Humanities desk
< April 28	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 30 >

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

April 29

Round homes

In recent years, have any round vacation homes (they look a bit like silos, for example the "Monte-Silo" house in Utah) been built, particularly in the Upper Midwest? Is there any information about these homes online or on Wikipedia? DCI2026 (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found any articles or categories regarding round dwellings on Wikipedia, though browsing around articles related to silos yielded the Quaker Square article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Midwest (almost) and recent (geologically speaking)

Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early Breton dynasty?

I have done genealogical research lately and have discovered that some ancestors were early Breton monarchs. This seems to be during a period - roughly the early "Dark" Ages - when Brittany evolved from a Celtic tribal region and became a land divided into principalities like "Domnonee" and "Cornouaille." Among these supposed monarch-ancestors is a "Prince Hoel-Vychan II of Cornouaille", who lived in the sixth century, and a Hoel III, who had a female descendant who married into a Celtic (Welsh?) family. To make matters more complicated, this Welsh family contained rulers of the long-gone kingdom of Pomys - Merfyn Frych is one of these Pomys rulers. DCI2026 (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's List of rulers of Brittany only mentions a Hoel II of Brittany, who was also Hoel V of Cornouaille, an earlier Hoel would have been Hoel III of Cornouialle then. I don't find either of your names at the French Wikipedia, which has a "List of kings and counts of Cornouialle" here: [1] and a "List of Princes of Armorican Dumnonee" here: [2] and a "List of Sovereigns of Vannetais" here: [3]; the three main regions of Brittany being Cornouaille, Dumnonee, and Vannetais. However, I did find at the "List of Armorican Chiefs" here: [4], a "Hoel III" who is listed as a "Roi" or king, sadly the redlink means that the French Wikipedia has no info on him either. I see no information on any Hoel-Vychan II on any of these lists, however. As far as the Welsh kingdom, I assume you mean Powys and not Pomys. Kingdom of Powys mentions Merfyn Frych. That article has a rather complete list of the Kings of Powys, so you may find more luck there than researching the Breton lines. --Jayron32 03:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question here? Brittany was settled by people from Wales and south west Britain (see map) - the areas of Cornouaille and Dumnonée in Brittany derive their names from Cornwall and Devon (Dumnonia). At that point in time, Wales (including Powys), Devon, Cornwall and Brittany were part of one ("Celtic") cultural whole, sharing a (broadly) common language. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying - both answers have helped. DCI2026 (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was very fortuitous, DCI2026. In future, could you please actually ask a question, so that it's clear exactly what it is you're wanting to know. Your statement could have led to many different questions. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tales Of Hoffman

1951 Film Production of "Tales Of Hoffman"

When I saw this film in 1952, I believe I recall a beautiful scene depicting a ballerina dancing upon lilly pads.

Today when I review scenes of this movie on the computer I cannot find the above scene. Do you know if this scence was subsequently edited from the original film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.69.203 (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. The BFI synopsis says it takes place during the prologue. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perception of healthiness of country vs. Perception of one's own situation

Some years ago I read about how the perception of a people of the healthiness its own country vs. how individuals perceive their own state differs vastly by country, but is in direct correlation to the media of the country. For example: in the US, IIRC, 40% more people were willing to say they were doing well than were willing to say the country was doing well: this gave the US a number of -40, which was the lowest of any country (but very comparable to other western nations). The worst offender was Zimbabwe, which had a number something like +30/40, and which has a completely non-free press. Russia was about +11, China was in the negative but not as much as the US, etc.

There is actually an official term for this. Does any of you know what it is? I'm trying to find more stats about it. 68.232.119.30 (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation bias came to mind, but I'm not so sure that's it. People like to think that they have control of their own situation, while they typically can't control the larger world, so they might be more apprehensive about it. Yellow journalism feeds into this. The Hearst papers a century ago and more were sensationalistic. Nowadays you might call it the CNN / Fox News syndrome. Negative things often make for interesting news subjects, but they can also make people think that "things are worse than they really are." That complaint about the media has been around for a long time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the addage "All politics is local", meaning of course that regardless of what your opinion is of how the world is going; how your immediate situation is going has a greater impact on your political decisions. --Jayron32 12:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard feature of political poll results in the U.S. in recent decades that people have a very negative view of congress overall, but are on average moderately satisfied with their own individual local congressman... AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is probably one reason why discussion of congressional term limits has gone nowhere. Many would like other states terms limited, but not their own. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Congressional term limits were being implemented until they were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1995 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. It was a close 5-4 decision, with Kennedy joining the liberals to kill term limits. Unless another case comes along to reverse this ruling, it would take a constitutional amendment to implement term limits, which is always a difficult process. —Kevin Myers 07:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

god vs satan

who is more powerful? who will win if there is a conflict between them? --Satanist God (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that in most religions God is omnipotent, I think it's fair to say that that trumps Satan. The question you should be asking is, who'd win in a fight between Satan and a dinosaur? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 13:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You kind of need to give us a theological context; there is no shared belief about what god is and what Satan is. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a battle of wills, Satan would win. God is merely the indifferent Creator, while Satan is Lord and Ruler of the Earth. Satanism celebrates Man's link to nature, and enjoyment of the earth's bounty and indulgence of the senses. God is about denial, sacrifice and putting the intersts of others before one's own. Those things go against nature.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a battle of wills, Satan would win. God is merely the indifferent Creator, while Satan is Lord and Ruler of the Earth. Satanism celebrates Man's link to nature, and enjoyment of the earth's bounty and indulgence of the senses. God is about denial, sacrifice and putting the intersts of others before one's own. Those things go against nature. ^{[citation needed]} ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 14:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The God of this world" is one of the epithets that the Bible gives to Satan. See these notes and commentary on John 12:31, for example. Gabbe (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Harry Hill to sort it out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo is correct. It depends on how God is conceived. Those who believe that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and transcendent would take one of the following two positions: 1) God is ominipotent, omnipresent, and transcendent, and Satan does not have an independent existence but is merely a mental construct of those who fail to fully realize or understand God's transcendence and presence; or 2) God is ominipotent, omnipresent, and transcendent, and therefore present in Satan as well. Marco polo (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good summary. The Christian view would be that God cannot be defeated. Satan is not a god, merely a fallen angel. Whatever Satan's powers are, they are only there because God gave them to him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anton LaVey's The Satanic Bible best explains what Satan represents I used to own a copy, but I left it behind in the Texas Bible-belt--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it best explains what Anton LaVey thought Satan represents. Pais (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then one can also read Dante, Milton, Aleister Crowley, Blatty. The beat goes on.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/romans/16-20.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Biblical Hebrew, "satan" is a word meaning "adversary" or "accuser." The only major appearance of "ha-satan" ("the satan") in the Hebrew Bible is in the Book of Job where he appears as one of a group of angels. He has the power to mess up Job's life, but he is clearly subservient to God and only uses his powers with God's permission. In much later Jewish works and in Christianity, Satan becomes the incarnation of all evil. In Christianity, he also rules hell. But according to Jewish tradition, Satan is a creation of God (like everything else) who serves the purpose of testing the piety of people. He was created by God and thus could be destroyed by God if God wanted to. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Satan evolved from a mere angel to a Christianized version of Hades, the Greek god of the underworld. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OP -- The conception of evil as practically co-equal or equipotent to good is much more characteristic of Persian religious traditions than it is of Judeo-Christian religions. In traditional Christian religious iconography it is St. Michael the Archangel (not God) who fights and conquers the devil, while Judaism doesn't really have a concept of one super-demon ruling over other demons. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this question has been answered definitively before. "In the struggle between good and evil, evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." -Dark Helmet, Spaceballs (1987) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.156.102 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophically speaking, should good triumph over evil or evil triumph over good, each would immediately cease to exist, since each depends on the other for its very definition. so there. --Ludwigs2 00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/revelation/20-1.htm and http://www.multilingualbible.com/revelation/20-2.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going to need to verify the existence of God and Satan, and publish some reliable data about the strength and abilities of each, before this question can be answered factually. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Within traditional Christian iconography, the question is already answered (see image). On the other hand, if the question is about entities from completely different belief systems, then even some of the geekiest geeks find questions such as whether the Star Wars Empire could defeat the Star Trek Borg (or vice versa) to be extremely pointless and tiresome... AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Army, winter of 1778-1779

Where did the Continental Army spend the winter of 1778-1779? We all know about Valley Forge in Pennsylvania the previous winter. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middlebrook encampment, apparently. Pfly (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For security and provisioning reasons, Washington divided the army into three camps for that winter. Middlebrook was the primary encampment, where Washington had his headquarters. Troops also wintered in Danbury, Connecticut and at West Point. "I hope they will be in a more comfortable situation than they were in the preceeding Winter", he explained. —Kevin Myers 03:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Titular William

It seems that, as something of a wedding present, Prince William was created not just Duke of Cambridge, but also Earl of Strathearn as well as Baron Carrickfergus. Looking at each I can't help but notice that the official locality of the Duke of Cambridge is in England, that of the Earl of Strathearn in Scotland, and Baron Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland. Am I correct in surmising that this was done deliberately? Is such spreading out the honours amoungst the kingdoms of the realm commonly done? -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not commonly, only to those who should one day become monarch of all three nations. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, it is a fairly standard practice that heirs and heirs-to-be get peerages in all nations which they don't at the time on their wedding day. ╟─Treasury Tag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 17:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Among members of the Royal Family, it seems fairly common to spread the titles out among multiple Home Nations, for example Prince Philip is Duke of Edinburgh (Scotland), Earl of Merioneth (Wales), and Baron Greenwich (England), while Prince Charles is Prince of Wales, Duke of Rothesay (Scotland), Duke of Cornwall (England), Earl of Chester (England), Earl of Carrick (Scotland), Baron Renfrew (Scotland), and Lord of the Isles (Scotland). Prince Andrew (Charles' younger brother and 4th in line) is Duke of York (England), Earl of Inverness (Scotland), and Baron Killyleagh (Northern Ireland). Prince Edward (the third brother) is Earl of Wessex (England) and Viscount Severn (Wales). Interestingly, they all have titles from multiple home nations, but none has titles from all four home nations... --Jayron32 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William will if he gets invested as Prince of Wales (I'm assuming that's why Wales was missed out of the titles he was given today). --Tango (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of them have ever had territorial designations from the other Commonwealth realms - e.g. Duke of Saskatchewan, Marquess of Port Moresby, Earl of Waitangi, Baron Uluru - yet the Royal Family is not just the UK's Royal Family, and William will become King of 16 nations, not just one. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's because they hate you. --Jayron32 23:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I've ever felt hated by the Royal Family, either as an individual or as a citizen of my realm. Do you have a source for that rather grotesque remark, Jayron? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So which royal is the Duke of Earl? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Why, the Duke of Earl, of course, Jack. Ah this younger generation, no sense of history (sigh)! [Let alone wabbits who won't wikilink.] —— Shakescene (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My humble apologies for being far too young to catch the reference. I promise I'll try to grow up extra fast. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

To try to answer Jack's question, I imagine it's because Australia, Canada and NZ don't have a system of peerages and the "home" nations do. That was the one part of the British Constitution that the Dominions (as were) didn't feel the need to replicate. Probably a wise decision. Alansplodge (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the name of Kate's hometown, he should have been created Master of Buckland. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, UK peerages containing Australian or New Zealand (at least, there may be others) designations are on the record. Ernest Rutherford was "Baron Rutherford of Nelson". See Australian peers for hereditary and life peers with Australian places in their titles. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rutherford was in fact the slightly more convoluted "Baron Rutherford of Nelson, of Cambridge in the County of Cambridge" - the formal territorial designation was in England, but he took the NZ placename as an additional note. There's a similar thing with the military victory titles - Montgomery, for example, was "Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, of Hindhead in the County of Surrey". I don't believe there are any which don't have a UK territorial designation (except for the ones with pre-independence Irish places in the title). Shimgray | talk | 10:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are Baronets of Nova Scotia, though those seem to be only in the Jacobite peerage and therefore possibly not recognized by the current monarch. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles I created the Baronetage of Nova Scotia in 1625, for Scottish baronets; it continued to be used until the Act of Union. The baronetcies originally involved grants of land in the colony, hence the name, but it seems they all carried Scottish territorial associations - "Napier of Merchistoun", "Forbes of Craigievar", etc. However, that said, a baronetcy is more akin to a knighthood than to a barony - it's not a peerage title, and the territorial names aren't particularly significant. Shimgray | talk | 21:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a related noted, assuming Kate becomes queen someday, what will we call the Wikipedia article about her? She's currently at Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, which is fine, but Queen Catherine is disambig page, and all the other Queens Catherine have some sort of geographic appellation to disambiguate themselves from each other, like the Catherines of Lancaster, Valois, St Sava, Habsburg, Austria, and Braganza, or else they're listed by their maiden names, like Catherines Parr, Howard, and Jagellon. Will we start calling her "Catherine of Reading" when she becomes queen? Or will her page move back to Catherine Middleton? —Angr (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The standard approach here seems to use their maiden name. The Queen Mother what was, is under Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, although she stopped using that name almost 79 years (!) before she died. So, on that basis, I guess the D of C will become Catherine Middleton again. Crazy, but that's consensus for you, apparently. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I see that all current European queens consort are called "Queen [Name] of [Country]": Queen Sofía of Spain, Queen Paola of Belgium, Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Silvia of Sweden. Calling the late queen mum "Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom" would of course be ambiguous, as most people would expect that name to refer to her daughter, and indeed the link does redirect to Elizabeth II. But calling Kate Queen Catherine of the United Kingdom would be unambiguous, as all the previous Queens Catherine were of England only, not the U.K. If and when the time comes, that's the option that will get my Support. —Angr (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from issues of ambiguity, the Queen Mother was never the "Queen of the United Kingdom". That would suggest she was a Queen regnant, with a regnal number. But she was not. She was a Queen consort, and was named "Queen Elizabeth", not "Queen Elizabeth <of somewhere>". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't those two different things? Prince Harry is Prince Henry of Wales, but he's not the Prince of Wales. —Angr (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, that reveals a rather ridiculous inconsistency. All the British (generic) queens consort are titled - on Wikipedia, I hasten to clarify - by their name before they became queen consort, hence Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, Caroline of Brunswick, Sigrid the Haughty (what a great name) and all the rest, etc. But the queens consort of other countries get the names we all know them by, as per your list above. Can anyone explain why we treat the British ones differently? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jimbo is angling for a Dukedom - or at least a Knighthood ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An honorary knighthood is possible, as long as he doesn't expect to become Sir James Wales. Unless he becomes a Brit. Maybe he can convince Charles and Camilla to adopt him, then he'd be Prince Jimmy of Wales. He wouldn't be in line for the throne, though, which is a good thing. He's too busy running the Kingdom of Wikipedia as it is. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

We don't do adult adoption in the UK anyway. DuncanHill (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clingy Dalai Lama

Isn't the Dalai Lama clinging to the liberation of Tibet? He doesn't seem to accept that maybe Tibet will be a part of China forever. Quest09 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clinging has a narrow definition in Buddhism. It's not enough to want something to be 'clingy.' Just take a look at Upadana for a definition and types of clinging. Besides that, you can only cling to things that you have. Otherwise that's craving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I'm sure he accepts that the former may be the case, but that does not preclude his hoping for the latter, and acting - within appropriate limits - so as to favour that eventual outcome. "Forever" is a long time: neither China nor the human species will last forever, and the composition of that entity known as China has varied greatly over the centuries. Since neither Wikipedia nor any individual has a crystal ball, neither it nor we individuals can predict how politics (in which someone once said "a week is a long time") may play out over the next century or so. Your underlying question, Quest09, may not be appropriate for the RefDesks as it is not amenable to a factual answer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.136 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real? Yes, he's clinging onto his soul ideological objective. The Pope is clinging onto a hope for the second coming. That's what devoted people do. ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 18:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with a good spring clinging. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The propensity of religious leaders to moral hypocrisy is widely known. While some people believe that moral reproach is a valid way to assail religious or (as in this case) a political leader; other methods of criticism such as the comparative evaluate of pre- and post-Chinese dominated modern Tibet also afford viable pathways forward in analysis. One may even be inspired to condemn both parties vying for control of Tibet for hypocrisy in relation to their own belief systems. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that blanket insults to religious leaders and their followers is any part of an answer to the question posed. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the official position of the Tibetan Government in Exile is, I believe, that they want autonomy, not independence, you seem to be attributing ideals to the Dalai Lama that he does not hold. --Golbez (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow press in Spain

Why doesn't Spain have yellow press like the UK (like The Sun) or Germany (with the Bild Zeitung)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because newspaper publishers in Spain don't think there's any demand for it? Gabbe (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I can think of might be that the nation remembers the Franco era too well to want to buy the kinds of papers that call for simplistic solutions to complex problems. Germany, by contrast, has had fully thirty more years to digest and forget about the slippery slope that kind of thinking sometimes leads to. On the other hand that could be my anti-rightist bias trying to tar and feather and evilly denigrate the right-thinking family-values class that is the keeper of the traditions that made the West great... ah who am I kidding? The Sun is shite. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 19:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it doesn't? I'm struggling to find anything useful online because every search I do comes up with lots of sites about the alleged role of yellow journalism in the Spanish-American war, rather than about modern Spain, but I would be surprised if there wasn't a Spanish equivalent of The Sun. --Tango (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow press? We have red-tops, properly called tabloids in the UK, but AFAIK the only thing printed on yellow paper is the Yellow Pages! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See yellow journalism. --Tango (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that piece Tango. As it refers to something that is out of date, may I refer the OP to Tabloid journalism for the UK. "Yellow press" is not something we identify with in the UK. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I had never heard of yellow journalism until now. I've added a {{See also}} hatnote to Tabloid#Tabloid journalism to make the similarity in journalistic style clear. Astronaut (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Marca (newspaper)? ny156uk (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the situation is similar to that in France. France also appears to not have a yellow press tradition. I was told the reason for this is that French society has a clear division between what is private and what is public. There is therefore little taste for the kind of political scandal and celebrity gossip which fills the pages of newspapers like The Sun. Of course that is all original research based on my own experiences. Astronaut (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, it wasn't all that long ago in historical terms that France had a rather savagely and viciously partisan press, with Communist newspapers dripping vitriol on those who didn't follow the current Moscow party line, and ultra-rightist newspapers run by people who still rejected the revolution of 1789, and combined their hatreds of Jews, Freemasons, and Communists into elaborate conspiracy theories... AnonMoos (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marca is not yellow press or tabloid. It´s just a sports journal, which is widely read in Spain. Actually, no, Spain does not have something as The Sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.58.2.10 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spain and France don't have daily celebrity tabloids, but they do have weekly magazines like ¡Hola! and Paris Match which fulfil a similar function, with lots of celebrity gossip and other soft news. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered an issue of either "Paris Match" or a similar and closely-competing publication a few decades back, and was rather startled to find that it seemed to cover almost exclusively royalty and nobility (including the families of several deposed monarchies)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gesture during New Testament recitations

When a priest in church starts to read the excerpts from New Testament, people touch their nose, mouth and something else in a manner different from crossing. What does this gesture mean and how to perform it properly? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.224.253 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although raised in a predominently Christian-based culture, educated at a (Methodist) school and having attended many hundreds of (Protestant) Christian services I have never noticed such a gesture, nor ever been taught it. Can you be more specific as to the geographical locale, cultural context and Christian denomination where you have witnessed this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.136 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only say that I see that in Roman Catholic church in Poland, when the priest announces which gospel he will recite. 89.76.224.253 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've seen that in Catholic services. I think it's a fairly archaic 'bless me' kind of ritual, which would originally have been done with a small cross (like the one generally found at the end of a rosary). One touches the cross to one's forehead (the same place where ashes go), kisses it, and then touches it to one's heart. I'm not sure of the origins of the ritual, and in the modern world where people do not generally carry rosaries around with them it has morphed into a simple hand gesture without the cross. Maybe someone can give more details on the practice. --Ludwigs2 18:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a version of the sign of the cross, and certainly the little cross on the forehead is a symbol of Christianity at least as old as the larger, stereotypical gesture across the body (as Tertullian said, "We Christians wear out our foreheads"!). It is typically done just before the Priest (or Deacon) reads the Gospel, rather than before any other New Testament reading. One makes 3 small crosses with the right thumb, one on the forehead (Christ be in my thoughts), one on the lips (Christ be in my words), and one over the heart (Christ be in my heart). 82.24.248.137 (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I add that you might find the old Catholic Encyclopedia article interesting in giving some history and context. Here. It isn't always reliable on anything that touches on the modern world or practices that have shifted, but it is usually pretty good on early Christian history and linking it to 'current' (pre-Vatican II) practice. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC from my Catholic upbringing, you use your thumb to make a small cross on your forhead, your chin, and chest; the implication being that you are asking God to bless your thoughts, your speech, and your heart. --Jayron32 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were supposed to be making it on your lips! Perhaps you never got taught this bit? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chin, lips, same difference. --Jayron32 19:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak from your chin? I was mostly puzzled as to why you replied to my, more detailed, referenced answer with much the same information, from vague memory, subtly wrong? You can check the Catholic Encyclopedia article for the description of the motions the priest performs before reading the Gospel, which is what the people are echoing on themselves: he traces it on the Gospels, then on his forehead, lips, and breast. If you can get hold of a Missal aimed at clergy, there's a good chance it will have the same information. I'm not sure what symbolism your chin has for you personally? Perhaps it has some specific cultural link to your words that your lips do not? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even more sourcing, because I always like an official one: "134. At the ambo, the priest opens the book and, with hands joined, says, Dominus vobiscum (The Lord be with you), and the people respond, Et cum spiritu tuo (And also with you). Then he says, Lectio sancti Evangelii (A reading from the holy gospel), making the sign of the cross with his thumb on the book and on his forehead, mouth, and breast, which everyone else does as well." 82.24.248.137 (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that the 'translation' given of the Latin here is the old, less-literal translation that we currently use, rather than the more-literal translation that we're going to start using in September. Which is why Et cum spiritu tuo has the word spiritu which isn't really in the translation: this is one of the major things which has been changed, and it comes up in the Mass a lot. It's going to be chaos for months :D 82.24.248.137 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Jayron32 20:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholics aren't the only ones who do this. Anglicans/Episcopalians, especially those on the high church side of the Anglican spectrum, also make little crosses with their right thumb on their forehead, mouth, and heart at the beginning of the Gospel reading in a Eucharistic service. —Angr (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cook's Death

Who built the monument for Captain Cook and why? How many other similar monuments were built along coastal waters in memories of ships captains?76.178.113.225 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)222smile[reply]

According to Kealakekua_Bay#Recreation, the monument was placed on the orders of Likelike, Hawai'ian princess. It does not mention the names of any of the people who may have dragged it into place; such people's names may have never been recorded by history. --Jayron32 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation the the White House (US that is)

I had heard that an invitation to the White House by the president is mandatory, but 1, is there any truth to that, and 2 what would the authorities charge you with if you failed to show (assuming they really wanted to pursue it). Googlemeister (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you search for "declining White House invitation", you'll get lots of people who didn't go. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were mandatory, it would not be an "invitation" but a demand, command, summons, requirement or subpoena. Despite the massive spin and euphemistic lying and words being twisted beyond all recognition, that often come out of places like the White House, 10 Downing St, The Lodge, etc, most words still mean what they seem to mean. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is socially mandatory, mandatory under the rules of etiquette. Ask any authority on manners, and you will learn that when one is invited to the White House by the President, one must attend. The rules of etiquette are not legally binding, however. Just as it is not, technically, illegal to blow your nose on a tablecloth or weat a baseball cap to a church wedding, it is not illegal to decline a President's invitation. However, it is appallingly bad manners, and will reflect negatively on you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socially mandatory?^{[citation needed]} I may not be Miss Manners, but I believe it is only required by the rules of etiquette to politely decline if so inclined. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that "one must attend," nor is it necessarily the case that failing to accept an invitation will reflect badly. As a daily reader of The Washington Post, I can confirm that people frequently decline invitations to the White House, and at least half a dozen of them have gone on to happy, productive lives. Newly-chosen Speaker of the House John Boehner declined to attend the state dinner for Hu Jintao last January, for example. No doubt he did this politely; he's only attended one state dinner during his 20 years in office. My hunch is that he'll still get invited to the next state dinner, because failing to invite the Speaker could be appallingly bad manners, and certainly unwise politics. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably there is a difference between an invitation to a social event at the White House and an invitation to a meeting with the President. If the President asks for a meeting, saying "no" would be very unwise for your future political career. --Tango (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course never legally required to accept an invitation to the White House, but traditionally it was viewed as socially unacceptable not to do so except under extreme circumstances:

Once it had been unacceptable to decline a White House invitation except in the case of illness, a death in the immediate family, or a great distance between one's home and the White House. (William Seale, White House Historical Association, The President's House: A History Vol. 2, 2008)

Back in the 1960s and earlier, you didn't decline an invitation to the White House if you were lucky enough to receive one. Today it is commonplace to call the social secretary with a regret. (Jane Alexander, Command Performance: An Actress in the Theater of Politics, Capo Press, 2001)

It is not permitted to decline an invitation to dinner, or to any social entertainment, extended by the President, except for illness, or the illness or death of some near relative. Any invitation from the President is regarded, by courtesy, as having the weight of a command, and it is allowable to break any previous engagement which conflicts with its acceptance, even if it is an engagement to dinner. (The Manners That Win, Compiled by the Latest Authorities, 1883)

I hope this helps. Neutrality^talk 02:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]