Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 December 31

= December 31 =

Nicholas Poussin Seven Sacraments
In Edinburgh's National Gallery on The Mound, there is a room dedicated to the above 7 paintings, where both the setting and the paintings (second series), are magnificently displayed. But why did Poussin paint them out of the recognised chronological order of Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction (Last Rites)? Maybe my memory is fading in that order, but in any event, why would Holy Communion precede Penance in the established order of the Sacraments when it is forbidden in the Catholic Faith to receive communion in a state of Sin? 77.97.208.118 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to assume the painter knew that in the Eastern Orthodox world confirmation and baptism are, pretty much, given in the same ceremony, although, admittedly, I don't know when first communion in the EO takes place. Given that there is some dispute among when confirmation should take place, but that so far as I remember in all cases confirmation must precede taking the Eucharist, it would seem to be logically placed before Holy Eucharist. I also suppose it is possible that the painter may have been assuming, based on the various timings of confirmation and the question relating to the relative onset of the age of reason in the confirmed, that it might historically have been the case, and maybe still is the case, that some first communicants might not have been old enough to have engaged in any real sin, if the first communion preceded the age of reason. Presumably thereafter, however, all of them would have been at some point eligible and likely to have sinned, which would place Penance in that position. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"the black community"
''"I've spent more than half my total career in black operations. I don't ask questions unless they're germane."  "Touché," Townsend said, chuckling. "I'd forgotten you were in the black community before you..."''

writes John Ringo, and not just once. Is this one of his special right-wing jokes or would anyone in the US actually refer to "people that are part of things the military does that the public doesn't know about" as "the black community" ? --92.202.11.135 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's any indicator, I thought you were talking about some bizarre thing involving Black Americans until I got to the very end. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 9 Tevet 5775 02:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't read any of Ringo's works, but that phase seems pretty self-explanatory, considering the context provided by the prior sentence. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The word "chuckling" seems to indicate Townsend is punning when he says "black community". 93.95.251.190 (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Martin.
 * It might sound that way but with a broader context the chuckling refers to the (not asked) question and answer at hand and why Weaver won't ask: Why a bunch of high ranking military attends the wedding of a low rank soldier; they thought it was "mandatory". ("I'm waiting for someone to ask why we're all here," the CAO said. "You're looking at the wrong captain, sir," Weaver replied.)

A few more samples:

''"So I'd like your argument for staying," the CO said. "I feel I owe you that. But be aware that I'm pretty much set on leaving and letting D.C. decide. Among other things, I feel it's over my paygrade to set up long-term treaties." "There's a PR aspect, sir," Weaver said, frowning. "Even in the black community. These guys are cute. If we cut and run and leave the poor little rodents to be eaten by demons . . ." [...] "Even if we go back just to ask for reinforcements, we're going to get held up. Committees, commissions, boards, every idiot in the black community, and they are numerous, sir, trust me, is going to want to add to the reports and recommendations. State is going to get involved and that means two months of reports going back and forth for addendum and amendment."''

''Two-Gun Berg was, by far and away, the best known of the Marine security contingent of the Blade. As such he was something of a celebrity within a very small and very black community. '' --92.202.74.210 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It very much looks to me like maybe some sort of possibly internal joking reference to the Black ops community. That is of course on the assumption that there actually is a specific community of individuals involved in black ops, but I think that might be not unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The term black ops is pretty common, with that abbreviation (which is why I didn't pick up on black operations at first) but even in-context calling it the black community just sounds bizarre. Maybe to someone deeply involved with black ops, they might call it the black community, but to regular people, black community just means Black Americans. Taken out of context, what that guy was saying in his book would probably cause confusion and maybe even a bit of offence. The world of espionage is a more common expression, I think. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 9 Tevet 5775 17:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Which non-Western Hemisphere countries were federations between 1815 and 1914?

 * Such as, at any point in time between 1815 and 1914 (I don't care whether or not these countries were federations before 1815 and/or after 1914; I picked this time frame because it is after the Napoleonic Wars ended but before World War I began). Also, as this thread title states, for the purpose of this thread and question, I am excluding all countries which are located in the Western Hemisphere.

As for me, I can think of Switzerland and Germany as being such countries, but I am honestly unsure if any additional (non-Western Hemisphere, obviously) countries meet this criteria.

Any help here? Futurist110 (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Australia became a federation in 1901, but might not be considered to count as a country until they adopted the Statute of Westminster. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If Australia wasn't fully independent during this time period (from 1815 to 1914), then it wouldn't count for this. Futurist110 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * She wasn't. Some constitutional theorists aver that she wasn't fully technically independent until the passage of the Australia Acts in 1986. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have any other non-Western Hemisphere candidates in mind for this, though? Futurist110 (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Federated Malay States were established in 1895. Tevildo (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The political history of the Low Countries is rather involved, but the Kingdom of Belgium (which is described in our article as a "federal monarchy") was established in 1830. Tevildo (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Austria-Hungary was a federation of Austria and Hungary after 1867. Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Sokoto Caliphate might also be considered a federation. Marco polo (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would point out that the Federated Malay States were never independent and that Belgium did not become a federation until the 1980s. Marco polo (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Lists of sovereign states by year might be handy for this. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The USA should also meet your standards. Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * From reading the question carefully (which was not difficult), I do believe the OP is talking about countries which are not located in the Western Hemisphere. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 20:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Follow my link; this country is all in the Eastern Hemisphere. Nyttend (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The old bait-and-switch transcends all borders. Well done! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was inspired by April Fool's Main Page, with stuff like Did you know... that Norwegians built Gibraltar's first school in the 1860s? Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering South Africa is directly south of, and even in the same time zone as Europe, which is considered to be in the Western Hemisphere, I would also consider South Africa to be there, too. Or are we defining 'Eastern Hemisphere' as that half of the world to the east of the Greenwich Meridian, because in that case, that would include most of Europe and even a part of the UK, including London. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 23:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * South Africa has never been a federation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, you're right, thank you. I thought that the USA was a federation, with its provinces comparable to the provinces of Canada.  Futurist says As for me, I can think of Switzerland and Germany as being such countries, but I am honestly unsure if any additional (non-Western Hemisphere, obviously) countries meet this criteria.  Switzerland and Germany, like South Africa, are in the Eastern Hemisphere; if South Africa had been a federation, it would have qualified just as much as Switzerland and Germany.  See Australia, too; the discussion above hinges on whether it can be considered independent, not whether it can be considered Eastern Hemisphere.  Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The US states are not provinces. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the question clearly states 'non-Western Hemisphere', which can only be 'Eastern Hemisphere'. The secondary criterion, stated in an answer to a reply, was that it had to be independent. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 01:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? See the note by Jack of Oz and the two above it: they're addressing the issue of independence, and nobody's arguing over the hemisphere issue, even though Australia's culturally Western and geographically Eastern just as the Germans and Swiss are.  Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By whom is "Europe [...] considered to be in the Western Hemisphere"? Some of this fuss could have been avoided with the words Old World. —Tamfang (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is the "head of household" in Martin Luther's Small Catechism?
I was reading from bookofconcord.org, and I noticed that Martin Luther intended that the "head of household" would teach the children and servants how to be good Christians (Lutheran style). Is the master of the house the head of household? Or does it refer to the mother, who may be in charge of the house, children, and servants? Or does it refer to the master of the house and his wife? Or maybe it refers to the patriarch or matriarch of the family, but not necessarily grown children? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You can find a critical edition of Luther's Small Catechism here (starting at page 241). It appears that the earliest German version reads "wie sye ain haußvatter seinem gesind (...) fyrhalten soll", so Luther called this "head of household" the "haußvatter", lit. 'house-father' originally. That rules out that the mother is meant, and the most straightforward interpretation is that the father of every family should teach it to his wife and children (and possibly servants). - Lindert (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. During Luther's time, many women most likely did not receive an education. Though, sometimes in patriarchal societies, a girl may learn how to read with her brothers. So, it's likely that mostly men knew how to read and could take the information to their families (wives, children, and servants). 71.79.234.132 (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Reinterpretation of the UNSC abstention count
Our article on UN charter amendments says:

When did this reinterpretation take place? Was it when USSR walked out over the whole PRC/ROC business back in 1950? Or was it something more recent? WinterWall (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Also the "include abstentions within the definition of 'concurring votes'" part is unclear. If the P5 all voted yes and the other ten members all abstained, would the resolution pass? According to the current phrasing of our article it wouldn't (if my reading comprehension and logic is correct.) WinterWall (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that an abstention is counted as a yes vote. The wording of the charter seems to give the five permanent members only the choice between a veto or a yes vote.  Abstentions don't change the requirement that 9 yes votes (given the current council size) are needed for a resolution to pass. AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably it means that an abstention is not considered a veto; it's counted as a "yes" only to the extent that it doesn't by itself prevent the motion from passing. Since a decision requires nine "yes" votes out of fifteen, it would technically be possible for the temporary members to pass a motion without the support of any permanent member; "just" convince all five permanent members to abstain, and get nine of the ten to support it.  Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fairly sure Nyttend is correct here. (Well whether you want to count it as a "yes" or not is perhaps not the main point, the main point is it's counted as a concurring vote but not an affirmative vote.) If we consider the recent Palestinian & Jordanian resolution, most sources    seem to agree that 1) United Kingdom (permanent member), Lithuania, Nigeria, Rwanda and South Korea abstained. 2) The United States (permanent membered) & Australia voted no. 3) The others including the permanent members China, France and Russia voted yes. 4) The vote failed because amongst other things it didn't get the required 9 majority of "yes" votes. 5) It was originally believed Nigeria was going to vote "yes" so they would have gotten the required 9 "yes" votes. 6) It would have still failed because of the US's veto (i.e. they voted no). 7) The US and Israel pushed Nigeria (probably other countries too, but Nigeria was seen as the key win because it was believed they would vote "yes") to at least abstain if not vote "no", so that it wouldn't come down to the US veto. 8) I.E. all taken together, the UK abstaining wouldn't have stopped the vote from passing if there weren't the other factors. I have no idea when the claimed change in interpretation happened however. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the OP is right about the date and cause of the change, the reinterpretation in practice, contrary to the natural (intended?) reading. This change was one thing used to argue that the UN resolutions for the Korean War were not legal. But the USSR didn't skip meetings after that.John Z (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The 1967 6 day war causes- according to Richard B. Parker
Parker's book: The Politics of Miscalculation in the Middle East, draws on unpublished accounts and interviews, to explain why did the Six Day War take place.

Brook's book says:"15- According tp Parker (1993:79), Zakariya Mohieddin, Egypt's vice president, attributed Nasser's behaviour to a flare up of his diabetes."

I will appreciate it if one can quote Parker on ex senior Egyptians officials views, and especially Zakaria Mohieddin (who was a vice president then) view.

-- 09:32, 31 December 2014 Ykantor


 * I would be curious what basis Egyptian insiders give for Nasser's decision to reblockade the Straits of Tiran -- something which the Israelis had repeatedly proclaimed was a "red line" for them, and which was probably the single action which made war inevitable (though the Soviets lying to the Syrians about Israeli military intentions didn't help, of course). The quasi-insider who's published the most in English is apparently Mohamed Hassanein Heikal... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Some quotation which might be interesting for you: :


 * 1) According to two of those present at the 22 May meeting, Nasser said then that the blockade would make war 100 percent certain – although in his speech of 23 July, Nasser claimed his actual estimate at that time was 50 percent to 80 percent
 * 2)  in fact Sadat reports that he said: 'If we close the Straits war will be a one hundred per cent certainty'.
 * 3) Following Nasser's speech of May 26, one of his close allies, Mohammed Heykal, wrote in the Cairo newspaper Al-Ahram that an armed clash between Israel and Egypt was `inevitable. It would come because of the inexorable logic of the situation.
 * 4) (king Hussein) "He tried to convince Amer and Nasser that Israel was too strong and that they were risking a disaster. Don't worry, they told him. We know what we're doing. Nasser and Hussein were fatalistic. Both of them said, apparently sincerely,that whether, the battle was lost or won, they could not shy away from the fight. Arab dignity demanded nothing less. (The CIA commented that 'dignity has unquestionably become an overriding priority in the scale of Arab considerations'.)...(p.67)... Hussein, though, was not deluded by his new fans ... 'I knew that war was inevitable. I knew that we were going to lose."
 * 5) Later on at the ... In the course of the discussion it became known that the closure of the straits applied specifically to tankers transporting oil to Israel. The General Staff rapidly came to the conclusion that this Egyptian step required Israel to declare war at once, without waiting for further developments. Assuming that war was inevitable, the DMI was immediately requested to
 * Hopefully, there will have Zakaria Mohieddin view, quoted from Parker's book. Ykantor (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)=


 * If Nasser knew that reblockading the straits of Tiran would result in a 100% probability of war, then that would seem to confirm the perceptions of his reckless adventurism, and being taken in by his own grandiose bombastic rhetoric. Sorry I don't know anything about his medical condition... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of "Royal We" personal pronoun by Japanese Emperors
When looking over Emperor Hirohito's surrender speech in 1945, I noticed that he used the "royal we" pronoun 朕 to refer to himself. This particular pronoun has also been used by the monarchs of other East Asian countries before they abolished their monarchies. However, I have heard from some sources that today's Emperor of Japan, Akihito, no longer uses this pronoun to refer to himself. Is it really true that sometime after 1945, either Hirohito or Akihito stopped using 朕 as a personal pronoun for himself? 155.229.41.46 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it. A couple of sources here for saying this equivalent for the royal we was used until 1945 or thereabouts.  .  But I'm sure  someone will be around soon who actually knows about these things. --Antiquary (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * According to ja:WP and other Japanese sites, 朕 was used only in official documents and speeches. The last use of the word can be found in the Constitution of Japan in 1946. See commons:File:Constitution of Japan original copy.jpg. Hirohito used "僕/boku" in private and "私/わたし/watashi" in non-official speeches. Akihito uses "私/わたくし/watakushi". Oda Mari (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Ism't this more a RD/L question? (During the occupation, MacArthur was supposedly given the nickname "へそ元帥" because おへそ is above お朕朕. Source for this was a book by Jack Seward which also contained other scurrilous tit-bits like a Japanese friend of Seward's who enjoyed scandalizing people by referring to 天皇陛下 as "天ちゃん. Yes, that this was the sort of thing I was reading about when I should have been memorizing the 当用漢字.) Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it might have been 臍天皇 as opposed to the "朕" 天皇. Equally as offensive. Don't try this at home, kids.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Jewish Customs
I have a small, oblong box which I was told was placed on the doorjamb of a Jewish home. It is said to have scripture notes inside. I cannot find any information about this as I do not know what it is called. Can you help me? Thank you. nanacasey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanacasey (talk • contribs) 22:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're talking about a mezzuzah. Touch it as you enter the house. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 9 Tevet 5775 22:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say this, but whenever you pass a mezuzah you're supposed to touch it and kiss the fingers that touched it, as a way of honoring God. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgot that bit. I'm not a very good Jew. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 10 Tevet 5775 03:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "scripture notes" you mention is probably the most important prayer in Judaism, which is called the Shema Yisrael. It is said by observant Jews twice a day, and should be said by a dying Jew if possible in their final moments. A rolled parchment scroll with those words from the Torah is put into a little box and nailed to the doorposts of observant Jewish homes. Yes, my wife will frequently touch it and then kiss her fingers. I will also do so occasionally, when I am feeling sentimental. But the most important message is that you are entering a Jewish home, and I always feel comfortable discussing my Judaism when I enter a home with a mezuzah mounted on the door post. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The specific verses written on a mezzuzah scroll are and ). Cullen328   Let's discuss it  03:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Deuteronomy 6:9 is the specific verse commanding that the words be placed on Jewish doorposts. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that the custom of touching/kissing-by-hand of the mezuzah is not 'essential' from a religious perspective; the mezuzah ritual function is to just be there—and not necessarily in plain sight, as Cullen suggests; historically mezuzot were hidden inside door post for their protection. While the required contents of a mezuzah are, according to standard halakha, the two passages mentioned by Cullen, contemporary mezuzot also include one to four mystical names of God on the reverse side of the parchment, as mentioned in in the article. (Medieval Ashkenazic mezuzot had about a dozen more, with angels and sigils too.) הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 04:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

lol, OP asked a simple question about a door decoration and now will end up having to memorize and say a prayer twice a day as well as touch it every time he sees it. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Eh, the OP can just do what most Jews do: Whatever we feel happiest doing. Their question has been answered and they can now appreciate a part of their home more. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 10 Tevet 5775 05:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)