Humanities desk
< February 5	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 7 >

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.

February 6

Antonyms

Is the apparent antonym set uncanny\canny the only one in the English language that consists of two unrelated words? I'm not interested in related but non-antonyms, like flammable/inflammable. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "unrelated" do you mean having completely different and distinct etymologies? Because that does not seem to be the case, according to the OED [1][2]. "Canny" is something along the lines of "knowing", and "uncanny" is something along the lines of "not known". WikiDao ☯ 03:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright -- MW didn't give me that data. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This probably would have been a better question for the Language Reference Desk btw. -- œ ^™ 03:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also antonyms are often very unrelated etymologically: happy/sad, good/bad, true/false, just because an antonym of happy is unhappy does not make it the only or true antonym. meltBanana 03:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the question DRosenbach actually wanted to ask is, are there any other cases in which X and un-X are not opposite in meaning?. Looie496 (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Credible/Incredible? They're kinda-sorta antonyms, but they don't really have the same usages. For example, you could call a trustworthy person a credible witness, but if you then said that they were the best witness in the case the could be an incredible witness. They could be both credible and incredible without being contradictory in any way. --Jayron32 05:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That usage of "incredible" would not have the literal meaning of "impossible to be believed", so antonymising it with the usage of "credible" that does have the literal meaning "able to be believed" is mixing apples and oranges. (It's like the zillions of things that are routinely described as "miraculous": are they "incapable of being explained scientifically"? Er, hardly.) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the EXACT request that the OP is looking for. He asked for words that would be grammatical antonyms, but which would not be literal antonyms. Credible and Incredible exactly match the request, just like his canny/uncanny pairing. --Jayron32 06:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP seems to be saying that, although "canny" and "uncanny" have the surface appearance of being related (albeit in opposition), they are not actually etymologically related at all. However, WikiDao's response seems to put the lie to that theory. But let's entertain the OP and see what we come up with.

Yes -- wow -- credible and incredible is a great example. Thanks! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems apparent that the OP takes "uncanny" to mean weird, spooky, unsettling, and "canny" to mean astute or thrifty. Those two meanings are not remotely antonyms. They would need to be opposite sides of the same coin to qualify as antonyms. I'm not convinced your "credible/incredible" example fits that bill. Your "incredible" comes directly from "credible, even though the meaning used is not the literal one. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the OP is after pairs of words that (a) appear to be antonyms but (b) are not antonyms and (c) are not even related, despite their appearance. His own example of "canny/uncanny" does not fit the bill because it fails test (c). "Credible/incredible" also fails test (c).

If there was a verb "to ite", meaning to twiddle idly with your navel lint, from an obscure Baluchistani word, then it and the word "unite" would be a candidate pair. They look like anyonyms but are not, and have completely different etymologies. We need a real example like that. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that that's what DRosenbach is looking for, Jack, but you came very close to an actual such instance—ionize and unionize. Deor (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright -- I forgot that one, but I remember thinking about it when I did first heard of that a couple years back. If you use the word unionize as "undoing the ionization of," then they are opposites, even though it's likely a made up context. But the proper meaning of unionize is based on a different word (with the un- already part of the root of the word, so I'd say this is merely a technical example, but not something that would meet my criteria. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of one more after hearing one of them on the radio: easy and uneasy. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good one, Looie. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would easy chair and queasy chair be an example? Bus stop (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is still unclear to me, but here are some possible examples.

(un)less, till (until), (un)to, (un)toward
(counter)act, (counter)balance, (counter)point, (counter)top
(de)base, (de)grade, (de)light, (de)part (synonyms), (de)ride, (de)sign, (de)sire, (de)vote
within, without; inning, outing; income, outcome; in-house, outhouse; in-law, outlaw; inlay, outlay; inline, outline; intake, outtake
overtake, undertake
upright, downright
fraction, infraction
quite a few, quite a lot

Incidentally, a word can be an antonym of another word in two different senses.

(un)done, (un)locked, (un)sealed, (un)wrapped

—Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncouth / couth. Couth is used in Scotland. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have always liked the verb "cleave"... which is an antonym of itself (and can mean both "holding together" and "cutting apart"). Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle males

Is there a secular organization of males which is actively educating males about the importance of treating females with extra gentleness?
—Wavelength (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Football League. Not the kind of anwer you expected? Becasue it's a major issue where I come from right now, it was the first thing I thought of. (And does seem at least a little bit relevant.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...treating females with extra gentleness?" Er, no... I don't think that 'females' need 'extra gentle' treatment, so much as treatment as ordinary human beings, who's needs should be assessed on an individual basis, rather than according to cultural stereotypes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not everyone in the world shares your opinions, so what you think has no bearing on the existence (or lack thereof) of such a secular organization. --99.237.234.245 (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify the part about "extra gentleness" for us? Are you talking about that women on the average have thinner bones and less muscle mass, and that they are therefore more susceptible to injury from physical forces and that they have different injury patterns than men? If so, I think that many medical schools, sports organizations and such have that as part of their education. Are you talking about treating a woman with the same respect as you would a man, and about not assuming that all individuals follow the standard gender roles, and about not assuming cultural stereotypes, for instance that a manager is always a man? If so, I think that many workplaces and educational institutions have that as part of their education or on-the-job training. (For the record, I don't think it counts as "extra gentleness" to treat people as individuals, but opinons differ.)Sjö (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a secular organization of males whose main purpose is educating males to treat all people with gentleness, and females with extra gentleness? This pertains to physical and emotional differences between the two sexes. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_peter/3-7.htm)
—Wavelength (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a quote from one of the epistles be relevant to a secular organisation? If that is the source of their views on physical and emotional differences between the sexes, then they are not a secular organisation. 86.164.58.119 (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STX: 86.164.58.119, the Bible passage does not need to be relevant to the organization. I cited it because it is relevant to my interests.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any organization whith that as its main purpose, secular or not?Sjö (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STX: Sjö, it seems to me that the existence of such an organization is plausible. There is the Men's League for Women's Suffrage, and there is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why limit your consideration to just one gender? There used to be a British society called the Polite Society, as far as I recall, whose members promoted being polite and considerate to others. I'm not sure if it is still active or still exists. Not to be confused with The Polite Society which is completly unconnected and very different, and disturbing in its implications too. 92.24.185.155 (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question was prompted by http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2010/06/06/the-obsession-for-power-and-control-over-the-weaker-sex-transforms-men-into-beasts/, which was one of the top results from my Google search for power obsession. There is a mythical image about a charming prince rescuing a damsel in distress from a fire-breathing dragon, but often a formerly "charming" husband behaves like a "fire-breathing dragon" toward his own wife.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Jesus during or after Passover

Is it historically clear (not just in the Bible) that Jesus was executed immediately following or during Passover? If so, is there a fundamental reason for this timing, was it purely coincidental, or was it simply that religious passions are higher during Passover? askewchan (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Historical Jesus and the similarly named, but different Historicity of Jesus and the articles Crucifixion of Jesus and Dispute about Jesus' execution method. Its not a simple question to answer; given that there's not a lot of extrabibilcal texts out there, i.e. texts outside of the Bible and the Apocrypha which purport to be contemporary accounts of Jesus's life. He just wasn't that important of a figure during his lifetime for anyone outside of his circle of friends to write about him. And so, there really isn't any external, historically objective source which discusses him at all. If you read the Bible, though, you can see that Jesus deliberately chose the week leading into Passover, and deliberatly filled his arrival in Jerusalem with religious symbolism. Remember, for the previous 3 years he'd been wandering around Galilee as an itinerant preacher. The entire week was orchestrated so that Jesus would fulfil prophesies from the Jewish scriptures. See Matthew 21 for a good perspective on the Triumphal entry into Jerusalem. --Jayron32 05:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Hebrew Calendar days begin and end at sundown. Passover begins at sundown on Nisan 14. Jesus had his Last Supper at that time, as was custom. Apparently Judas had betrayed Jesus 2 days earlier on Nisan 12. Additionally, it was by 3pm on Nisan 14 that Jesus was impaled. (Insight On The Scriptures, v. 2, p. 66).
Jesus' ministry was foretold in Daniel's Prophecy especially in the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks. Additionally, Jesus knew his ministry would last about 3 and a half years based on the 1260 days prophecy. Shortly after his triumphant entry into Jerusalem in the spring of 33 C.E., Jesus said: “The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified.” (John 12:23) (The Watchtower, 12/15/2010, Be Zealous For True Worship, paragraph 6). schyler (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that the book of John portrays Jesus' death as occurring on Passover, as opposed to the other gospels (the ones which together are called the "Synoptic gospels" because they can be read together consistently). The book of John was written way after the others, and all the propaganda supporting a belief in Jesus' being the messiah found its way into it by that time. John is considered to be the least accurate historically for these reasons. For instance, the phrase "Lamb of God" is a John thing. John portrays Jesus as a "lamb" being sacrificed, and its author thought it would be a good idea to try to portray the death as occurring right on Passover, when there is a sacrifice of a lamb for passover dinner. Mostly likely Jesus death occurred after Passover, consistent with the other gospels. (See Bart Ehrmann's for a reference) Greg Bard (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are justice?

What is justice? Who can judge for justice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.149.9 (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question you ask "what is justice" has been the central question of political, judicial and political philosophy since the time of the Greeks, a succinct answer is impossible because it involves by necessity the political and social philosophy of the respondent. I would answer that justice is judged upon the natural equity, that is, that each producer should have a natural share of the proceeds and that justice is only achieved when a man receives the vast proportion of what he produces, and any other situation subverts creation into charity. Of course there is ample room to disagree and thus is created the entire realm of political debate. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what respects do the articles Justice and Judge fail to answer your perplexity? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of "on earth" in the question title leads me to suspect that the OP wants us to consider the theological side of the question as well - you know, the whole "no man on Earth is as just as God in the Heavens", "God will be the final judge, taking precedence over earthly judges" thing. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's two definitions of justice that sometimes act in conflict with one another. I've looked, and can't find a reference, but I remember from a long-ago philosophy class that you can think of these as "vertical justice" or "horizontal justice". Veritcal justice means, roughly, that everyone gets what they deserve; that is each person is judged against their own actions. Horizontal justice means, roughly, that everyone gets treated the same. I may have the exact terms wrong, but the concepts are sound. These things end up in conflict in many societies. For example, we have a sense that people who commit crimes should be put in jail (veritcal justice) and that people who commit the same crime should get the same sentence (horizontal justice). However, in the U.S., we find that even if these principles are applied perfectly, we end up with a situation whereby a LOT more black people end up in jail than white people, a clearly injust situation. But then we have the untenable position of fixing it by either intentionally jailing white people more often (i.e. activly violating horizontal justice) or letting people get away with crimes (i.e. actively violating vertical justice.) The answer, of course, is that there are inherently unjust states of being that are not being considered in the example (socioeconomics) which leads to the problem, and THOSE need to be addressed. But at least it shows the complexity of considering justice. --Jayron32 13:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's well-known that, for similar crimes, blacks do get heavier sentences that whites in the US. See e.g. Furman v. Georgia. So you start with a lack of "horizontal justice". Not to mention the dubious justice of building the wealth of a society at least partially on the backs of kidnapped slaves and then discriminating against their displaced and poverty-striken descendants for another century before slowly redressing some of the injustice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the "look what you made me do" trap. No one chooses to be born a minority, but they do choose to be law-abiding or to be criminals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statistical fact that disadvantaged groups commit crimes more often. To borrow from Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." At least in my version, a just society must take structural injustice into account. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What has that got to do with individuals? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think the fact that George Washington, Nelson Mandela, and Mahatma Gandhi all committed "crimes" tells you something about the influence of structural injustice on individuals? Unless you assume humans are born with a single bit that's set to either "good" or "bad" (admittedly a typical American fallacy), you cannot ignore the fact that the structure of a society influences both the ability, the desire, and the necessity of committing crimes against the laws of that society. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Races and other social groups do not commit crimes. Individuals commit crimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Not wanting to take this further in to soapboxing territory then it already is, this will probably be my sole reply. However it's easier for an individual to make the choice not to steal bread when they have a $97 million dollar earth sheltered mansion to go back to and they can easily call up to have a New Zealand Pāua and truffles and Malaysian petai and durians flown in direct from the source if they so desire basically wherever they are in the world (I'm not aware they've ever done this but they obviously could) than an invidual who's children may die if they don't steal said bread. And yes you probably know I have a specific individual in mind who's is purposely unnamed (and per WP:BLP as well as the simple fact most people should know who I'm referring to I'd prefer it to stay that way).

This person's wealth is largely selfmade but this process was probably assisted by being born in to a very wealthy family so amongst other things dropping out of Harvard University probably didn't seem like such a big deal as it would have to someone there on a scholarship who's family was counting on him/her to support them once they finished; and having access to computers at school when they were something most people even in developed countries had never even used or heck probably didn't even understand what they were about ditto; and I suspect to some extent even the early contacts and any capital was greatly assisted by this person's family and history. Note that this isn't a criticism of said individual, in fact from what I've seen I strongly suspect he'd agree with me.

To take it back to the original question, 'What is justice?'. Is stealing a loaf of bread without say physically threatening or harming anyone worse then say running a US$64.8 billion ponzi scheme? (Okay the punishment here was quite severe but the difference between punishments for white collar crimes and blue collar crimes is a common question.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might interest you to know that "Justice" is the title of one of the more popular courses at Harvard University (taught by Michael Sandel). There is a television series of the lecture that's put out by WGBH-TV ([3] - at least portions viewable online) that you may wish to watch. -- 174.24.195.38 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add here, I've just always liked the portrayal of justice with the blindfold, the sword, and, the balance, so I added it to this section entirely on a whim. APL (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justice is a concept, idea, or abstraction. It is a type of thing, rather than a particular thing itself. As with any concept there are token instances of it. For instance, the event corresponding to some particular jerk who gets his comeuppance is a token instance of the type of thing that justice is. One can show others that event so as to demonstrate what justice is. However, one cannot show anyone "justice" in general because the idea does not exist at any particular time or place, and does not appear in the mind as an image because it is an abstraction. I hope this helps. Greg Bard (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how helpful is being a fluent speaker of modern Greek, to learning ancient Greek?

Ancient Greek preceded our time (at the earliest) by about 2800 years, around 2600 to 2500 or 2400 years ago was an especially interesting time as well (Golden Age). My question concerns trying to learn it as a living language, starting with modern Greek.

I have no frame of reference to compare with English. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be easier for me to learn Old English (the language of Beowulf) than it would be for a Russian or Chinaman. But that is from only 1200 years ago.

You have to go back 1000 more years than that to get as big a difference (if you consider only time) as between ancient Greece and a modern speaker.

My question is: nevertheless, is there a way to learn modern Greek first, and then expand that living, real language use into being a living speaker of ancient Greece? I think the exercise would not be futile with Beowulf -- I do believe that someone could read Beowulf with a much more living and active language mastery than anyone reading Latin. But can you do the same thing with ancient Greek? I know that the Italians don't do it with Latin -- they don't expand their true, living language skills to be able to speak Latin. They can only analyze it. Which can you do with ancient Greek, if you are a speaker of modern Greek? Can you only analyze the language, the way Italians do with Latin, or can you really speak it if you try, the way I think is (barely) possible with beowulf?

Thanks for any insights you might have on this quesiton. 109.128.155.164 (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of the vocabulary of Modern Greek is either directly from Classical Greek, or is made out of elements from Classical Greek. Since Greek spelling is also quite conservative, these old words and roots are generally readily recognisable (even though the way they are pronounced has changed considerably). Some areas of the grammar however - particularly verbal conjugations - are rather different, and Modern Greek speakers have to study these specifically in order to understand most Classical texts with any precision. The case is different in English, where not only has much of the grammatical apparatus of the language changed, but so too has a significant part of the vocabulary, with words from Latin and French either existing beside native English words, or in many cases supplanting them entirely.

So if you learn Modern Greek first, it will help you learn the vocabulary of Ancient Greek, but not much else. Whether it would be worth doing so depends on how much use you have for Modern Greek. --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of Greek, I can attest to what Colin says above: the average Greek can make little sense of Thucydides on their own. I might also add that many words from ancient Greek pose unexpected surprises to the speaker of the modern tongue because, although perfectly recognisable, they have undergone changes in meaning. That said, many of the differences between the two languages had already occurred by the first few centuries AD, when the books of the New Testament were written. The Koine Greek language of that time is quite similar to modern Greek and I can read it reasonably easily—as can my grandmother, who boasts of no higher education. The experience is not an exact equivalent of modern English speakers reading the King James Bible, but it is not too far removed, either; this is a remarkable thing in itself, as the Greek version of the Bible is between four and five times as old as the King James Version. Waltham, The Duke of 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

California-Arizona desert murders

Back in the mid-1970s there was a series of horrific murders carried out by a father and his teenaged son in the California-Arizona desert. Their modus operandi was to set up a fake detour sign to lure motorists off the main highway, then the two would kill the cars' occupants, using shotguns. On one occasion an entire family was wiped out, including a one year-old baby. They were eventually caught. I have searched the Internet in vain for info on these crimes. Would anyone happen to know more about the case? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Tucson in the mid-1970s, and I think I would have at least a vague memory of something like that, but I don't. I suspect that you are remembering something from a movie or book. Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not. My dad was so worried that he drove my sister when she moved from California to Texas back in 1978 so she wouldn't have to cross the desert alone. It must have happened in the California desert, rather than Arizona if you never heard about it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you maybe remembering (or misremembering) the events described in The Onion Field? --Jayron32 18:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nver saw it. Anyway, I was in my late teens when the killings took place and I know they really happened. The Los Angeles Times even wrote a long article about them, giving the gory details of the killings, which is why they made a strong impression on me and frightened my dad. The father and his son were caught by 1978.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that you are thinking of the Tison gang crime rampage, which got a lot of media coverage in 1978. It involved two men, Gary Tison and Randy Greenawalt, who broke out of the Arizona State Prison and along with some companions including Tison's sons, went on a rampage across Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado, killing a number of people including some tourists who had stopped to help them. More info at this page. Our article Tison v. Arizona also has some information about the story. Looie496 (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different case. The father-and-son team killed more than one family, and their modus operandi was different in that they used fake detour signs to lure travellers off the main highway where they waited in ambush for them. These killings took place in the desert over a period of time. I know they were caught by 1978 because that was when I read the article. Thanks for the links but it's not the same case at all.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know Steven King wrote a short story with a similar plot. I wonder if it was inspired by actual events now. Googlemeister (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've already discounted this possibility, but for what it's worth, that does sound very much like a movie I once saw - fake detour sign, barb wire over the street, family of so-inbred-they're-barely-human degenerates. I just can't remember the title right now. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most films are based on actual events. If only more newspapers would put their archives online the problem would be solved.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that you are remembering the Tison case (which shares many details with your description: father and son; drivers being tricked; a family including a baby being killed with shotguns; people fearful of driving alone across the desert; the year 1978), but that your memory has morphed over the ensuing 33 years by conflating the events with other things. This could almost be a textbook case of the fallibility of human memory -- it is exactly the sort of process that Elizabeth Loftus and Daniel Schacter have described in their books. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Jeanne can't have been more than a toddler, at most, back in 1978 anyway, so she could easily be mis-remembering....... ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I wish that had been the case Ghmyrtle. I actually celebrated my 20th birthday in 1978 and I recall one of my presents was the Rolling Stones LP Some Girls!!!! My memory is very clear about that time period. It's possible that the LA Times got their facts and details wrong and were referring to the Tison gang.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen them, but the description reminds me vaguely of The Hills Have Eyes series of movies -- the first of which was released in 1977. And see also (as Looie mentioned) false memory and confabulation. WikiDao ☯ 19:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's probably less dramatic than these two syndromes. It's more likely that the LA Times reporters had got their facts wrong when they published the article. There are certain atrocities that occur which one just does not forget; for instance, I distinctly remember when the Robin Graham disappearance happened in November 1970. The Wikipedia article confirms what my memory records.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

innocuous do not disturb sign

with flatmates, what is the most common "do not disturb" kind of sign on one's door handle? A towel? Or something else.

I mean, if it were agreed on ahead of time... (it doesn't have to be recognizable, in fact it seems to me it would be classier if it werne't). I just would like to know if there is a common solution to this...

109.128.155.164 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm in the US (judging by "flatmates", you are in a different English-speaking country), but I don't think there is a "most common" sign. Perhaps a clothes hangar or something, but a lot of things could work. Falconus^{p t c} 18:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

would hanging a condom on the doorhandle be to obvious?--Jayron32 20:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stay classy, Jayron32. 109.128.155.164 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is stereotypically a sock or a tie, isn't it? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a tie. That's classy! 109.128.155.164 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me and my roommates always used a tie on the door. Apparently, we weren't alone in that regard. 72.77.95.134 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on Jayron's good idea, maybe a "do not disturb" sign ripped off from a hotel somewhere. That should convey the message in spades. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this variation on the usual joke about a sign on a van: "If this room is rockin' / Don't come knockin'." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a closed door? 92.24.185.155 (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identify painting/Greek myth

I'm trying to remember a painting or the myth it was based on...

-It was by a river
-There are a bunch of people (about seven) reveling, at least one is holding a pitcher, and they're either drinking from the river or drinking wine... possibly the river had turned into wine?

-Two of the people had collapsed together by the river or were collapsing, tangled up

-I think some of the people might have been nude, or maybe they were all in togas

-It's based on some Classical myth

-The people in the myth were under a spell and doomed. Something about what they were drinking was important to the story. A god (Bacchus?) was involved.

-The painting's style was pretty realistic, so maybe something from the Renaissance? It wasn't recent.

Sorry I know that's not much... Any ideas? 163.1.231.93 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)awfc[reply]

Sounds like a bacchanalia...there are images in that article, and a link to more Commons images, is it any of those? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's definitely a river in the painting. Thanks though... 163.1.231.93 (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)awfc[reply]

Maybe something like Poussin's Bacchanalia? (except the river is not-too-prominently, just-barely visible in the background...) WikiDao ☯ 22:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! Titian's Bacchanal of the Andrians! Thanks everyone for pointing me towards Bacchanalia. At the Bacchanal of the Andrians the river 'turned to wine', so that's why I remembered the river even though it's not too prominent, as in Poussin's...163.1.231.93 (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)awfc[reply]