Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 December 25

= December 25 =

Six Questions To Norman Mailer
If,you could ask author Norman Mailer,six questions what would they be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.52.26 (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * From the top of this page: Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox.. Please do not ask questions which can only be answered subjectively. --ColinFine (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively - what the hell it is christmas and scarcely a day goes by when an 'opinion' question isn't asked (and answered) on the ref-desks...

1) How much of what you wrote in books about your life/experiences is true, and how much is poetic-license? 2) At the end of a long day what is your preferred way of relaxing/winding down for the evening? 3) What's the deal with books, do you get paid per-sale or per edition? Do you earn anything for library withdrawals? 4) Does writing take a long time or is it like every university assignment - left until the last minute and rushed through under pressure? 5) Which of the suits from your 6 wedding days did you like best? Did the suit have any bearing on the longevity of your marriage together? 6) Do you not think that the Warhol style and many other 'styles' are too self-congratulatory and that too much of people's interests are based on defining who they are not rather than who they are? - There's my starter for 6. Some poor questions, some obvious ones, and some perhaps less obvious ones. Hope this gives you what you need - though seeing as Mailer died this year he isn't likely to answer the 6 posers i've set for you. ny156uk (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's my go 1) Why do people ask pointless questions on the wikipedia ref desk? 2) What should we do about it? 3) What do you think of people who ask such questions? 4) Why should I care it's Christmas? (not that it is Christmas anymore) 5) Does 'other people are doing it' ever justify us doing something? 6) Does it justify me doing it? 7) How can I speak to you when your dead anyway? 8) Is it okay I asked 8 questions even though I was only allowed 6? Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a photography project about a modern second coming.
I saw a photography project that someone did a while back, and I can't remember who did it or where to find it. The subject was a modern-day Jesus, who appeared in the pictures as a curly-haired man with a beard, not looking "obviously" Jesusy; he was shown sharing a meal of pet food with an elderly immigrant, getting beat up while trying to stop a gay-bashing, and so on. The last one had him dying in an alley somewhere with no one noticing; it was very sad. I think the series dated from the seventies or the eighties. Does this ring a bell for anyone? grendel|khan 07:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Try Maitreya (Share International). - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's nothing like it. It was just a series of photos, and the subject was explicitly labeled as Jesus; he just didn't look exactly like those well-known icons. grendel|khan 05:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Angels
Hi, Whilst you do seem to have copious amounts of information on Angels and thier Orders etc there is one thing I can't find.I am trying to solve a family arguement,I say that only the Archangels have wings as they were the messengers.That is being countered by all Angels have wings.Can anyone settle this for me..........please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.141.39 (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You may find this discussion from the "Angels" article helpful. --Halcatalyst (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember the creatures with wings in the Bible were Seraph and cherubim. See Christian angelic hierarchy. The Angles in the Second and Third Sphere apparently do not have wings. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Trust a guy called Daedalus to be an expert in wingiology. Even if it is the Dublin version :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Only Angels Have Wings. (Would that renowned theologian Cary Grant lie to you?) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The organization of angels into spheres/hierarchies came much later than the Biblical record, so if you're looking to that source you won't really find distinctions like that, although it's true that Cherubim and Seraphim (only) are specifically mentioned as being winged. Archangel(s) are mentioned only twice, and no references are given to wings at all.  On the other hand, Zechariah saw "two women, and the wind as in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork" during a vision, (Zech 5:9) which perhaps had a degree of symbolic content, so it's not going to be possible to make a dogmatic statement about what kinds of angels have wings or don't without resorting to later tradition anyway.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  17:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Go to the source: the guy who made up this angelology stuff is Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. --Wetman (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)