Humanities desk
< April 7	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 9 >

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 8

What was the Book ?

Greetings. About twenty to twenty five years ago I read a book about a man murdered in New York and dumped in a bare section and set on fire. I believe his surname was something like Tupper. His body was found by a Fireman who, according to the book, had previously written his own book on his experiences with a series of fires that terrorised New York in the 1960's. I believe the body was found in 1977. The alleged killer was said to be a Jewish horse trainer with a German sounding surname, whose first name may have been Howard. The killing was over a love triangle between the victim, the horse trainer and a then famous billboard model, but I forget her name. There was another model mentioned in the story whose name was Mel Harris, but I am not sure if this is the same Thirty Something actress, or not. If anyone can tell me the book's name, that of the killer, his victim and the model, and of the fireman who found the body and put out the fire, Thank You. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 05:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howard "Buddy" Jacobson was charged with the murder of John Tupper (on 6 August 1978), who lived with Jacobson's former girlfriend, Melanie Cain at 153-155 East 84th St. in NYC. I'm not sure what book you have in mind, but it may have been Anthony Haden-Guest's Bad Dreams. Looking through the NY Times, they mention that firemen found the body and promptly notified the police, but I don't see any mention of the firemens' names. -- Nunh-huh 05:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You so much, -- Nunh-huh, this is exactly the event I was thinking about. Now I remember the model in question did have the name Melanie. I do not know if Bad Dreams was the name of the book, as I do not remember that as a title, although it called have been called something else when on sale in New Zealand, as some books and movies are. Thanks again.Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 07:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historiae Atlantis non Platonis

Are there any stories of Atlantis that are earlier or otherwise independent of Plato? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As our article on Atlantis states, the first mention of Atlantis was in Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias, written about 360 BC. - Nunh-huh 06:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the genitive case form of Atlantis in Latin would be "Atlantidis"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, actually. It was just a goofy guess: I thought it would be like civis. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual attraction: buttocks vs. feet

I noticed the lede of buttocks mentions it involves sexual attraction, but the lede of foot does not. However foot fetish plays out quite prominently in erotica. So why does one mention a sexual role but the other not? Pass a Method talk 11:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attraction to buttocks is much more common than to feet. That's why a foot fetish is called a fetish - fetishes are unusual attractions. --Tango (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably why underpants are more essential than socks. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feet don't leak. - Nunh-huh 19:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do buttocks. (Sorry, but "Noticed" completely fails as any kind of meaningful header by which one might search for this question, so I've changed it.) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the articles were written by different people and don't have to live up to any standards of inclusion as to what is in the lede? Dismas|^(talk) 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something gives me the feeling this isn't the most serious question around, but the serious and boring answer is that there are degrees of attractiveness for buttocks that don't exist for feet. Any foot will do (except maybe your own). IBE (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IBE, are you a fetishist speaking from an informed position, or was that just a wild-footed guess? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

antisemitism

I am trying to get an historical perspective on anti-Semitism, particularly since the Industrial Revolution. Can you suggest any comprehensive resource(s)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak47dan (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fairly comprehensive to me: Antisemitism#References --Dweller (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an article History of antisemitism, set out chronologically. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in Bangladesh

Is it true that there was once used to be a Jewish population in Bangladesh before 1971 or after 1971?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

A Google search for "Jews in Bangladesh" would have instantly told you the answer, in the very top result. Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donmust90, I'm going to ask you again: why don't you ever do your own research, even when people patiently show you how? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone really know what time it is? μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody really care? --Jayron32 03:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, Medeis? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something to do with soccer. μηδείς (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Almost Englishmen: Baghdadi Jews in British Burma by Ruth Fredman Cernea, p. , sxvhe states "Like points in a silken cobweb, the Baghdadi Jewish diaspora once spread throughout Southeast Asia, from Bombay to Shanghai. Woven into the web were distant, but never isolated, communities in Singapore, Calcutta, Rangoon, Karachi, Dacca, Penang, Hong Kong, Yokahama, and Surabaya, and in many small towns throughout the countryside." I cannot find, in a brief search any info when this community emigrated, but considering this: "The partition of India in 1946[?] and the bloody riots coupled with the fear of a socialist government pushed the Calcutta Jews who were very close to the partition line with East Pakistan, and who felt especially threatened, to leave India.", it seems probable that Jews from Dacca would have emigrated around the same time as the Calcutta Jews. --Soman (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between these church officials?

Bishop
Deacon
Vicar
Priest
Pastor (Roman Catholic priest or Roman Catholic pastor?)
Minister
Lay Teacher
Chaplain
Friar (as in Frere Jacques or Friar Laurence)
Brother (as in Brother John, the English version of Frere Jacques)

Sneazy (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's wholly dependent on which particular church tradition you're asking about. Most flavors of Christianity (and probably a bunch of non-Christian religions) use many to all of those titles for different offices. — Lomn 21:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, take "lay teacher". The laity is, broadly defined, anybody who's not clergy. So, taken literally, a "lay teacher" is anybody teaching who isn't clergy (presumably in a church-type role, but we could extend the metaphor to other fields). As an example of the diversity of answers, though, the United Methodists have two specifically defined varieties of lay speakers (who are laity and often fill a teaching role), each with requirements that must be met to the satisfaction of larger church heirarchy to be claimed as a title. And that's just the one denomination I'm familiar enough with to reference offhand; I have no doubt that similar-enough terms are used in other contexts by other groups. — Lomn 21:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Narrow down to Roman Catholic and Anglican perspectives. Sneazy (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just to add to the discussion a bit, there are a few of those terms which are common enough in several strains of Christianity that a common definition can be hazarded. They would be:

Pastor: Usually the term for the leader of a specific congregation. Usually, the Pastor is charged as both the main leader of the worship service (usually presiding over major ceremonies at the service, and delivering the sermon/homily). While the term is usually applied more broadly to Protestant than Catholic or Orthodox churches, it is not wrong to call the "Parish Priest" a "Pastor", indeed the terms are used fairly interchangably. Of course, there are Priests in the Roman Catholic church who don't lead congregations in worship; priests with other jobs would not be pastors. The term comes from the word for "shepherd" (c.f. pastoralism)) and is closely tied to the agrigultural symbolism of the Chrtistian faith (Lamb of God, congregation as a "flock", etc.)
Minister: A member of the clergy. Some protestant faiths hold to the concept of the ministry of all believers, but that merely means that all members of a church congregation are supposed to take an active role in the internal and external operation of the church; it encourages full participation rather than just consumption of services (i.e. becoming active in church beyond merely sitting in the pew on Sundays). However, even in those churches the clergy are still called "Ministers".
Priest: A member of the ordained clergy in specific Christian denominations, most commonly Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. There are probably a few other smaller sects and strains that use the word Priest to describe their ordained clergy, but those are the three main ones. Other than Anglicanism, many other Protestant faiths don't use the word "Priest" and instead use the word "Minister" because there is no indication that the New Testament Church ordained any priests, the term is not used to describe any leaders of the early church, and as such is seen as a later, non-biblical innovation.
Chaplain is usually used to indicate a clergy member without a regular church/congregation. Chaplains often work in transient situations, places like hospitals, the military, prisons, etc. may employ full-time chaplains. They otherwise do the normal work of a clergy member or pastor: holding religious services, delivering sacraments, presiding over weddings, serving as a religious counselor, etc., but they do so outside of the bounds of a formal congregation/church setting.
Laity is any member of a church congregation which is not part of the clergy. Nearly all Christian denominations have roles within the church for lay members, such as teaching bible studies, serving as ushers, presenting communion, reading the scripture for the week, praying at certain times during the service, playing music or singing, performing jobs "behind the scenes" (media, sound, lighting technicians; treasurers and secretaries and receptionists), lots of other things. In most denominations, there are certain functions which are reserved for ordained clergy; any other job except for those reserved jobs could be done by the laity, but you will find a wide variance between denominations as to what those jobs are. Usually, however, most denominations require that clergy perform certain ceremonies (like weddings), or deliver the sermon/homily. In Catholicism, for example, the Priest or Deacon generally always reads the Gospel reading (other readings can be done by lay members), and the priest is required for Confession and to preside over the Eucharist. In some protestant congregations, there's very little, strictly speaking, that the lay members don't participate in. There are times, for example, when we at the Baptist church I am a member of, have sermons delivered by guest speakers who are not ordained; the Pastor usually performs Baptisms, but this is not required (any member may baptize any other member, and sometimes a parent will baptize their child for example.)
Friar or Brother are basically the same term, and in Catholicism usually refers to a member of a mendicant order, that is a specific set of monastic orders dedicated to poverty and charity. I think that some orders prefer Friar and other Brother, while some use the two interchangably.
The other terms are widely different depending on the denomination, broadly speaking a Bishop is an administrator over several parishes or congregations, his bailiwick is usually called a diocese. In most denominations that have Bishops, they are promoted in some way from the lower clergy into the role of Bishop. Likewise, a Vicar is an assistant of some sort (roughly equivalent to the military term "Lieutenant"), though there is some variation in this usage, and it is far from universal. Catholics, for example, have "apostolic vicars" who assist bishops by governing parts of a diocese, and "parochial vicars" that assist the pastor in leading a specific parish. Deacon is probably the most varied of all of the titles you listed, many denominations have Deacons, but there is such a huge variation in what the term means to each denomination it is impossible to give any universal definition. You'd do best to just read the article. --Jayron32 22:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But in England, "Vicar" usually means Vicar (anglicanism), for practical purposes the same as "Parish Priest". --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can children serve the church too? One position I know is the altar server. In the Coptic Orthodox denomination, only boys may become altar servers. I wonder what kind of position would be allowed for women and girls. Maybe volunteer positions? Lay teachers? Lay ministers? Lay chaplains? Nuns and religious sisters? Sneazy (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which denomination? Seriously, the answers you get are so varied it is impossible to say with any certainty with regard to any specific denomination. IIRC, girls have been able to serve as alter servers in Roman Catholic churches for some number of decades now. In some number of Protestant denominations, there are no restrictions at all on women holding any post in the clergy or laity; though some denominations have "split" over such issues (consider that the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship split off from the Southern Baptist Convention over many issues, but one of the core ones was over women as pastors) so there's going to be a wide variation depending on the denomination, and even within some denominations from congregation to congregation (Baptists in particular are a "bottom up" organization, so individual Baptist churches are considered fully independent and not bound by rules from any greater organization than the church itself, which is governed by direct democracy. The same is true of many nondenominational christian churches) --Jayron32 03:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32: Is it ok to say that asking questions about Christianity is even harder than asking questions about Islam simply because Christianity is way too diverse to be coherent? When I ask questions about Islam online, answerers seem to perceive Islam as one monolithic or homogeneous religion, as if they seem to know that that would be what Muslims believe in or would behave. When I ask questions about Christianity online, confusion usually follows among the askers, requesting specification of whatever denomination. Therefore, I draw a conclusion that asking questions about Christianity is nearly useless. Instead of asking questions about Christianity, one should ask questions regarding a specific denomination, or a specific congregation, of Christianity and even that may not be enough to fully understand how the system operates due to Christianity's immense diversity of followers. Sneazy (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the questions you are asking aren't about the universals of Christianity. You're asking questions which are about the minutiae of church governance, which is very varied. Also, there are questions about Islam where you're likely to get a lot of varied answers as well. Islam is as varied in its sects as is Christianity, but it looks like (from below) that your aren't asking the same sorts of questions. For example, many of the major issues of Christology and the like are pretty well settled among most major Christian denominations (i.e. you're going to find broad agreement among a vast majority of modern Christians on many of these issues.) For example, nearly all major Christian denominations agree with the Holy Trinity and with the concept of the Hypostatic union which hold that a) God is three persons or aspects, those being God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Spirit (the Holy Spirit), and that the three aspects are both triune (literally three parts in one) and inseparable (Hypostasis is the theological term for this) and b) that Jesus is equally divine and human, he is simultaneously all divine and all human. In the early years of the church these were far from settled questions, but many of the early "schisms" that occurred over these issues happened so early that the groups that held different beliefs on such Christological issues never developed into major Christian groups; groups like the Gnostics and the Nestorians and other like groups are mainly historical footnotes, and modern mainstream Christianity considers this a settled issue. Your question below about Islam is about Ramadan, which is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, which are those things which all Muslims will agree with (much as I noted above with the broad agreement over Christological issues with nearly all modern Christians would agree with). However, if you started asking questions about the role of Muslim clergy, specific names thereof, specific practices within Islam you're going to get a lot of different answers. Even beyond the broad Sunni/Shia division (roughly analogous to the Orthodox/Catholic division that occured during the Great Schism in Christianity) you're going to run into things like various strains of, say, Sunnism that have different traditions and practices (see Madhhab which is a roughly Islamic equivalent to the Christian concept of "denomination"). You've got groups like the Twelvers, the Ismaili, the Alawi, etc., and taken in total, all of the various subdivisions of Islam are going to have as wide differences as one would find among various Christian groups. --Jayron32 04:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can a non-Muslim observe Ramadan?

Can a non-Muslim observe Ramadan? Does reading the Quran have to be in Arabic? Is it ok if a non-Muslim enters a mosque? Should a non-Muslim woman wear some head covering (hijab) over herself for modesty inside the mosque? Does the hijab have to be made out of a special type of fabric, or will any type of fabric suffice for the headwear? How should non-Muslims behave in a mosque? Is there a specific term for non-Muslims, and what does Allah expects from non-Muslims? Sneazy (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Islamic term for a non-believer is Kafir. Allah simply requires of non-Muslims that they become Muslims. The regulations inside a mosque vary in different traditions. In some mosques, women pray in an area that is separated from the men, in others they pray in the same room, however the wearing of some kind of head covering is normally expected (as in all public areas). Non-Muslims can often enter the mosque, provided they are not interrupting a prayer. According to conservative Islamic scholars, the Quran can only be properly read in Arabic, but many Muslims are unable to, so they do use translations sometimes. A non-Muslim can certainly observe Ramadan, the observance is a private thing. - Lindert (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Allah the same god as the Christian god or the Jewish god? Are they worshiping the same god? If they are worshiping the same god but different approaches to reach this god, then would being a Christian or Jew be enough to please Allah? Or does that person have to have explicit faith in Allah? Sneazy (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allah means something like "the only God", which squares with Judeo-Christian tradition. The exact nature of God/Allah's message to humans is where the controversy is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic-speaking Christians use "Allah" to refer to the Christian God in Arabic-language Bible translations. There has been some controversy over Christians using the word "Allah" in Malaysia, but not in any Arabic-speaking country as far as I know. As for Ramadan, if non-Muslims conspicuously publicly eat food during the day where Muslims can see them, this can cause tensions and frictions in a Muslim-majority country, and occasionally turn ugly. Christians know to keep any daylight food eating strictly behind closed doors in many contexts when Ramadan comes around... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a Muslim-majority country during Ramadan, why would you think that there would be tensions and frictions between Muslims and non-Muslims if non-Muslims conspicuously publicly eat food during the day where Muslims can see them? What if the non-Muslims are really tourists, wearing tourist badges? If such a thing does occur in real life, then what would be some suggestions for traveling to a Muslim-majority country without causing frictions and tensions with the native community?

I know that Jews would not require non-Jews or Gentiles to obey the 613 mitzvot. However, a good Gentile from an Orthodox Jewish perspective, as I read on Judaism 101, would follow the seven commandments. I wonder how would a Christian react when the Christian sees a non-Christian person doing something blasphemous or whether or not that would cause tension and friction in Christian-majority societies. Sneazy (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can trolls ask any question they want? What happens if someone answers them? Does anyone really know what time it is? Does anyone really care? μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that you are critiquing the OP question as "trollish". Sneazy (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sneazy -- your answer of "01:45, 9 April 2013" unfortunately appears to mainly be concerned with counterfactual speculations which are rather separated from reality. AnonMoos (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sneazy should check out the Front Pembela Islam's actions during Ramadhan, if a restaurant refuses to close. Not representative of what moderates think, but it can certainly be an issue. During Ramadhan in Indonesia I never eat in front of people who are fasting; if I do eat in public and not at a restaurant, I usually place myself with my back to the street. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer should be the same to "Can a non-Christian celebrate Christmas?" I know of plenty of people who don't know that Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ, and for that matter, who Chist is, but celebrate it in any case. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas was declared a "folk holiday" some years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. I think that had to do with justifying taking it as a federal holiday. It's basically "Winter Holiday". Can Ramadan also be considered a folk holiday? Or is it only religious? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a holiday. But the end of it is: Eid al-Fitr. The Christian equivalent is Lent. Paul B (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Holiday" in its original sense of "holy day". Or month, in this case. But I gather that the answer is that it's primarily religious. Oddly enough, Lent refers to springtime, and Ramadan apparently referred originally to summertime. Just as Christmas was originally chosen to coincide with the winter solstice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really Bugs, now you are just being disingenuous. You can't have a "folk holiday" or "Winter holiday" in the etymological sense, so if that's what you meant your whole post was nonsensical. And in any case, you've just conceded that it's not a "day", so the original sense is irrelevant to the point you were making anyway. Paul B (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thus to answer the original question: I have known secular folk who observe at least some form of abstinence in Lent, or in Ramadan, as a matter of personal discipline. They would not mark Lent in the way a Christian would, or Ramadan in the way a Muslim would, but they do make some observance by fasting. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1)What are the reasons for a non-Muslim person to observe Ramadan?

2)Anyone can read the Quran's translations in any language to understand better its meaning. But Muslims should pray and recite the Quran aloud only in Arabic. In some countries praying in non-Arabic can be even persecuted by law.

3)Allah expects non-Muslims to become Muslims.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) To honor someone else's faith; (2) Some nations don't believe in freedom of religion; (3) That's the Muslim view, not universally held. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to what I read, in Morocco people cannot enter the place of worship of different religion. Apparently it was a French law to avoid clashes that has not been removed after independence. However, in other countries such as Turkey, non-Muslims can visit mosques providing they keep some rules like removing shoes and being properly covered (no uncovered hair for women and no uncovered legs). Turkish touristic mosques keep a roped area in the back for tourist visits and most of the area for Muslims activities. During prayer time, the mosque can fill up and even overflow with praying Muslims, so it's not a good time to visit. --Error (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]