Humanities desk
< January 14	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 16 >

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.

January 15

Marquess of Reading

Why do the arms of the Marquess of Reading contain a fasces? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My speculation is that the fasces dates from the 1st Marquess of Reading's appointment as Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. Unfortunately, we don't have a description of the arms of other officeholders from the time to support my original research here. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isaacs was LCJ in 1913 and not made a peer (as Reading) until 1914, before which he wouldn't have had any arms! So the link is a reasonably safe assumption. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proving common sense

Is there a study out there that proves that people who live in coastal towns use the beaches for recreational purposes more often than people who live farther away from them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.48 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It surely depends on the town. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Europe's taxing artists

close soapboxing

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"spending a year dead for tax reasons" seems a little less fanciful these days.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/u2-move-their-rock-empire-out-of-ireland-133364.html

Gérard Depardieu

etc, etc.

So is there an article or category for these European artists (including the Beatles I suppose, ergo Taxman), who tax our patience with their tax exiles or is this simply the camel's sticking out of the tent for a Globalization future where everybody is a tax refugee, with the 1% of the 1% of the 1% living in fortresses on privately owned islands? Hcobb (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't have any articles about people of any sort who tax your patience. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Palmistry of Tokugawa Ieyasu: can it be verified?

In both Chinese and Japanese wikipedia article there is an unreferenced trivia says He had a single transverse palmar crease. Is this ever verifiable?--Inspector (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely without having photographs, which weren't invented in those days. In the same way we can't verify Julius Caesar had epilepsy. All we can do is just trust writings of the period. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what writings indicate that information?--Inspector (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OCD

You could suffer from OCD to a greater or lesser extent? --109.232.72.49 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Shadowjams (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping of the entire earth

Is it true that the first time the entire earth was mapped was in 1972 by the Landsat-1? Rebel Yeh (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That really depends what you mean by "mapped". There were world maps well before then, but they weren't particularly accurate in some places. The use of satellites made it much easier to get accurate maps. --Tango (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except of course for the huge hole in the Antarctic where the Nazis had hidden themselves and their alien machinery ;-) Landsat had a polar orbit but didn't quite go over the poles so those areas weren't covered. Dmcq (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London bombings during WW2

Hi something I've been wondering about, reading the British Museum article... why wasn't there some unwritten rule that historical buildings not be bombed? How did the ancient buildings like the Tower of London get saved? Was it just luck? Was there an evil purpose to destroy irreplaceable buildings and artifacts? I'm curious about policy both from the Allies and Axis point of view. We know that Berlin was bombed to smithereens. As an aside... shouldn't there be an initiative to backup all these priceless artifacts using 3D Printing and store them deep underground? Sandman30s (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, part of the Tower of London was demolished by a large bomb, a bastion called Legge's Mount, which had been built by the Duke of Wellington in the 19th century.[1] It was rebuilt to conform to the medieval wall after the war. The high altar at St Paul's Cathedral was destroyed,[2] and the Houses of Parliament were wrecked.[3] Many historic City churches were destroyed including St Mary-le-Bow, the famous "Bow Bells". Later in the war, the Germans specifically targeted historic buildings of no military importance, like Exeter Cathedral in the Baedeker raids. Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As well as repeating what Alan has said about the Baedeker raids, I'd also like to point out that WW2 bombers were hardly precision tools, and trying to hit, or not hit, a specific building even as big as the British Museum would be quite a tall order. In order to be that exact, you'd have to fly so low that you'd risk anti-aircraft fire, and the possibility of flying into a barrage balloon tether. In the Dam Busters raid on the Ruhr dams, the use of very low flight combined with a bomb which would move until it more or less stuck to the designated target was employed. You can't really do that in an urban area. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This did happen a few times; at least one plane is recorded to have deliberately flown low along the Mall to target Buckingham Palace. It was rare, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BM was not specifically targeted, but it was indeed bombed; one gallery was heavily damaged, as was the Newspaper Library in Colindale, and there still items in the British Library catalogue recorded as "destroyed by enemy action" (eg. The BM also adjoins Senate House, which was the wartime home of a government ministry; even if it was exempted, their neighbours would have been a prime target. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many European museums moved their collections into safe storage during the war. Our article states that it was the case for the British Museum as well. --Xuxl (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To a limited degree; the major high-profile items were removed, but a substantial amount of smaller material remained. The bulk of the BM library remained on-site throughout, for example, and I'm sure that most of the stored archaeological material also did even if the grand Egyptian galleries were emptied. There was also a move to bring material back from storage at one point (though I forget the dates), as having the material constantly hidden was felt to be damaging morale. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies... such a shame. Thank goodness Rome's World Wonders were not destroyed - they were marvellous to behold when I visited. Sandman30s (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can use this map http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20637222 to see where all the bombs fell on London. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the flip side, the Allies also destroyed many historic buildings via bombing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As already pointed out above, WW2 bombers, with few exceptions, were atrociously bad at aiming. Often the bombed the wrong city,and sometimes the wrong country. Targeting individual buildings must have been a rare exception. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of such rare exceptions were Operation Jericho, Operation Carthage, and the Oslo Mosquito raid. These were low-level raids with fast two-engined bombers engaging high-value targets, though, and one managed to wipe out a school accidentally in the process. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To give some concrete numbers on accuracy, from Strategic bombing during World War II#US bombing in Europe: the US Army Air Force (who had the greatest emphasis on precision bombing) considered that a "hit" was a bomb that landed within a thousand feet of the aiming point, and by that definition only about 20% of bombs hit their target. --Carnildo (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse, the 1941 Butt Report into RAF night raids concluded that only one third of RAF night raids succeeded in getting within five miles of their target. The Germans made more use of electronic aids, but their method of destroying Exeter Cathedral was to flatten the centre of Exeter, and bombs intended for the London docks rained down on London suburbs several miles away. Alansplodge (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The planned destruction of Warsaw carried out by the Germans at the end of their occupation of Poland is a good example of deliberate destruction of a nation's cultural heritage. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Unwritten rule"? There was actually a written Treaty on Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments ("the Roerich Pact"), but neither Germany nor Britain were signatories. You can still see buildings in Europe marked with the Roerich Pact sign. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little strange that the Roerich Pact article is so much bigger than the article on the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (which has probably been more important in international law/diplomacy for the last 50 years)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles are unclear, but there was some form of "protected building" marking in international law other than Roerich or the 1950s Hague conventions - I believe it was mostly intended for coastal cities being bombarded and effectively predated air attack, and of course was pretty much a dead letter by WWII. I can't remember the details, but I've definitely seen it in a WWII manual of military law. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are - Section 27, Part IV (Laws and Customs of War on Land), of the Hague Convention of 1907:

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

The symbols are left unspecified (though the red cross couldn't be used for non-medical facilities), but Section 5 in Part IX suggested one for naval bombardment:

In bombardments by naval forces all the necessary measures must be taken by the commander to spare as far as possible sacred edifices, buildings used for artistic, scientific, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick or wounded are collected, on the understanding that they are not used at the same time for military purposes. It is the duty of the inhabitants to indicate such monuments, edifices, or places by visible signs, which shall consist of large, stiff rectangular panels divided diagonally into two coloured triangular portions, the upper portion black, the lower portion white.

I don't know if this was ever done, but it was certainly still officially chapter and verse during the First World War (I am making these notes from a 1916-era War Office handbook...) Andrew Gray (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Forrester

At 1:01 in Finding Forrester, Jamal is walking in the street as a police cruiser drives by and there is an abandoned car on the side of the road engulfed in flames, and yet the police do not stop to investigate, call for the fire department, etc. Isn't this supposed to be staged in NYC? I mean, how is that realistic, that the police would ignore a car on fire in the street? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want realism in TV shows? Sheesh, don't get me started! How about when someone has to attend court, so they drive up to the courthouse and park their car right out front, where there's a space conveniently available and they don't have to pay or anything. Is that typical of life in NYC and other large cities? I rather think not. Or how in a police drama, two or more cops are discussing the case, inside the police headquarters, when suddenly a voice from stage left enters the conversation and the newly arrived person knows exactly what everybody's been saying and they just carry on as if they'd been part of the conversation all along, and it turns out to be a private citizen with some stake in the case, such as the victim's mother, but they would have no way of being inside the building without some security pass or a police escort, but they're there all by themselves just wandering about inside the secure building, interrupting conversations willy-nilly, and nobody ever asks them what they're doing there or how they got past the security doors but they all act as if she has a perfect right to be there. If the police turn a blind eye when their own secure headquarters are open to just anyone walking in off the street and wandering around unchecked, why would they give a damn about a burning car on the street outside?

I told you not to get me started. :)-- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unstated backstory is that they are circling the block and have already driven past the burning car thrice and they called it in the first time. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milk, bread, sandwich, winter weather?

James Spann retweeted this tweet by @stuffspannsays, a Twitter account that apparently tweets some of the more notable/memorable things James Spann says: "Better get your milk sandwich supplies ready for Thursday." With confusion I moved on and wouldn't have thought any more about it until I saw a Facebook status by someone completely unrelated and outside of Spann's viewing area: "This Southern girl is ready for ice or snow. I have milk and bread!" Is there some cultural connection I'm missing between winter weather, bread, and milk? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After the first time we got snowbound for a week in the great blizzards of the late 1970s, my mother always kept a large supply of powdered milk on hand. Bread you can make from flour and yeast but 3 (and once 4) kids with no milk, unthinkable. Thanks to those anonymous snowmobilers who brought our food resupply the last two miles - even if they did park on the roof of our car, hidden under the snowdrifts. Rmhermen (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During snowstorms and other harsh weather in the U.S., there is typically a run on grocery stores for certain items. These are almost invariably "milk and bread" or sometimes "milk, bread, and toilet paper" which has become something of a "trope" or "meme" in describing the irrational shopping spree that precedes any bad weather: see this google search which shows how prevalent that exact phrasing is. The answer the the question is that there is no rational reason why there is a run on milk, bread, and toilet paper before a storm: it's part of the panic leading up to the storm, as people stock pile supplies they think they may run short on if the storm shuts down services and transportation. Don't try to analyze it rationally; it is rarely useful to stock up on those specific items in preparation for a storm (bottled water and canned goods would probably be more useful). However, it is what it is, which is a shared cultural trope that most people in the U.S. understand idiomatically. The phrase "milk, bread and toilet paper" (or in some places "milk and bread" is instantly understood to mean "There's a storm coming!" --Jayron32 19:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milk and bread are items people often need to buy daily or every couple of days. When there is any sort of extreme weather or emergency that makes it more difficult to get to shops or supply shops, these are the things (and toilet paper, i suppose, if you're running low) which you are mostly likely to find run out in the day or two before things return to normal. So you buy extra, hopefully before the shops run out. If you thought you or the shops would be cut off for longer than a day or two, then you'd buy different things (like canned food). 86.140.54.211 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree with Jayron's assessment of the necessity of the purchases. It depends where you live, how bad the storm is predicted to be and how long you expect to be stranded without access to stores. Rmhermen (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, too. What Jayron didn't consider is that milk and bread are perishable staples, so you normally only have a few days worth on hand, whereas canned goods and bottled water last for months or years, so presumably you already have a stockpile of those. Therefore, when your supply line is about to be cut, it's the perishables you need to stock up on. (There is powdered/evaporated/condensed milk, but those are poor substitutes for fresh milk.) StuRat (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron is simply reporting usage in the south especially. The way I've heard it goes something like this: "If there's even a rumor of a snowflake, the bread and milk disappear from the stores' shelves." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if New Hampshire is the south, South Quebec, maybe. The usage was well known to me growing up, and I'd never left New England for longer than a week in my life at that point. Though your point is somewhat correct: The main point is that the phrase "milk, bread, and toilet paper" is a trope or meme. The validity of actually stockpiling milk, bread, and toilet paper in preparation for a snow storm is entirely irrelevant to my main point, which is that the phrase itself carries idiomatic meaning. --Jayron32 02:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say they don't stock up in the north too, just that there seems to be more of a panic factor in the south, or at least that's the stereotype, as per what southerners themselves have told me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is absolutely true. Southerners lose their shit when it snows even an insignificant amount. As little as 1/2 - 1 inch of snow has literally paralyzed the city where I live now, Raleigh, North Carolina: This storm received attention on the national news, as the city was so gridlocked from an inch of snow that children literally had to spend the night in school because there was no way for the busses to get them home, and no way for parents to get to schools to pick their children up. I was working in a high school at the time which was 3 miles from my house, it took me three hours to drive home; it would have taken me about 45 minutes had I walked. For comparison, I was back in New Hampshire visiting my family a few weeks ago. We had 9 inches of snow the day after Christmas, and it was like it never happened. No massive traffic, no panicked runs on the store. We shoveled out the driveway and went about our business for the day. Went to the local shopping mall, went home. No troubles at all. --Jayron32 13:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things about your state. One is a story I heard yesterday, that the Greensboro airport was closed for several hours because two snowplows collided on the runway. Clearly amateurs doing the driving. Also, some years back there was a major snowfall in the Raleigh area, maybe 1-2 feet, and WRAL-TV posted viewers' pictures of kids and pets playing in the snow, as it was a big news item locally. My fellow midwesterners got a laugh from that. A couple of years ago the Metrodome roof collapsed. Now that was a newsworthy event. If it had not happened, the 1-2 feet of snow Minneapolis got would have been just a blip on the radar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just in the USA, either - this north-south divide seems to exist in any northern hemisphere country where the north is significantly colder than the south. When I was in Umeå, in northern Sweden, in the winter of 2001-2, the locals took regular -20°C temperatures and constant ice and snow entirely in their stride. When I flew south to Stockholm, the entire city was at a standstill, and the newspaper headline said Snökaoset - 'The snow chaos'. There was less snow, and the cold was less intense, but the level of preparation was minimal. Most Brits would be very surprised to discover that a Scandinavian country could be so ill-prepared. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is to do with levels of preparedness and general kit by the authorities. London, where I live, used to get plenty of snow in the 50s-70s, but it started tailing off. I bought a sledge in the Ukraine in the early 90s and didn't get to use it for some years. During that time, local authorities and transport bodies started reducing their spend on winter preparedness. There was then a largish snowfall in the mid 2000s that came, swiftly, just before rush hour, causing utter confusion and panic. Public transport just stopped - including the tube train I was on at the time. People had to sleep in their offices or got home in the early hours. I vaguely recall someone delivered their baby in their car in the middle of a traffic jam, there were abandoned cars festooning the streets. A couple of years later, there was a repeat and a public outcry. The trend began to reverse. We had our first snow of the winter a few days ago, and it barely made an impact - admittedly, the amount that fell was very very small, it would have caused chaos some years ago - mostly because the main routes were already gritted, unlike during the 2000s. So, places with plenty of snow are geared up for plenty of snow and can handle it. Places where it's more of a rarity are not and chaos can ensue from even a light snowfall. That's just a simple fact of economics - why invest in snowploughs, gritters and the rest of the panoply required (not to mention training the staff to use them) if it snows once every four or five years, and even then, the snow lasts just a day or so? --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it only lasts a day or two, then where is the wisdom in stockpiling staples? --Jayron32 14:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say my household normally gets through 2 pints of milk every two days, so I normally buy 2 pints about every other day. Milk actually lasts for several more days than that, but it makes sense for me to keep buying it about every other day, because I go to the shops about that often anyway and it's more flexible because sometimes I use more and sometimes less. But then I see that it's going to snow heavily tomorrow. I might have anywhere between very little milk to 2 pints in the fridge, and I want to make sure I won't run out over the next 2 or 3 days since I might not be able to restock if I run low. So I buy 4 pints instead. And everyone else also makes sure to top up. And in households with multiple adults, probably everyone will pick up milk on the way home that day, in case nobody else in the house did. So the shops run low. And then we have lots of milk, so we use it to make cocoa to warm up after playing in the snow :) 86.140.54.211 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably wrong, but is it to do with things that people might depend on being delivered to their homes? Here in the UK, people my age will remember the days when a milkman came by every day, dropping off milk, but also eggs, bread and a few other staples. When the snowy weather came, the low-powered milkfloats couldn't get up any kind of serious incline. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, apropos of nothing, this image macro just hit my facebook feed: [4] Relevent, no? --Jayron32 21:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious schools in Christianity, Hinduism and other religions

In Islam, a religious school is called madrassa and in Judaism, their religious school is called yeshiva. What do Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and other called their religious schools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.27 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian schools may simply be called "Christian schools", or sometimes Parochial schools, though that term is used mostly to describe Roman Catholic-run school specifically. --Jayron32 20:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me back up. It depends on what you mean by "religious school". If you mean "a school for general education run by a religious organization", then that is what I named above. If you mean "a school for religious education and indoctrination run by a religious organization", then that's a different thing. While parochial schools have an implicit and real indoctrination element to them, most do not have it as their primary mission. In the U.S. parochial schools must still teach the general education curriculum as determined by the state; ostensibly the same material being taught in public schools. However, religious education specifically takes several forms. Religious study within churches themselves generally occurs in the context of Sunday schools (in non-Catholic churches), usually called "catechism" or "CCD" in Catholic churches. In Christianity, clerics are trained at specialty schools called "seminaries." --Jayron32 20:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the UK, only Catholic clerical training colleges are seminaries; Anglicans (and Methodists, I think) go to theological college. And in the USA, the term 'Bible College' is frequently used to describe the training-places of Protestant clergy. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Theological Seminary would like to have a word with you. --Jayron32 00:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point, but (a) I've never heard of them, and (b) this is very much like bringing up the London School of Economics when someone observes that Brits don't say 'school' when they mean 'university' - it doesn't affect the generic term. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many Episcopalian (Anglican) clerical colleges in the U.S. are called seminaries—e.g., General Theological Seminary and Seabury-Western Theological Seminary. Deor (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point on the UK. The ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland are trained at the Reformed Theological College, although the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland (before most of its members left in 1863) operated the "Paisley Seminary" for a similar purpose, while the American portion of the denomination operates the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and our Reformed Theological College article is a seminary supported in part by Australian Reformed Presbyterians. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Malaysia, Sunday school is commonly called Sunday school even in the Catholic church at least for child/teenage education. See e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8]. Cathecism may be sometimes used, but not that much and more commonly in contexts outside Sunday school for children/teens. At least in the church and sunday school I attended. Sunday school may also be used, at least informally in NZ [9] [10] [11]. Incidentally in NZ religious classes aren't allowed during school time in public schools in NZ. However schools are allowed to 'close' during school hours for an hour each week for religious classes provided students/parents can opt out of such classes something which has been in the news recently particularly in relation to how children who have been opted out are treated [12] [13]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed your reference links for you. Astronaut (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the Jewish equivalent of Sunday School is, in fact, "Sunday School", as the Sabbath is Saturday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., the term Hebrew school is also used for "Jewish Sunday School", and the Wikipedia article notes the connection between the terms. --Jayron32 14:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Faith school - "a school in the United Kingdom that teaches a general curriculum but with a particular religious character or having formal links with a religious organisation." Alansplodge (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the other terms are:

Islam and madrassas: As noted at top, a religious school is called a "madrassa" (although in Arabic, the word refers to any school).
Sikhism and Sikh school or taksal (Punjabi word) or seminary: The invented Punjabi word is "taksal" but other terms include "Sikh school" or "seminary" or "madrassa". Also, each gurdwara can be used as a school: "A free kitchen and frequently a school for Sikh children are attached to the gurdwara".
Judaism and yeshivot: As noted at top, a religious school is called a "yeshiva" (plural "yeshivot").
Buddhism and Buddhist school: Because Buddhism is often considered a way of thinking, rather than a structured religion, it is not always as organized as others.

Perhaps others know a term for a Hindu schoolroom, beyond "Hindu school" or such. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the reason that we have specific terms for Muslim and Jewish schools but not for others is that those two are strongly tied to Arabic and Hebrew respectively. Hinduism uses lots of Indian languages, Buddhism uses lots of Asian languages, Christianity uses lots of European languages and various others too, and I don't know about Sikhism. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of fiction in terms of how it was created

For some reason, quite possibly because of a seeming inability to comprehend some things about interpretations, I've been thinking of literary works and movies and such in terms of authorial intent and real life influences, and I'm not talking thematic inspiration or allegories. To give an example of what this is like, take popular media franchises like Final Fantasy or Marvel Comics and fans trying to ascertain canonicity of various sources. In discussing or pondering such things myself I seek to answer questions like were there multiple authors, how much collaboration occurred when these various works were being created, and such. Is there a name for such an approach? I'm thinking positivism, but that doesn't sound right. — Melab±1 ☎ 22:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those who analyze the Bible often use similar methods. The Pentateuch, for example, seems to have been written by multiple authors, based on different styles and content. See mosaic authorship. StuRat (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was the lower-case "m" an intentional reference, ie. mosaic? It's something that never occurred to me before - the word, in another sense, implies some kind of patchwork. Just something I found amusing for a moment. IBE (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, glad you noticed my little pun. Specifically, I'm reminded of mosaic (genetics). StuRat (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Article Capitonym... AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

symbolic gesture at NCAA football game

On December 25, 2012, there was this NCAA football game. It was Virginia Tech for Sandy Hook. (Virginia Tech played against Rutgers University.) On the helmets of the Hokies football players, there were these decals. They were half orange and half green with the initials "VT" and "SH". (That was a nod to Blacksburg and Newtown suffering tragedies.) Plus, the word "PREVAIL" and the number 58 were printed. The number 58 totals the fatalities of the 32 innocent victims of the Virginia Tech shooting rampage and the 26 innocent victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting rampage. I asked someone about the decals in the bookstore at Virginia Tech. He told me those items weren't licensed by the university. (I'm really interested in pictures of the decals.) Who licensed the decals?142.255.103.121 (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean licensed? Someone made some stickers and sold them. That they weren't sanctioned by the University doesn't mean they were officially sanctioned by anyone else either. --Jayron32 00:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't endorsed by Virginia Tech. It would be better if you asked someone at the university bookstore about licensing the decals.142.255.103.121 (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you answering your own question? --Jayron32 03:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I need help in figuring out who licensed the decals and distributed them.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask you: Why would they need to be licensed by anyone? They could have just been printed by someone and distributed without a third party licensing them. --Jayron32 04:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They need to licensed. That way, if anyone requests pictures of them, they won't be sold on the blackmarket, or counterfeited.142.255.103.121 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm required to get a license before making stickers? That's news to me. --Jayron32 02:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking you to make the decals. I was actually asking who created them, that's all.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you asked who licensed them. My suggestion was that nobody licensed them, they were just made. You then objected to that notion repeatedly, which is the source of contention here. You said they needed to be licensed. They don't. --Jayron32 13:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried calling the schools? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the bookstore at Virginia Tech. A manager told me the decals weren't licensed by the university. Thus, they or pictures of them can't be sold. Sandy Hook Elementary School is still closed.142.255.103.121 (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which means they probably found them in a store or maybe at a website. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful. There are debates about what should be done with the school. Many Sandy Hook villagers want it to be renovated as a symbol of good overcoming evil. Others want it demolished. Someone created the decals. I'm still interested in finding out who.142.255.103.121 (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have you tried the athletic department of the school? As it's apparently not officially sanctioned by the school and not sold in local stores, you'll have to get closer to the ones who used them. As regards "licensing", they might not be "licensed" as such, but they might be copyrighted by their manufacturer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]