europe even sooner. He was constantly badgering Wilson for not doing anything, even calling him "yellow" i.e. cowardly. (Politicians weren't especially polite in those days.) Fittingly, perhaps, Teddy's taste for war soured after one of his own sons died in combat.

My university history teacher talked about how Taft really didn't like being president. He was never small, but he gained dozens more pounds while in office, an obvious example of relying on "comfort food" in times of stress. He lost most of that extra poundage after he was out of office and then began serving on the Supreme Court. And I do recall the teacher opining that Taft wasn't really that far out of sync with TR philosophically, but he lacked the iron will that TR used to keep the cabinet grunts in line. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Kabbalah or Qabalah

Which one is correct? Kabbalah or Qabalah. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

Read the article Kabbalah or even Cabala - it seems it depends on context. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The word originates in Hebrew, which uses a different writing system to the one we use. To write it in English, you have to use the letters of the Latin alphabet as used in English to approximate the sound of the Hebrew word, and that can be done in different ways. See Romanization of Hebrew. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Russell.mo -- Which one is correct, "Koran" or "Quran"? (Not to mention "Cabbala" and "Coran".) The problem is the same in both cases... AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The pronunciation of Kabbalah is closer to the original than Qabalah, so I would suggest you use the K spelling. Ariel. (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? What does that even mean? It's not clear that English has a usual sound associated with the bare letter "q", but to the extent there is one, it's /k/, so no difference on that basis between the two spellings.

You're probably mapping the letter "q" to the /kw/ cluster, but that's an error. English doesn't associate the letter "q" to that sound. It associates the digraph "qu" to that sound. --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• It comes down to the problem that there is no single standard of transliteration or transcription from many non-latin-alphabet languages into English. You run into the same problem with Cyrillic names (-ski / -sky or -ov / -off / -of, etc.), the spelling of tsar / czar, or the various ways Muammar Gaddafi's name has been spelled, or really transliterations from many other writing systems. The Quran/Koran issue noted above as well. When we borrow a word from a language which uses the same alphabet we do in English, it is quite common to take it as-is, or perhaps drop a few diacritical marks from the original at most. When taking a word writing in another script into English, the process of transliteration can be tricky, and there isn't often an agreed upon standard. So the answer to the correct official, single spelling for Kabbalah is "good luck with that". Kabbalah seems to be the most common, but many other spellings are also accepted to varying degrees. None are "more correct", as there isn't any universal standard. --Jayron32 00:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am very confused by these answers. Unless my blindness has progressed, the Hebrew word starts with the letter qoph. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  It certainly does. It doesn't mean that the transcription/transliteration of the term which starts with the English letter "Q" is universally accepted. The existence of that fact does not force the behavior of thousands of writers to simultaneously agree. --Jayron32 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, spelling the name of the Hebrew letter as qoph is itself a Romanisation of Hebrew. But think of it this way. In the Latin alphabet, the letter c can stand for a number of different sounds - in English /k/ and /s/, in Italian /k/ and /ch/, in Castilian Spanish /k/ and /th/, for example. If you're going to try and render a word with a c in it into Hebrew, do you simply decide to map one Hebrew letter to it and explain that this letter can have a variety of sound values depending on language and context, or do you choose the Hebrew letter that most closely corresponds to the sound the letter stands for in the particular word? --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I have to use 'kabbalah' since this word is universally known... I also thought 'Koran' was a modified version of 'Qur'an'. The actual book. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

God, Animal, Fruit and a Baby

"This animal story is similar to what is found in Germanic paganism, a prayer to the bigger god Odin is mentioned in stanzas chapter 2 of the ‘Völsunga saga’ where King Rerir prays for a child. His prayer is answered by Frigg, wife of Odin, who sends him an apple, which is dropped on his lap by Frigg's servant in the form of a crow while Rerir is sitting on a mound. Rerir's wife eats the apple and is then pregnant with the hero Völsung." This story dates back to ______ and is from the Norse _____________ (Mythology/Religion), similar stories can be found in ________________________________ which dates back to ________________________________ , e.g., ________________________________.

Can someone help me fill up the blanks please? I'm looking for similar stories quoted above regarding God, animal, fruit and baby. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

The Völsunga saga was written down in the 13th century from oral material going back to the 5th century. See Rerir for the story you mention. Off the top of my head, two other folktales where eating a fruit results in a child are the Italian Pome and Peel and the Hindu story of Jarasandha, whose father cut the fruit in two with unexpected results. However, neither involves a bird. Taknaran (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll read through thanks. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

What does "damsel dark" signify in "There is a Tavern Town"?

I ran across the origin for the children's song "Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes", the late 19th century folk tune "There is a Tavern in the Town". Despite being pretty upbeat, it's apparently about longing and hopeless love.

Lyrics are pretty straightforward folk "bluesy", but there is a term that puzzles me:

"He left me for a damsel dark, damsel dark, Each Friday night they used to spark, used to spark, And now my love who once was true to me Takes this dark damsel on his knee."

What does a "damsel dark/dark damsel" mean in this case?

Peter 16:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but this google ngram confirms that "dark damsel" peaked in usage during the late 19th century . I'd be tempted to think it just means a young lady of dark complexion and/or hair, similar to the phrase "tall, dark and handsome" for men. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Ngram tip. So basically a concept of a female "sheik" for straight men?

Peter 17:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The word dark did not necessarily imply any ethnic difference or even dark skin. It could also mean "having dark hair" or "having a morally problematic or troubled background". There is some ambiguity to the lyrics. Marco polo (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Just think about the The Dark Knight (film)--Noopolo (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There's also the prohibition, for example, from the Mishnah Torah, against going out alone after dark: Similarly, he should not go out alone at night, unless he has a set time to go out for his studies. All of these (restrictions are instituted) because of (possible) suspicion (of immorality). -- 18:45, 7 January 2015 Medeis

You're all over thinking this. It means a girl with dark hair - perhaps a Gypsy. Gypsies were a favourite in 18th and 19th century folk songs see The Gypsy Maiden, The Whistling Gypsy and many more. That's it. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it means a girl with dark hair. Also, dark is rhymed with spark. If it had been a damsel fair, a different rhyme would have been needed. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is marijuana illegal?

So many areas have such tight restrictions on this but I can't figure out why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.211.178 (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Where? Australia is not the only country in the world, you know. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Legality of cannabis by country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.211.178 (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In the US, it seemed to become illegal because of racism, since marijuana was primarily popular with Hispanics initially. If it had been widely used by the majority of Americans, it either wouldn't have been made illegal in the first place, or those laws would have been quickly repealed, as in the prohibition on alcohol. Once it was illegal for several decades, you then get a type of circular logic: "Marijuana is illegal, therefore those who use it are criminals, and we certainly don't want to legalize it and let criminals go unpunished for their crimes". StuRat (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

They're trying to build a prison. There are only so many beds they can fill using traditional criminals. Now that they own the world, how do they own disorder? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:23, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

How is the world's religious population changing?

Is it growing, shrinking, what religions are seeing the most change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.211.178 (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Growth of religion and Major religious groups are good starting points. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As are Islamophobia, Antisemitism and Antichrist. Anti-Hinduism doesn't have the same global appeal, but India's general population is exploding. Anti-Manichaeism hasn't been cool for a while. We don't have an article on it. More due to Manichaeism itself practically vanishing than an unusually persuasive argument from their pro side. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk