Humanities desk
< October 14	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 15

Gothic short story with lady in white

Back in the late 90s, I found a paperback book, probably published circa the 1970s (but I really don't know) that was a compilation of gothic short stories. I started reading one, and all I remember is a dark castle in which a woman who I believe was dressed in white, was walking around, all alone. I think there was wind. I remember reading quite a bit, but not much happening other than maybe just this: her walking around...? The story, if I remember some of the language, seemed like it was written in the mid to late 19th century. This is vague and a long-shot, but maybe someone here knows what story it might be. If I can find the story, then I can probably locate the book at a library as well. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps The Woman in White (novel)? --Mark viking (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you though. Too many people in that story. Maybe the lady I'm thinking of wasn't dressed in white. I hate to be so vague (I once worked at a bookstore and a lady asked me to find a book on alternative medicine with a green cover). It's definitely a ghost story or a gothic story (maybe no ghosts), but a massive castle or abbey type setting in the dark with moonlight. I just recall her wandering about, and a wind blowing through. Very romantic, eerie stuff. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! You got those as well, did you? Our best was an old lady, well known to us, who wanted another copy of a book she once owned "with a red cover." She didn't remember the subject matter, or if it was paperback, hardback, fiction or non-fiction, however.

Re your query, your description sounds to me so archetypal of the Victorian Gothic genre that it would be impossible to identify without more distinctive details. If you haven't already, I'd suggest you web-search for sites devoted to Gothic literature, where you might be able to both examine lists and descriptions of possibilities, and ask dedicated Gothic fans on any fora. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few stories in Collings Collection --- Classic Victorian & Edwardian Ghost Stories --- have a woman, or her ghost, dressed in white. Omidinist (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A woman does appear in "The Fall of the House of Usher", though I don't recall if she's described as wearing white or not. There is definitely a lot of wind toward the end of the story, but in any event it seems unclear whether the woman would be more likely to be categorised by modern audiences as a ghost or something closer to a zombie. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The White Lady is a ridiculously common ghost, like kids in bedsheets with eyeholes. Castles, wind and moonlight are even more common in Gothic stories. All I can suggest is skimming that article. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pluralism and distribution of power.

Does Pluralism accurately describe the distribution of power in a complex society, or are there more appropriate, rivalling theories? --Plannerton (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Pluralism (political philosophy) and Pluralism (political theory) - Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Berlin

Does anyone have an idea as to which "Museum of Berlin" the author of this paper is referring to on page 134, #40,41? (CTRL+F: in the Museum of Berlin.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this collection is now part of the Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte in the Neues Museum. Marco polo (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

murderers and communion

For years people who remarried without the church's permission were barred from Holy Communion, perhaps the church's most sacred rite. Have there been any other groups, such as murderers, who were under a similar ban? --Halcatalyst (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think most would agree that murderers do not belong in church, but in prison. But the real issue here is that you seem to confuse categories. A murderer is someone who unlawfully killed a person. That is of course a mortal sin in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. Mortal sins need to be repented of. Once the sin is confessed and repented of, and the priest has absolved the person of his/her sin, that past sin is no longer a barrier to receive communion. The issue with (unlawfully) remarried people is that, in the eyes of the church, that person is living in continual sin. When someone continually sins by living as if married with a person who is not really ones spouse (according to the church), then manifestly that person is unwilling to repent and therefore unqualified to receive communion. This applies not just to remarriage but to also to people who habitually commit other sins such as drunkenness, fornication, idolatry etc., and obviously to a person who habitually murders people, such as an abortionist. As long as he/she is unwilling to repent of the sin, he/she cannot receive communion. - Lindert (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'not ...in church but in prison' - they have chapels, and chaplains, in prisons, you know. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Peter himself has a strange prison. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a distinction made here, as abortion may be murder in the eyes of the church, but in the eyes of the law (in the US, at least), it is not. The likelihood of an abortionist also being a devout Catholic is another matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. I don't think ref desk responders should say things like "a person who habitually murders people, such as an abortionist" - that is WP:SOAP in my opinion. The WP:NEUTRAL phrasing would be something along the lines of "abortion is considered a sin by the Catholic church" (if that's even true...). Of course OP doesn't even mention Catholicism per se, and other churches give communion, and some churches even support a woman's right to abortion access. At a quick skim, I see from Christianity and abortion that "Saint Augustine believed that an early abortion is not murder." So even among Catholics there is not full agreement on the issue. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just answering the OP's question, which was clearly in the context of the Roman Catholic Church (so the laws of the USA or other countries are irrelevant here). He/she was specifically asking about refusing communion to murderers (obviously as viewed by the church), so I think my comment was directly relevant to the question, and not WP:SOAP. I was responding from the perspective of the Roman Catholic legal system, though I am not myself a Roman Catholic, and hence do not agree with all their policies. WP:NEUTRAL (like WP:OR etc.), is a content policy, and hence only applies to articles, not to editors' comments on talk pages or the reference desk. Augustine was of course not a Roman Catholic, nor does anyone believe he was infallible. The modern Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reflects the current authoritative position of the Roman Catholic Church, states that an unborn child is a person from the moment of conception, whose rights as a human being must be respected. I did not intend to make this a discussion about abortion, I just hope my response is somewhat helpful to the OP. - Lindert (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't want to make this discussion about abortion, then going out of your way to equate someone who has performed an abortion with a murderer is a funny way to go about it. I'm sure you know that abortion is a highly contentious issue. Additionally, "abortionist" is not the name of any profession, and use of the term is sort of a "dog whistle" that implies certain things (e.g. that anyone who would perform or receive an abortion is scum). Taking these things together, I inferred that your comments contained a needless, pointed aside, that denigrates people who perform or receive abortions. I apologize if I misconstrued your words, but that's how I initially read them. Inserting "according the the catholic church" with your later-provided link would have drawn no comment from me. On the topic of policies, if you search through the ref desk archives and talk pages, you will find plenty of users being admonished for ref desk content that is too OR,SOAP, or not NEUTRAL, though I agree that the standards should be a bit different here than for article space. This is far off topic, so if you (or anyone else) would like to discuss the matter further, please use the ref desk talk page or my talk page to do so. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Mention "abortion is murder" (which, btw, happens to be a valid opinion held by millions of people outside of Wikipedia) and everybody comes out of the woodwork to shout down the person while the edits like this and this (just to name a few recent ones) are simply glossed over and allowed to continue without reprimand. Is it any wonder that this once grand project is increasingly seen as being dominated by those of a particular political persuasion and losing it's claimed neutrality?--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an opinion, but not necessarily a valid opinion. It's a misunderstanding of what murder is. Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. In places where abortion is legal, it is by definition not murder, no matter who might wish it were so. And the same applies to capital punishment, which is also often erroneously labeled murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that taken in the context of this question and answer, ("other sins such as drunkenness, fornication, idolatry etc.,") I don't think the reference to abortion was particularly SOAPy. - Eron^Talk 22:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "everybody", I'm one person. And I didn't come out of the woodwork, I'm a highly prolific respondent here, with a long history of civil tone and providing scientific references. Bugs' comment above is a simple and polite clarification, I'm the only one making an issue of it. My comments above are perfectly WP:CIVIL, and I think you're making a straw man. I did not "shout down" anyone. It says right at the top of the page that this is not a forum for debate. Saying things like "abortion is murder" is inviting a debate, no matter who might believe that - it's a highly contentious issue, and weighing in on one side or another is not something we should do at a reference desk. Saying "abortion is murder" is certainly not WP:NEUTRAL, as I said above. It is not a fact, it is an opinion, and we aren't supposed to offer opinions here either. It is a fact that the catholic church considers abortion to be murder, and Lindert has now given clarification and references to that effect. I am amused that you interpret my request for neutral language as itself a violation of neutrality. Throwing up comments from Bugs as evidence that I'm doing something wrong is also a complete red herring. If you see a problem WP:SOFIXIT; nobody stopped you from commenting on the posts that you cited. Like I said, If you want to discuss the matter further, please take it to the talk page, this really isn't the appropriate venue. (post EC: Eron, all I asked for originally was better clarification that this was the opinion of the church. "Sin" inherently draws upon some religious doctrine in a way that "murder" does not. Stating contentious opinion as fact without qualification is clearly SOAP in my book) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until very recently, Freemasonry was an offence punishable by excommunication. See Clarification concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons and related articles. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any reputable statement from Catholic authorities that suggests Freemasons are no longer excommunicated. As far as I know, it's still considered Grave matter, it just doesn't come up as often because hardly anyone bothers with the Masons anymore. 31.54.195.38 (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gay refused communion gets 813,000 hits. The sub-plot there is that gays have sometimes attended Mass in groups wearing prominent rainbow sashes, which is like a person standing up in the congregation and shouting "I'm gay and proud of it and you wouldn't want to know what my boyfriend and I get up to in bed at night, and I dare you to refuse me Communion". Priests usually happily take the dare, then get bad press for "refusing gays Communion". They don't refuse it to gays who don't make an issue of it, but just turn up and behave like ... well, "normal" people. In some cases, the sash-wearing was preceded by some actual inappropriate discrimination and the wearers felt sufficiently provoked to take a stance. There are no doubt rights and wrongs on both sides. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halcatalyst -- I know nothing about communion, but a number of notorious mobsters have been denied Catholic funeral rites... AnonMoos (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps most notably, Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky. Seriously though, Paul Castellano and John Gotti were two. Still allowed in the Catholic cemetery, just no Mass. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction that needs to be made is that between Crime and Sin. Sin and Crime overlap, but are not the same... Some crimes are sins, while others are not... and some sins are crimes, while others are not. The Church is concerned with Sin. There are actually quite a few sins that are considered serious enough that the Church will withhold sacraments (at least until the sinner repents and is absolved). That said... see our article on Interdict for a more direct answer to the OPs question. Blueboar (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from Crimsin. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

See Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication. Staecker (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for groups or classes of people. The Freemason example is a good one, though it's two centuries old. It's true that gays were condemned in the past, but now the church regards homosexuality as an "objective disorder" which is a sin only if it's practiced, and the teaching extends to individuals, not groups. (same citation as above. I'm sorry I mentioned murder; I was just thinking unclearly. --Halcatalyst (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to read Canon 915 for the general concept.

Anyway obviously you can define your own criteria, but I don't think it's so simple to rule our something like the Rainbow Sash Movement. Although our article suggests it's worn by LGBT, from what I can tell (and I don't think surprisingly) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], it's also worn by supporters who aren't LGBT themselves. In this case, it's not so much that the wearing the sash is a mortal sin (although it could be). In fact, as per the sources, I suspect in many cases even if a person wearing such a sash doesn't wear it next time but is still recognised or even takes it off there and goes to take communion, they'll probably be allowed (which obviously wouldn't work if it were a mortal sin unless it's confessed and repented although perhaps it could be said it's not "obstinately persevered in", so while they shouldn't receive, they can't be denied). But rather that wearing the sash is seen an unacceptable act of protest scandalising a sacrament. So IMO it's fair to say that rainbow sash wearers are a group generally denied communion.

BTW, it's perhaps helpful to differentiate between 2 things here. As per canon 915 and canon 916, there's a difference between people who shouldn't receive communion and those who should be denied. Anyone who's isn't in a state of grace by having committed a mortal sin and not having gone through the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation shouldn't receive communion except in an emergency. But you need to meet additional criteria to be denied. The sin must be manifest i.e. known to a resonable section of the public and "obstinately persevered in".

This would potentially apply to anyone who is openly gay. Although I'm a bit confused by the sources used in our article, which seem to suggest the size of the church is relevant, as I would have thought even if it's known to people outside the Catholic Church it would be equally a problem. Perhaps one factor is that even if plenty of people outside the church know, it's seen as problematic to deny communion as it will reveal something not already known to people in the church, that's what this hints at [8]. (I also got that idea from earlier searchers, see later.)

Either way, to clarify Jack's point, you don't need to wear a rainbow sash to qualify. E.g. this case where the couple were married [9] [10]. The details from the first link seem to suggest the priest feels living together is a big enough problem. I suspect if you're on a gay dating site or similar you may equally have problems.

An interesting point on murderers, if someone is a serial killer yet somehow has managed to evade detecting so no one even know's there's a killer except for the priest perhaps informed through confession, it seems hard to say they would fall under canon 915 unless they qualify for excommunication. (Of course nothing only known via confession would ever come in to play anyway and it's difficult to imagine how the priest would know were it not through confession, at least without them having told anyone.) So even if the priest is fairly confident they're still killing people, they could counsel them not to receive communion, but may not be able to deny it.

Generally though, it's complicated and is obviously going to depend a lot on the priest. As hinted in Canon 915 and I've mentioned before with sources that to avoid scandal or defaming people, often the priest may quitely approaching anyone they feel falls under Canon 915 after mass to remind them of Canon 916 or the requirements for communion and ask them to refrain, probably I suspect going as far as to warn them if they continue before they physically deny the person Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 August 30#How do people receive communion at a megachurch?.

And I'm fairly sure some priests who don't entirely agree with the churchs teachings (or whatever) may simply ignore the info, no matter how clear a violation of 915 it seems to be. You'd note in some of the earlier sources, the the person responding seemed to imply it would be okay to receive communion without the sash, without mentioning the churches teachings on the requirements on communion or on homosexual acts at all, unlike with George Pell per our Rainbow Stash article. And some have openly welcomed rainbow sash wearers to receive the communion regardless of why they're wearing them [11] [12]. In fact, I suspect some more conservative ones, if informed of stuff which suggest the person isn't in a state of grace but which may not fall under 915 will still approach the person to counsel them both about their sin and about canon 916/requirement for communion.

P.S. I noticed the Zenit source mentions another group, those who appear visibly drunk or otherwise intoxicated may be denied which isn't particularly surprising.

P.P.S. Interdict was already linked by someone else, which is an interesting read since it does include several things you could resonably call groups (like the National Executive of the Malta Labour Party or older, places like Rome, Norway and England). It's probably helpful to also look at Latae sententiae as anyone who's excommunicated should also be denied communion per 915 (and automatic is where you're likely to find groups).

Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments, especially yours, Nil Einne. --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that Singapore is the only surviving citystate in the world?

^Topic ScienceApe (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Vatican City? What about Monaco? There are several states listed at microstate which are urbanized enough to be called city-state. The article city-state includes those three as "most certainly city-states" and then also lists several edge-cases including several microstates whose territory is solely a single urban area and its hinterlands. --Jayron32 17:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State could mean an independent country or a part of a federation (like the US states or the German "Bundesländer"=federal states). While afaik the US does not have any states that consist of just a single city - Washington is a Federal District - in Germany there are three: Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. 31.54.21.99 (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Sealand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I may be small, but I've got a big heart! and a giant birthmark of a transistor radio" A quick Google search pulls out this list of 5 city-states, though, and though Singapore is at the top it doesn't seem to be alone. ~Helicopter Llama~ 16:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Conch Republic. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the lists already cited mentioned Djibouti, which is really as much a city-state as Brunei or Luxembourg. Marco polo (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although Luxembourg is a little city surrounded by a lot of very pleasant countryside and several charming small towns like Wiltz for example, so I'm not sure that it would qualify as a "city state" per se. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ur and Sparta had a lot of land, too right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you mean by "territory". Sparta, at times, exerted hegemony over much of the southern three "fingers" of the Peloponnese (AKA Laconia), but formally it only had administrative control over a thin strip of arable land in the narrow valley of the Eurotas River. It also had a small port at the mouth of the river at Gytheio. Eyeballing some maps, the territory likely wasn't much larger than 200 square miles or so, if that. Luxembourg, while by no means large, is 5 times bigger than that. --Jayron32 11:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]