Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 18

= June 18 =

Forsaken saint
Is there any Christian Saints or Blessed People who have been forsaken or denounced of their holiness in history? --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure of your language ("forsaken" or "denounced"), but in 1969 the Catholic Church did a major clean up and decided that a bunch of people traditionally revered as saints did not qualify for further veneration. These included St Christopher, who had long been regarded the Patron Saint of Travellers.  See Mysterii Paschalis. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  03:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought Mysterii Paschalis removed some saints from the General Roman Calendar but that they did not thereby cease to be considered saints. Was that incorrect? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What about evil saints or something around that line?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about someone who's been formally canonised, and then it's been discovered they were really a rotten evil person and should not have been so declared? I doubt there's ever been a case like that.  They investigate candidates' lives so exhaustively, in a process that can take literally centuries, that for some damningly negative information to turn up out of the blue would be a huge embarrassment to the Church, and the pope who made the decision to canonise.  That's why they're so extremely careful in the first place.  Also, it would call into question the miracles that the Church has already accepted were wrought by the departed saint in Heaven (they require some miracles to occur before they can be canonised).  If they're now saying the person was evil and is probably in Hell rather than in Heaven, how did these miracles occur?  Who was the agent?  Was it the work of the Devil?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  05:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, there have been numerous "Saints" who were not particularly good people before their conversion to Christianity, foremost St. Paul and Augustine of Hippo spring to mind regarding Christian sainst whose pre-Christian life was anything but saintly. Of course, thats sort of exactly the point of Christianity, n'est ce pas?  -- Jayron  32  05:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many former saints. The Catholic Church under JPII came to realize that many of their saints are really just fictional legends and not historical, so they de-canonized them (or whatever that process is called). Saint Christopher is one and Saint Valentine is another. So those St Christopher medals are no longer valid. He was just a fictional character in a story depicting him carrying Jesus across a river (you know, Christopher means "Christ bearer"). Also it's no longer "Saint Valentines Day" it's just "Valentines Day," unless you are talking about the massacre, then it's the "Saint Valentines Day massacre." February 14 is "Saints Cyril and Methodius Day" now. Greg Bard (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Gregbard", I think you may be confused. Mysterii Paschalis was a motu proprio by Pope Paul VI in 1969 that removed Saint Valentine from the Roman Calendar, but I don't think he, or any of the others removed, ceased to be considered saints.  And how you came to think it was JPII who did this is mysterious.  JPII canonized an immense number of people by comparison to JPII's predecessors. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I am not confused. You should look into it. Moving dates around a calendar is not what we are talking about. PaulVI may very well have done that, but that is irrelevant to the later act of dis-recognizing (or whatever the process is called) certain saints. If the church merely came out with a statement that Valentine and Christopher were not historical figures, can we not assume that they therefore are no longer considered saints? ..or do do you think they are just going to openly and knowingly engage in fantasy? JPII did, in fact, canonize many saints, more than any other pope I believe; however that too, is irrelevant to how many saints he de-canonized. In fact, it would be completely consistent if he canonized and de-canonized more saints than any other pope. Have you seen any calendars with a "Saint Valentines Day" lately? No, unless the calendar is in error. Greg Bard (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Citation needed." 174.53.163.119 (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fun article on this topic : The Straight Dope : Who Was the Worst Catholic Saint?
 * APL (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My vote goes to (Saint) Thomas More who in three years as Chancellor of England (1529-33) approved the death sentences of six people for owning books that were banned at the time, mainly the English translation of the Bible. They were all burned at the stake; he was known to have participated in their interrogations. Jasper Ridley in Bloody Mary’s Martyrs (2001) says; "No one was more active in persecuting the Protestants who distributed the English Bible than Sir Thomas More, a brilliant lawyer, writer and intellectual who was a particularly nasty sadomasochistic pervert". That may be overstating the case, but sending people to a horrible and prolonged death just for reading the Bible doesn't look like the action of a saint. However the Roman Catholic Church made him a saint in 1935 and even the Church of England has added him to a list of 'saints and heroes of the Christian Church'. Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That allegation is from John Foxe, _not_ the most unbiassed of sources. More was a very competent politician in a time when executions were (a) common and (b) nasty.  I don't think he can be condemned for upholding the laws of his time, even if those laws are unjust by today's standards.  Censorship and the penalties for it have always been controversial issues. Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Ahem. May I point out that this is not about whether or not More was a moderately tolerable fellow by the low standards of his awful age, it's about whether he was, quite literally, a Saint - a fully holy and exemplary figure, fit for all Christians past and present to emulate. I'd venture to say that this may imply slightly higher standards than the criteria for eligibility as a janitor and pest control consultant. By Quetzalcoatl, I find this frivolous attitude to sainthood unacceptable! It's pretty much like the ugly stuff in the Bible - you can't go with the historical relativist excuse that "the times were rough", when the book is supposed to be our connection with a timeless morally perfect entity and to retain, somehow, universal and eternal validity.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not really supposed to have debates here (fun though it is), so I'll keep this short. :) The issue is indeed whether or not More was a _saint_, not an _angel_.  He lived in a time when it was acceptable to burn heretics - we live in a time when it's acceptable to execute murderers and lock up the mentally ill and eat meat (or, from the other end of the scale, allow abortion on demand and positively encourage sodomy).  I don't believe that we can claim a particular law is "evil" or "good" in some sort of abstract, universal sense devoid of historical context.  The claim that More was a sadist who actively enjoyed torture and participated in it himself is derived entirely from Foxe - it _might_ be true, but I would be reluctant to take his word as Gospel. Tevildo (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But Christianity is all about there being "'evil' and 'good' in some sort of abstract, universal sense devoid of historical context". It's supposed to be valid for all times until the end of the world. You can't be both a Christian and a moral relativist. If you believe in a morally perfect, timeless God, then you must believe that what's wrong in his eyes has always been wrong, and what's right in his eyes has always been right. Burning heretics has always been wrong - that's what I believe as an atheist humanist (because I believe that the morality I hold allegiance to is "the correct one" for all times, even if nobody back then subscribed to it), and that's what most modern Christians believe (because they think God/Jesus have always been and will always be opposed to such atrocities, even if people back then didn't realize that). A saint is supposed to be a valid model of imitation for all times, just like Jesus is supposed to be a valid model of imitation for all times, and Christianity is supposed to be a valid religion for all times. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pelagianism, that is. See Original Sin and Total Depravity for the mainstream Christian perspective on this issue. Tevildo (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Original Sin is irrelevant. I said Christianity is supposed to be a valid religion for all times, and it is supposed to be that (not just Pelagianism). Regardless of whether Saints have managed to become worthy of veneration and emulation due to the grace of God and despite original Sin (as the mainstream doctrine claims and Pelagianism denies), this doesn't change the fact that a Saint is in fact supposed to be worthy of veneration and emulation.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Christianity is supposed to be, yes. But Sainthood is not precisely a "Christian" thing, it's a "Roman Catholic" thing. Some older Protestant churches use the prefix "Saint", while some more modern Protestant churches do not. ("Saint Paul" vs. "The Apostle Paul", for example.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you here. I'd expect a saint to stand up to an evil law, not enforce it.  By your standard we could make saints out of Nazis who participated in the Holocaust, since they were "just enforcing current laws". StuRat (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to some (minority) viewpoints, they're working on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For a person to be made a saint does not require them to have been saintly in all of their actions at every possible moment of their earthly life. They are allowed to be humans, make mistakes, do bad things etc - Saint Augustine was a prime example, yet he's revered now as a Doctor of the Church.  And Saint Paul was a scourge of Christians before becoming one himself.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  00:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you would have thought a bit of repentance was required (as in the case of Augustine and Paul). Alansplodge (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto, and also note that both were originally non-Christians, so, in a way, their transgressions from before their conversions don't count and don't matter. They were "in darkness" anyway, it couldn't have got much worse than that, salvation-wise.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but where did you get that incredibly fucked-up notion of Christianity's attitude to non-Christians? It doesn't matter what they do, since they're all inherently doomed anyway - and hence they're absolved of all moral responsibility for anything?  But Christians have this incredibly heavy moral burden to shoulder, where notions of right and wrong now matter, and they have consciences - while the non-Christians frolic gaily in their murders and rapes and tortures and thefts, because somehow it doesn't matter in their case?  Is that what you believe they believe?  Where did you get such a crazy idea?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  05:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking about standard official Christian dogma and views during the last 2000 years - which is what is relevant for the sainthood of Paul and Augustine - not what modern moderate "open-minded" Christians "believe" (it's impossible to make any meaningful generalization about the latter, and it has very little practical importance IMO). If you want to know the standard Christian view on non-Christians in terms of typical behaviour and prospects of salvation, you can consult plenty of literature, including the Bible (hint: verses containing the word "heathen" may be relevant) as well as other Christian discourse on the matter during the past 2000 years (including discourse related to proselytizing up to this day). Essentially, in cases of repentant and converted heathens, you have to consider the following. First, a heathen is inevitably bound to be very sinful, since he has no recourse to Christianity, which has the only true morality. Second, salvation is only possible through acceptance of Jesus, who atoned for the past and future sins of mankind on the cross; without that acceptance, as a heathen, you simply cannot be saved, no matter whether you've sinned little or much by heathen standards. Third, once a heathen accepts Jesus, Jesus' death on the cross atones for all of his sins, again no matter whether he has sinned little or much by heathen standards. So conversion really is a kind of "rebirth" and a "brand new start". --91.148.159.4 (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd heard that before. There was a time where Christians considered all non-Christians to be inherently evil, and, since they were "separated from God", doomed to hell, so what they did really didn't matter, and it also didn't matter what was done to them, as during the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and Conquistador periods.  We've hopefully left those attitudes behind now, but The Church is rather slow to change, so people made saints under those terms might still remain saints today. StuRat (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think the reason good old Thomas More was sainted was because of his defense of the Roman Catholic Church against bad old Henry VIII, and his martyrdom over it. He was also the last English chef to produce anything noteworthy. To counter the bland tradition of English food, he used herbs and spices liberally. This was discussed at some length in A Man for All Seasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that make him "A Man for More Seasoning"? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  03:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be! I also wonder if he was a distant cousin of the famous western gunslinger Lester More, who took six slugs from .44, etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling parents by their name
As shown in the movie The Ring Two, Aidan calls his mother Rachel, not mom. Why? And I want to know how many children call their parents by name? --Reference Desker (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Round where I live, where so many parents are with their second or third partner, it's used quite often for the "step" parents. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They're making a third Ring movie?! Dear god, why?! I agree with HiLo, for step parents it's fairly common but mostly unheard of for birth parents or adoptive parents who have been the legal parents since infancy.  This article suggests finding an alternative to not slight the birth parents who are offended by their kid calling someone else "mom" or "dad".  Dismas |(talk) 05:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In Israel, it's common to call your elders (including teachers and your principals when in school, but I don't think the same is true for professors in unis) by their first name, when you know them, as it's a very casual country. My girlfriend constantly refers to my parents as Bob and Susan (or Bewby and Sue, for kicks). It doesn't apply to members of your own family who you call aba (dad) and ima (mom, but usually said as imaaaaaa! imaaaaaa! by kids). As the Ring Two is a western film, I'd say that Aidan's calling her that is out of disrespect, but I don't remember that movie all that much. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 05:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference Bart Simpson and Homer simpson ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've known some children of the 60s who called their parents by their first names because the parents wanted it that way. It's unusual, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Don't call me Mr. Smith, that's my father. You can call me John." Avic ennasis  @ 21:55, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Scout Finch calls her dad, Atticus, by his first name in To Kill a Mockingbird. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Washington haGadah
Washington haGadah (I am not going to put the before it as that is redundant) is from the 1600s apparently, but why is it called Washington haGadah? I saw it in the Met and there was no explanation about the name. It's obviously not named after George Washington, nor does it come from any of the places named after him, so I don't get it. I couldn't find a Wiki article on it, so I'm hoping one of the fine gents who has this page on their watchlist will be able to help. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 05:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So should we leave off the second 'ha-' in "hashana haba'a" because it is redundant? ColinFine (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it before. But this is from the LoC website: "Purchased by Deinard in Mantua, Italy, Joel ben Simeon’s haggadah came to the Library in 1916 along with the Third Deinard Collection comprising 2,300 items. The item was cataloged as "Hebraic Manuscript #1" and later referred to as 'The Washington Haggadah' in connection with its home in the nation’s capital." --JGGardiner (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I first heard of it when searching for a copy of haGadah for pesach (the jerks at Judaism.com sent me a Spanish language one when I specifically said English :|) and was given the option of buying it at a local bookstore. I then saw it when I was with my mum at the Met (before leaving for Israel). It is a small book, very nice though. Hmmm, there are similar cases where objects are referred to by the place they are kept when there isn't a better name for them. It's better than Hebraic Manuscript #1 anyway. Thanks. I think it is notable enough to have an article, no? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 06:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Created one. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 08:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never know it was hard to get a haggadah. You just pick a free one off the grocery store shelf next to the matzah. One of the food companies prints them. (And I live in the city with the highest percentage of Arab Muslims in the U.S.) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, I just did that later, I had wanted a nice one though. In Judaism, you can use pretty much use items of any quality for the rituals. Many Jews with the cash go on the idea of "if you have to have it, then you should make it nice." That is the reason why ben Simeon made these ritzy haGadot. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 17:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oshima Island
Which Oshima did U.S. Marines assist after the Sendai earthquake? I went through the Oshima page and couldn't figure out which it might be. The Operation Tomodachi mentions it with references but not enough to tell me which island it is and if there is an article on it in Wikipedia. Rmhermen (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't have the article. This is the ja article. The island is in Kesennuma, Miyagi. Here is the Oshima site. Oda Mari (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

what things make something look like an office?
if you have an empty room in a building, in order of functional importance what things (items) will make it start resembling a normal office environment? (I mean to employees who, in addition to the fact that you are paying them, I imagine take these visual cues about their environment - as well as functional use - as evidence that you are a serious place that means serious business. (the reason I ask is because I've never had or worked in an office, to me "is my laptop here? the only evidence of whether this is an office :) - Thanks. 188.29.4.133 (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Industrial carpet tiles. If you take an empty space and put in standard low/dense pile industrial carpet tiles (which come in a variety of soul-draining colours) and the empty space looks like an empty office. You'd really never want those in any other environment (retail, service, medical, residential). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say the basic thing would be desks for the employees to work at (with phones and computers). After that, a lot depends on the type of company you are talking about...  the "office" area attached to a car dealership will look very different from a lawyer's office.  Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Desk, phone, computer, shelving - all those things say "office". And the tight-weave carpet discussed above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, for creative workers the trend it to get away from this dull corporate look&feel, even if it means making the space look less business-like.
 * However, One thing that makes a space unmistakably an "office" is some office partitions. APL (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, can't believe that's a red-link. I'm talking about the movable, cloth-covered walls you'd use to form a Cubical. APL (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made it redirect to cubicle (note the spelling), which ought to do. --Tango (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bright fluorescent lights. --Tango (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tim Hunkin's The Secret Life of the Office, particularly the "Office" episode, might be a useful resource. Tevildo (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * File cabinets and posters with inspirational business sayings ? Or how about a massive corporate logo ? StuRat (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Gormless people hanging around not doing very much. --Dweller (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Too few bathrooms and few or no showers. Expensive rent.  Also, fluorescent lights.  &#x2013; b_jonas 13:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tell me if I get too much towards Dilbert or Office Space but I usually associate carpet tiles, cubicles, gormless jargon gushing corporate zombies, the general auras of geneal unproductivity and frustration, non-functional printers, and large posters with company visions, business plans, and corporate statements, with offices... Dubious Status  How's it going? 16:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

breast enhancement
How do i enhance my breasts without breast implant/surgery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.254.204.123 (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer, and contact an appropriate medical professional.


 * They said "without implants or surgery", which makes it not a medical advice Q. Clothing is the usual choice.  A push-up bra is one option, or you could go with a padded bra. StuRat (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gaining weight and/or getting pregnant often works. Or if all else fails, just hang around with really flat-chested women. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that makes it a far bigger concern. If you get implants or surgery you would usually have to see a doctor so any misleading advice you've received on the RD should hopefully be correct. And while a push up or padded bra isn't medical advice but suggesting the OP take anything would be. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything to do with weight gain or loss, and anything to do with pregnancy, should of course be discussed with a doctor first. Hanging out with skinny women should be mostly harmless. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Chicken fillets. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Exercise to improve chest muscles (swimming, butterfly machine, pull-ups...anything that gives you a decent upper-body workout). Unless you are male and Arnold Schwarzenegger, don't expect wonders... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Massage your boobs regularly and drink lots of milk? :3 72.235.230.227 (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Editable Text of Confucius Quote
I am looking for a quote by Confucius that is his description of Utopia. The quote is here: http://www.chinapage.com/confucius/utopia.html The issue with this text is that it s not editable. I can't simply type the Chinese back into a word-processing program because I can't read 100% of the Chinese characters; some are too small for me to see all the individual details. I need o find this quote in editable Chinese text, but I've had no luck myself. Can anyone else find it please? Calamus Fortis  22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by editable, but if it being text rather than image will do it's the latter part of the first paragraph of the ninth part of the record of rites, . There is a different translation, though (it should be the same Chinese because in my hunting I found a page with both on, apparently as different translations of the same.) 128.232.241.211 (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That exactly what I was looking for; I just needed text, not an image of text. Thank you for locating that. Calamus Fortis  03:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)