Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 23

= July 23 =

sneaky prosody
Consider Humbert Wolfe's famous epigram:
 * You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
 * thank God! the British journalist.
 * But, seeing what the man will do
 * unbribed, there's no occasion to.

Now, one of the fun things about a poem like this is that the lines don't quite line up with the grammatical clauses, although the line-by-line meter and the rhyme scheme remain spot-on. For example, logically, the last two lines "should" be
 * But, seeing what the man will do unbribed,
 * there's no occasion to.

but of course that's just wrong, metrically, and it doesn't rhyme, either.

My question is, is there a word for this sort of thing? —Steve Summit (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Enjambement. —Tamfang (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! —Steve Summit (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

United States Immigration Restrictions in the 1920s and Their Relation to World War I?
Did WWI play a large role in helping the anti-immigration movement get a lot of support among Congress and the American people? Or was World War I and its consequences for the U.S. irrelevant in determining public and political support for large U.S. immigration restrictions in the 1920s? The reason that I'm asking this question is that the U.S. was extremely open to European immigration (at least politically speaking) before WWI yet several years after it strong anti-immigration bills were passed in Congress by overwhelming margins. Futurist110 (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anti-communism is an easier explanation, and I suggest to you Emma Goldman's autobiography which discusses the racial construction of the European other in terms of IWW and Leftist politics. The myth of the "European agitator" runs deep in conservative American labour history. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How popular was Communism exactly among immigrants to the U.S.? Also, wouldn't the fear of Communism rationally only be used to restrict immigration from the U.S.S.R., not from other Eastern European countries? Also, didn't Germany have an extremely large Communist movement in 1918-1919? If so, it's rather interesting that German immigration wasn't as restricted as that from Eastern Europe in the 1920s. Futurist110 (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Social democracy and more right wing socialisms were highly popular in the United States until the first "Red scare" caused systematic political persecution of pro-working class movements. As, at the time, were syndicalised social democracy, radical syndicalism (ie: Industrial Unionism), and anarchism.  "Communism" in the sense of Bolshevism was not significant in the United States until the CPUSA was bolshevised in the mid to late 1920s.  Moreover, the US had a large anarchist milieux.  "Communism" in the general sense was associated with ideas of the European racial other in the minds of Americans between Haymarket and 1920—the Italian, the Pole, the German, the Slav.  I'd suggest that the construction of "nativism" was important in deciding Eastern Europeans were less desirable than central europeans.  YMMV, I'm an Australian labour historian not a US labour historian. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's another theory, but I'm not sure how much truth there is to it--the Nordic supremacy belief became extremely popular became 1915 and 1924 due to the revival of the Ku Klux Klan during this time period. The KKK argued for Nordic supremacy, and due to its growing popularity back then many Americans (including most politicians) began paying more attention to and embracing this concept. Futurist110 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot of things converged on the 1920s: fear of Communism, fear of anarchism, fear of "dysgenic" Eastern and Southern European populations. The Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 was a catch-all piece of xenophobic legislation. World War I played into all of these themes, but it wasn't the prime mover. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Scientific racism" (Madison Grant, selective interpretation of the results of WW1 U.S. Army intelligence testing etc.), and dislike of southern and eastern Europeans (especially including Jews) perceived to be culturally and racially alien played a large role, and the Palmer Raid and the rise of the second KKK certainly provided a favorable political context. The 1920's was actually the decade, out of all the decades of U.S. history, when it was most intellectually respectable to be a scientific racist, and things like eugenics and forced sterilization became fairly mainstream (see Kallikaks and Jukes etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough Grant's book was never that popular. Of course, that doesn't mean that some of his ideas weren't popular. It's still extremely surprising that there was no large-scale anti-Eastern and Southern European immigration movements right before WWI and yet just several years after WWI the public and Congressional support for such immigration restrictions was overwhelming. Futurist110 (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it also has to do with ideas maturing. According to the history section of Immigration Act of 1924, the ideas in the act were pushed as early as 1909. The general public might have needed some time to 'warm' to the idea that immigration of certain groups of people were bad. And just as it is true today, hearing the same message repeated over and over and over again, would lead one to adopting, if not all, at least parts of that message. Similarly, people might not react to Eastern and Southern European immigration until there is a sizable number of immigrants from those countries, who are perceived to be 'bad' for the well-being and well-functioning of society. V85 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, there was a sizable number of Southern and Eastern Europeans in most of the U.S. by 1910, and most of the new immigrants moved to places with already existing immigrants (the Northern and Western U.S.), rather than to places with no or very few other immigrants (the Southern U.S.). Not all ideas become widely accepted over time. For instance, since 1965 some Americans have advocated restricting immigration again, but this idea has never really gained widespread traction over the last 45 years when it came to legal immigrants. I guess that the pro-immigration movement wasn't very strong in the 1920s, since most Southern and Eastern European immigrants were still poor and thus unable to generate a lot of funding to promote their cause.
 * http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/10/us/20090310-immigration-explorer.html Futurist110 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The irony of the Nordicist racial theories is that they were actually beginning to wane as the act was passed. By the end of the interwar period, the racial politics of the U.S. had shifted pretty radically from the "which white people are the most white" of Nordicism towards the "white vs. black" racial concerns. Or, as it has been argued, a shift from someone like Madison Grant towards someone like Lothrop Stoddard. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then why was there near-universal support for this bill in Congress? Also, I checked the article about the Immigration Act of 1924 and was surprised that a lot of support for this act in Congress came from Congressmen who admired Madison Grant's 1916 book, despite the fact that Grant's book was never a financial success or a best-seller. If what you said about American whites starting to be more concerned about blacks than about Southern and Eastern Europeans is true, then Americans who had those beliefs ironically hurt their cause by voting for politicians who drastically reduced white immigration to the U.S. and thus made the white percentage of the total U.S. population after 1924 smaller than it would have been otherwise without large European immigration restrictions. Futurist110 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there were multiple reasons to support the bill, just like today on the immigration issue. Read about the Dillingham Commission and you'll see that explicit references to biology are not as prominent as genericized references to "culture", crime, economic effects, fears of revolution, and even bodily hygiene. Eugenics played a role; Harry Laughlin was an influential expert witness. But there was more to it than that. The pat history of the Immigration Restriction Act gives eugenics qua eugenics perhaps too much of a role as a separate thing — it was one of many things that played into the interwar xenophobic outlook.
 * In any case, by the time Hitler took power in Germany, less than a decade later, the idea of there being separate Nordic/Aryan race, a separate Jewish race, and maor differences between the Eastern/Southern/Northern/Western Europeans was considered laughable by most Americans. There were hold-outs, to be sure, but that moment had passed. Most Americans considered Nazi racial theories to be the most ridiculous kind of claptrap, as opposed to their "real" racial concerns regarding the black/white issue. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see how anyone could have taken the Nazi racial ideas seriously when they were forging alliances and signing treaties with the likes of Italy, Japan and the Soviet Union. They didn't appear to even believe it themselves. 101.172.42.150 (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Italians didn't appear that low on the Nazi ethnic/racial hierarchy, since I think it went--1. Aryans/Nordics/Anglo-Saxons, 2. Mediterranean and Alpine peoples, 3. Slavs, 4. Roma, 5. Jews. As for the U.S.S.R., Hitler backstabbed them in just two years' time. In regards to Japan, Hitler actually declared them to be Honorary Aryans, and I don't think Hitler cared that much about Japanese people either way, considering that they did not really conflict with his territorial ambitions anywhere. Futurist110 (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Standing up for (other people's) national anthem
When I was in Texas, I went to see a basket ball game with my cousin and his wife. At the game prior to the commencement of play. They played the American National Anthem "The Star-Spangled Banner" and everybody stood up (including my cousin and wife).

Suddenly I have to make a decision as I am not an American Citizen. Do I stand up for the National Anthem of a foreign country or do I cause a scene by not standing up. There is no issue for my cousin and his wife as they are both Americans.

220.239.37.244 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no actual legal requirement, of course, that you even stand for the national anthem of even your own country. However, you should.  First of all, it's good manners, and you'd hope foreigners would stand for your nation's.  Second, it may involve you in an uncomfortable confrontation with those who do not understand (or care) that you are not an American citizen.  This is especially wise in Texas.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be seen as disrespectful or impolite, but that doesn't mean you have to do it. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The question reminds me of experiences of being with a group of Christians who say grace before a meal. Being an infidel myself, I tend to adopt silent, passive non-participation. I have also seen others in the same situation actively participate (even though they are non-religious or belong to other religions themselves). A similar question for people of no religion or other religions at a religious wedding. What is the correct etiquette in that case? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with everyone else: Standing would be to show a sign of respect to the others there, who are American citizens (and, of course, a way to avoid irking anyone who does take the standing seriously). I like the comparison to religious activities when you're not religious. I think sitting still (possibly folding hands during grace/prayer) would be a good way to show that you are respectful of their beliefs, even if not a believer yourself. I am not sure exactly what PalaceGuard refers to with a religious wedding, as my impression is that religious services vary, according to the religion. And, of course, it would be the same problem a Christian would face when attending their Jewish/Christian/Buddhist/Sikh/Hindu (etc.) friend's wedding. Don't be disruptive, sit still, etc. If you get a sheet of psalms, sing along if you like, but you don't have to. And, of course, if there is a 'dresscode' (such as a yarmulke in a synagogue, a hijab in a mosque or shoes off in a Buddhist temple) adhere to it; don't make a fuss about how it's all superstition. My general impression is that religious people tend to be very appreciative of people being interested in their religion, and approaching it in a non-critical respectful way. V85 (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The US Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 3, Section 301 - National Anthem says:
 * (a) Designation.–The composition consisting of the words and music
 * known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
 * (b) Conduct During Playing.–During a rendition of the national
 * anthem–
 * (1) when the flag is displayed–
 * (A) all present except those in uniform should stand at
 * attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;
 * (B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with
 * their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder,
 * the hand being over the heart; and
 * (C) individuals in uniform should give the military salute
 * at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until
 * the last note; and
 * (2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face
 * toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag
 * were displayed.
 * Note that nothing is actually mentioned about excusing foreigners from these guidelines - the words it uses are that "all present [...] should..." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that nothing is actually mentioned about excusing foreigners from these guidelines - the words it uses are that "all present [...] should..." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that nothing is actually mentioned about excusing foreigners from these guidelines - the words it uses are that "all present [...] should..." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So it is actually mandatory by law to stand up when the national anthem is playing? Wow. What is the penalty incurred if you fail to do so? (the link doesn't contain any mention of that). --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a should, not a must (although I don't know if the US Code defines those words like this). Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Like Saddhiyama said. See also United States Flag Code. - Lindert (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * However, the laws of a country do not generally apply to foreigners to begin with. (There are obvious exceptions: visitors have to obey the road rules, can't rob banks, or murder or rape people etc.)   Any law that has a "must" but no associated penalty for non-compliance is just a piece of paper.  So much more so if the "must" is only a "should".  It would be like "Men should hold the door open for women".  Governments can't legislate for manners, courtesy and respect, and shouldn't even be seen to be trying.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The laws of a country most certainly do apply generally to all individual who are within that nation's sovereignty. Just try smoking weed in Thailand or bad mouthing the Prince of Saudi Arabia atop a soap box outside King Fahd International Stadium and see whether or not those laws apply to you. As for the use of the word "should" in legislation, have you even had anything to do with Australian workplace health and safety laws? They use the word should all over the place to indicate that it is not prescribed that the specific measure mentioned be taken, but that if you fail to enact that specific measure you may be required to show that you had a reasonable excuse or that you enacted an equivalent or better measure. It's deinitely not just a piece of paper. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Those rules don't seem to be adhered to at all. Loads of clothes have American flags on them, and I can easily find disposable products with the American flag on: shirt with American flag on it, sandwiches on flag napkins $2 paper plates with the flag. Or doesn't it count if it's not the full 50-star, 13 stripes version of the flag, just the colours and the design (white stars on blue background and alternating red and white stripes). V85 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what country you're actually from, but when your Head of State is on a foreign visit, if he or she doesn't stand up and show a bit of respect when the host's anthem is played, then feel free to follow their lead. Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why Alan, we share the same head of state. She just wears different (constitutional) hats so we can tell her apart from herself.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that code still in force? I can't believe no-one has brought a case against 1B on grounds of religious tolerance for Sikhs, Muslims and Jews. --Dweller (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note the use of the term "should" rather than "shall." Also, flag burning laws continue to be on the books in many jurisdictions, however they're mostly unconstitutional. Shadowjams (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no law that specifically forbids flag burning in Australia, but it's generally against local laws pertaining to open fires. I'm sure the fuzz could bust hippies the same way state side. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we already started discussing this above. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  00:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The U.S. Flag Code does not list penalties for non-compliance and even if it did, those provisions would likely be struck down on First Amendment grounds. Nevertheless, it is generally considered polite to stand at attention and for men to remove their hats when anyone's national anthem is displayed. Only Americans are expected to place their hands over their heart (or salute when in military uniform) during the "Star-Spangled Banner". Citizens of other countries salute their flags in various ways and foreigners should never expect to follow suit. D Monack (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Editor 220.239.37.244, see West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Editors above seem to be suggesting that these rules don't need to be adhered to, but our article on US Code (which isn't very easy to follow) seem to be saying that everything in the Code is law, even if not specifically enacted as law. Have I got that wrong? --Dweller (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original question, in empirical rather than hypothetical terms: Standing while the anthem is played is a far cry from, say, pledging allegiance. It is customary for fans at NHL games, for example, to stand repectfully for both the Canadian and American national anthems, when a team from one country plays a team from the other. Simple common courtesy (goes without saying only Habs fans boo the latter). I've never attended a professional sporting event outside of the United States, but I would go into it expecting to behave no differently - I'd take my hat off, if any, and stand silently. The comparison to saying Grace is quite apt - I am a devout (heh) atheist, but I don't make a scene when my entirely Catholic in-laws give thanks for the meal at major family gatherings. It is no skin off my back nor betrayal of anything I believe in to allow Canadians and religious people to make ceremony prior to a major event such as a hockey game or a Thanksgiving feast, without me acting like I'm somehow threatened by it. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler  .☠  17:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, people from the USA seem to have no problem with respecting the national anthems of other countries; for example, Wikipedia's version of the national anthem of China is provided from a recording of a U.S. military band. This is presumably because such bands are required to play such music on occasions where protocol demands it, and also practice the relevant pieces as appropriate.


 * Not standing for the national anthem of a foreign country in a situation where all are doing so, is the equivalent of refusing to shake the hand of someone that you dislike; it's not a passive non-participation, it's an active protest, and therefore only appropriate in more extreme circumstances.


 * As a rather different example, I seem to remember a senior British opposition party politician was criticised for giving the red salute (described at the time as a "communist salute") at a concert in support of Nelson Mandela, presumably in a context where the rest of the audience was also doing so. It's possible that passive non-participation in that aspect of the concert would have been viewed negatively. (Can't find a ref for this, thus no name per WP:BLP, although I do have a name in mind.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wedding ceremonies in basilica/cathedrals questions
Whom can have their wedding ceremonies in basilicas/cathedrals besides the church itself? How about St Peter's Basilica as well? Besides the being Catholic or Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be able to marry in a Catholic church you have to be able to show solid evidence of Catholic faith, such as regular attendance at Mass and knowledge of Catholic doctrine. To marry in a basilica or cathedral will also cost quite a bit of money, of course.  The policies for other denominations vary. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To get married in one of the churches of Den norske kyrkja, including the cathedral Nidarosdomen, at least one of the future spouses has to be a member (but a priest can refuse to wed them, i.e. they have to find a different priest). I would guess that it's similar in the other 'national' protestant churches of Scandinavia, including marriage in one of their cathedrals. In Norway, gay couples can't get married in the church, as the church doesn't recognise gay marriage, but in Denmark and Sweden, they can. It seems to make sense to at least have to be a member of the church, otherwise, why would you have your wedding there? V85 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that each cathedral can set their own rules on who can and cannot marry there, and the requirements are quite different in each place. See the differing requirements of St Paul's Cathedral (London) and St Patrick's Cathedral (New York). You can get married in St Peter's Basilica by providing a letter from your (Catholic) parish priest authorising it (see here). It seems that you can find good information by searching Google for "get married in [name of the cathedral]". - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Church of England, the parish church is the place for most people to get married. Getting married in one of the great cathedrals is a priveledge for those with a special connection to it. Alansplodge (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your responses to my question here. All of them were interesting for sure.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Major differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants
I learned the two major differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants: Roman Catholics do fast during Lent period and Protestants don't and Roman Catholics priests are celibate and have to be a man and in Protestantism, a priest can be either a man or a woman and either married or single. What other major differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.42.59 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Those are actually pretty minor differences. Our Protestantism article defines it as "any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth", which is a good summary of the major differences. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As Looie said, one of the major differences is one of authority; for Roman Catholics, Church councils and (some) Papal declarations have equal authority with the Bible (as opposed to sola scriptura of the reformation). In addition, the Catholic Bible contains additional books not accepted by Protestants and Jews. From those authority differences flow many other theological divisions, e.g. Protestants reject the Marian dogmas, purgatory and indulgences, intercession of the saints, veneration of images and of the eucharist, the Catholic priesthood, and they have a very different soteriology (how people are saved). - Lindert (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that the "fasting in Lent" thing is just false. Protestant churches that attempted to produce a reformed version of the Catholic tradition retaining bishops and the liturgical calendar all observe Lent. In the Anglican church, the observance of Lent became much more relaxed during the 20th century, and instead of fasting per se, many of us "give up something for Lent". See also Pancake Day! The issue of women priests is quite a recent innovation in Anglicanism. There is some debate in the Anglican Church about whether we are actually Protestants or not, but the key issue here (in my opinion) is the rejection of Papal authority rather than any specific liturgy or practice. Alansplodge (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been told that the only way one could tell one was in a High Anglican church and not a Catholic church is the absence of a picture of the Pope in the vestibule. Of course, that doesn't go to liturgy or doctrinal beliefs.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Belief in the "real presence" (of the body of Christ in the Eucharist)  was the dividing line in England. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe "material presence" or "transsubstantiation" is a more precise criterion, as 'real presence' is defined in various ways, sometimes including spiritual presence. Anyway, though believing in in transsubstantiation might exclude someone from being Anglican, he/she would not have to be a Catholic, as Lutherans believe in transsubstantiation too. The real dividing line is, I think, whether someone accepts the ultimate authority of the Pope. - Lindert (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The dividing line would have to be the authority of the Pope. But as I understand it Lutherans (and most Anglicans) do not believe in transsubstantiation, but a different formulation of the Real Presence called consubstantiation. This does not require one to believe that any real physical change comes over the consecrated elements, but rather that God inhabits them in a specific and meaningful fashion. Both these beliefs are to be distinguished from the Calvinist 'bare memorial' interpretation of the Eucharist. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting me. Btw, not all Calvinists subscribe to a 'bare memorial' view, some view it as a real, spiritual presence. - Lindert (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the Protestant Reformation resulted from the sale of indulgences, but Martin Luther's theses (90, I think?) contained many more arguments against the church in his time. The indulgences was a major issue, but over time there grew more and more differences. A major difference between Protestants and Calvinism though would be the issue of pre-determinism (did I say that correctly?), where Calvinism believes that it is determined before you are born where you will go when you die. Not an expert on the subject, but pretty sure I got that right. If i didn't, someone can correct me. -- Activism  1234  23:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Ninety-Five Theses might contain a hint on the number ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * damn it off by 5 theses! -- Activism  1234  00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Calvinism is a Protestant movement, so there is no 'difference between Protestants and Calvinism'. And btw, Luther himself agreed with Calvinism on the issue of predestination, even tough many Lutherans today don't. - Lindert (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Calvinism began after the Protestant movement as another movement and there are serious differences between them (at least, when it started, don't know about today). -- Activism  1234  00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Calvinism started with John Calvin, who was a contemporary of Martin Luther and one of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation. This is very easily documented. For example, the Encyclopedia of Protestantism calls Calvin "along with Luther, the most significant church reformer of the Protestant movement" (volume 1, p.545). That Calvinism started later than Protestantism does not mean that it is 'a different movement', just like the fact that Protestantism started later than Christianity does not mean that Protestants are not Christians. - Lindert (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of "Protestants" or even "Protestantism" in general is rather pointless. There are general differences between Protestants and Catholics, of course. One could easily point to the number of sacraments, which ranges from seven in Roman Catholicism, to as few as two (and in some cases just one) in various Protestant denominations. There's also the problem that many people who would often be viewed as Protestants by the Roman Catholic Church, such as Anglicans, American Episcopalians, and even some Lutherans, actually consider themselves to be, in some sense, Catholic. From my observations, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are generally closer to each other in doctrine and practice than either of them are with Eastern Orthodoxy, Indian Christians, or with the Coptic Church. Lent is even observed in some Protestant circles. If you had to point out one major difference, though, I think it would be the issue of the Magisterium's authority and of apostolic succession, as that's where a great deal of the Catholic Church's unique theology originates. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 01:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's unnecessarily confusing to state that some 'protestants' consider themselves 'catholic in some way'. The issue is of course Roman Catholicism, not Catholicism, that's just understood. Virtually all Christians, RC, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox etc. consider themselves part of the Catholic (= universal) Church (as referred to in the Apostle's creed). In the same way, all denominations consider themselves orthodox (= having correct teaching), but not Eastern Orthodox. In common usage, Catholic means 'belonging to the Roman Catholic Church'. - Lindert (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the distinction and did not mean "Catholic" in the Apostle's Creed sense. I meant in the "in communion with the Roman Catholic Church" sense. This was the position of several leading scholars within the Oxford Movement, and a large number of Anglicans still hold to such a position today. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the Church of England is considered by the Vatican to be a legitimate apostolic church (as opposed to, say, the Lutheran Church) due to the successive laying on of hands that extends to a time well before Henry VIII went rogue. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 09:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not true. The papal letter Apostolicae Curae declared Anglican orders to be 'utterly null and void'. While the Episcopalian Church in the USA has the so-called 'Dutch Touch' - a line of episcopal consecrations running back through the unquestionably apostolic Dutch Old Catholics to the RCC - the Church of England does not. The Church of England, of course, believes itself to be apostolically ordered, but the RCC's position on both historical and spiritual grounds remains that set out in Apostolicae Curae. Moreover, the Anglican church's decision to ordain women to the priesthood contravenes the RCC's formally stated impossibilist position on the subject. Any RCC bishop who ordains (or in the RCC's perspective, pretends to ordain) a woman as a priest is excommunicated latae sententiae (automatically). This would naturally call a lot Anglican orders both in the UK and the USA into question. From the point of view of those Anglo-Catholics (not all, not even necessarily a majority) who regard communion with Rome as an object to be met through Anglicanism's closer conformity to Roman Catholic doctrine and canon law, this innovation has raised significant further obstacles to reunion. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we neglected to point out to the OP that there are Protestant denominations that, like the Roman Catholics, do not have women as priests (ministers, pastors, preaching elders, other name for leadership position). I can't think of any that require unmarried leaders but odds are there is at least one out there. On the other hand, some of the Eastern Catholic Churches (under the Pope but not Roman rite) have married priests. Rmhermen (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Federal, provincial, or both?
So, a friend and I both have summer school, and we both currently have the same course, civics (based on the Canadian government). I had a unit test, and on it was a true or false question: "Canada is a provincial government." I put false, but my teacher later said it was true, because "the Confederation made it so that the provinces could still each govern themselves, and so therefore it is both." It made sense to me and I accepted it. But my friend had that same test today with that same question, and her teacher said it was false, because we are, by the constitution, "a federal system that divides power into federal, provincial and municipal." So, really, which one is correct? And if "true" is correct, can someone provide evidence for it? I tried looking it up but I didn't get a clear answer. Thanks, 64.229.5.242 (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this type of question is just opinion, so should never appear on a test (or, if it does, it should be an essay type, where any supported answer is acceptable). I suggest you point out this discrepancy to the two teachers, ask them to strike that question from the grading, and, if they refuse, take it to the principal. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Is that the exact wording? "Canada is a provincial government"? Was the test written by a native speaker of English? Canada is not a government, it is a country. It has a federal government, and it is divided into provinces, each of which has a provincial government. jnestorius(talk) 22:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Haha sorry, that's a mistake on my part. The official wording was, "The Fathers of Confederation gave Canada a provincial system of government." 64.229.5.242 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it seems like a confusing question to me. I notice that provincial government redirects to state government, both being terms for the governments of specific provinces/states within federal systems such as Canada and the US. Saying Canada has a provincial system of government sounds to me the equivalent of saying Canada is a province. I suppose one could say that the Canadian Confederation established the system in which the provinces were created, or at least the system under which existing colonies and provinces could join the confederation. Still, it seems poorly worded to me. The US equivalent would be "The Founding Fathers gave the United States a state system of government." "Federal" seems much clearer. As our Canadian Confederation page says, "Canada is a federal state...". Pfly (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure they didn't mean a "backwards, unsophisticated, and simplistic" system of government ;) -- Jayron  32  23:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "The US equivalent" has the further problem that state is ambiguous (where province isn't), as the next quotation illustrates. —Tamfang (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, I realized that as I wrote it, but figured the point was made. Maybe it should be "the founding fathers gave the United States a U.S. state system of government." Heh. Pfly (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd go with 'true' for that version: a system in which provinces are an essential structural element. But I had to think for a moment, because I haven't seen that usage before. —Tamfang (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of the old elephant joke -- an American, Frenchman, and Canadian were asked to write essays on elephants. The American wrote "Elephants for Fun and Profit", the Frenchman wrote "The Love Life of the Elephant", and the Canadian wrote "Elephants: A Federal or Provincial Responsibilty?"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Who takes care of elderly parents (and inherits the farm)?
Any anthropologists in the house? In modern Western cultures, with their small families, it is a matter of personality and circumstance which adult child ends up taking the lead in caring for aging parents. Can anyone cite examples of other cultures in which a particular child (eldest son, eldest daughter, youngest son, youngest daughter) has the responsibility to remain with and care for their parents? In peasant cultures, presumably this would mean taking on the family farm. Are there readable cross-cultural comparisons? How have these systems changing in the past generation or so? With the collapse of the Soviet Union, cradle to grave state care devolved back onto the extended family. I'm interested in the situation in the resulting countries, but also in Asia, Africa, indigenous communities in South America, etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In patrilineal societies the eldest son typically inherited the property, while in matrilineal societies it was the oldest daughter. However, this doesn't automatically mean they would care for the elderly parents. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Tibet, Nepal and India have practiced fraternal polyandry, where all the brothers in a family would marry the same woman, thereby letting them all inherit the land, since they all formed a single, large family. These societies have had a large surplus of unmarried women, due to the dual practices of polyandry and many men becoming monks and living celibate lives in monasteries. The first time I heard of polyandry, it was a researcher who had stayed in a polyandryous (?) community, and she stated that this surplus of women, led to 'spinster aunties' who also lived in their childhood home, with their brothers and their wife. I guess they might have to take care of elderly parents? V85 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Ultimogeniture/Borough English (youngest inherits) and partible inheritance (all children inherit). I think that in modern Western societies women are much more likely to care for their elderly parents than men are, although they may also end up caring for their inlaws, could look up refs if necessary. The impacts of Borough English and Borough French are sometimes discussed in the economic history of Britain. The impact of partible inheritance in France is often related to parcellisation of land. Basically, there were three systems at the time of the French revolution, depending on the region. These were regularised towards partible inheritance, thence the very small and fragmented landholdings, and marriages intended to reunite landholdings. Massive academic literatures on China and on India. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This suggests that in Filipino culture the expectation fell/falls on the youngest daughter. -  Ka renjc 20:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Filipino culture is more or less extremely family-oriented. Everything revolves around kinship and loyalty. It includes blood relatives and in-laws (lineage ties are bilateral, with equal importance given to relatives from the father and mother's side), ritual kin, and close family friends "adopted" into the family. Age is directly related to how much authority you can weild (even among siblings).


 * And no it's not restricted to farming families. It's also not always the youngest daughter who bears the responsibility. It depends, but usually it's the last son/daughter to get married (as they usually choose to live in the ancestral home rather than settle elsewhere). Sometimes it's also the most financially stable of the children (usually the eldest). The grandparents (when they still can) traditionally take on the role of looking after their young grandchildren.


 * Unless there's a good reason for sending grandparents there (e.g. advanced dementia), nursing homes are severely frowned upon. Children who do so are regarded as selfish and ungrateful.


 * It's not all positive though. It's the primary cause of the most widespread problem in Philippine government - nepotism. And family feuds here can escalate very quickly and last for many generations.


 * As for sources, a simple Google search is enough.


 * I'm pretty sure that families in other Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander countries are also structured like this. Families in South Asia, East Asia, Mediterranean and Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Africa are also similar, I think. Though in some of those cases, the structure is more rigidly traditional and patriarchal (e.g. China and India).-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  05:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * China and Vietnam are quite different, among ethnic majorities, at least, because of patrilocality. And responsibility for parents and elders is codified in Confucianism. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OP here; so far so good with the specific sourced examples. (Some of the sweeping statements leave me reaching for grains of salt.) Thanks especially for reminding me of ultimogeniture and introducing me to the Borough English vs French distinction. More examples would be very welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Les Huguenans
Does anyone know the origin of the name Les Huguenans in the Îles Chausey off the coast of France? Does it have anything to do with the Huguenots? --  role player 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ...oh, no article! Is there an English name, or do we not have an article? --  role player 21:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Google books: "The Wars of Religion, commemorated by the name of one islet, the Huguenans (Huguenots), compelled the monks to abandon Chausey that formed a separate Government under the over-lordship of the Matignan family." Considering neither en:Chausey nor fr:Chausey includes the sequence "Huguenan", it's not surprising there's no article. You could menytion them in Chausey and make Huguenans redirect there. jnestorius(talk) 22:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A map of 1753 has the name les Huguerons (for the etymology of Chausey see Chausey). None of the several etymologies in Google books (e.g. place where Elizabeth I landed Huguenots to assist Henry IV) is substantiated. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Shinto
Why does Shinto have a sun goddess? It seems like most, if not all, other mythologies have a sun god (Helios/Apollo, Ra, Surya, etc.). --108.206.7.65 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Similar questions were answered earlier --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. I don't know the answer, but keep in mind that Shinto is a type of animism religion, whereas the civilizations you mentioned were simply polytheistic. -- Activism  1234  23:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that, while moon gods and moon goddesses occur in more equal numbers in various religions, there are overwhelmingly more sun gods than sun goddesses? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most ancient civilizations were patriarchial rather than matriarchial. That is, lineage was passed through the male and males were viewed as dominant. Thus, a "sun god," which was very important in many ancient civilizations, was viewed as male. -- Activism  1234  00:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)