Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 July 13

= July 13 =

Transition from "Early" to "High" Middle Ages
What defines the transition from the "Early" to "High" Middle Ages? I can't see an explanation in the relevant articles. I know in the UK (or at least England), this is usually defined by the Norman Conquest, which marks a significant change here, but is I presume pretty irrelivent to the rest of Europe. Iapetus (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The defining features of the transition are the end of invasions by non-Christian non-state peoples (or barbarians) in the western European heartland along with the spread of Christianity to Scandinavia and the Baltic, the development of universities, and the development of merchant cities in northern Europe. (Urbanism had never entirely disappeared in southern Europe.) These factors came together during the 11th century and contributed to an expansion in population and new cultural developments. By the way, the "high middle ages" were a European phenomenon. This historical period doesn't make sense outside of Europe. Marco polo (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that its typically defined in terms of the fall of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, does "the middle ages" in general make much sense outside Europe and its immediate neighbours? Iapetus (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing of the sort in the Americas. Columbus "finding" them coincided with the dawn of the Renaissance, part of the "Modern Age". But we had a Medieval Warm Period named for the European thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, Wikipedia has an article titled Middle Ages (and articles on the Early Middle Ages and High Middle Ages and the Late Middle Ages too) which the OP is allowed to read and come to their own understanding of prevailing scholarship on the idea. -- Jayron 32 11:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, I looked at all those articles, but while they discussed general trends within the various periods, I couldn't see a clear definition of what defined the transitions between the Early and High periods. (The Hight/Late transition seems to be clearer).  Hence why the OP says What defines the transition from the "Early" to "High" Middle Ages?  I can't see an explanation in the relevant articles. Iapetus (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

movie about the Arab Israeli conflict
Okay, so I don't know where this stumper should go, so here goes. There is a film that begins with a planned ambush on a busload of children by a bunch of stock baddies wearing kaffiyeh and sunglasses. Some of the bus passengers are armed and shoot back, all within the opening credits. The movie looks very late 1960s-early 1970s and can date to no later than 1983, I saw it as a kid. Any ideas?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I changed title to "movie" rather than "movies", since it's about one specific movie. StuRat (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hollywood movie, or miscellaneous? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Warhead seems to sort of fit, if the bus exploded in yours. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If that's not it, I suggest asking on the Entertainment desk. --174.88.133.35 (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @InedibleHulk you're incredible! How did you do that? If that's not it, it must have a twin. Fantastic, thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Googled "site:imdb.com schoolbus attack israeli". Nothing incredible about it, and I'm not just saying that to avoid a lawsuit. But you're welcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Holy water and dilution
I recall a Jesuit telling me there was no such thing as "half-holy water" - e.g. 1 L holy water and 1 L tap water make 2 L holy water - the idea being it doesn't make sense to speak of diluted holiness, and water is either holy or is not. Some quick googling  suggests that some dilution is allowed, but that it shouldn't be diluted "too much" in some sense. This seems nonsensical to me. At least some of the discussions I've read apply the notion that putting a drop of holy water into a large tank does not make the whole tank holy.

From a theological perspective, it seems like there is an apparent paradox - either believers accept that all water is holy water, because it cannot be diluted (i.e. we can safely assume that at least some was lost at sea, and then entered the atmosphere, water cycle, etc.) or they accept that holy water can be diluted, and there is some threshold of dilution at which the "holiness" property goes away.

The question: Is there any serious discourse on this matter by theologians? The more reliable sources are preferred - official positions of churches or famous theologians rather than some priests' blog post. I don't care which denomination, or even non-Christian religions if they have some sense of holy water. I know this is kind of a weird thing to try to force a rational/scientific framework onto a religious topic, but keep in mind several very serious theologians have spilled much ink (and sometime blood) over "logical" answers to How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * (Oh, and in case anyone's curious, when pressed, said Jesuit told me that technically, yes, all water is holy and ocean water would do for sacramental use in a pinch, but priests like to bless things anyway: it's a tradition and also sort of their job. I just have no idea how orthodox or common his perspective was). SemanticMantis (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See 86% Of Holy Water Teeming With E. Coli And Other Bacteria Found In Fecal Matter—Medical Daily (September 16, 2013)
 * and Holy springs and holy water: underestimated sources of illness?—PubMed (September 2012).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not an official church statement, but Haggai 2:12-13 seems relevant because it appears to establish the principle that holiness, unlike uncleanliness, is not 'contagious', in other words, touching something holy does not make something holy. - Lindert (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think the source itself is certainly apt, but I'm not so sure content is appropriate. I guess it comes down to whether mixing is interpreted as a type of "touching". Most sources I've seen seem to indicate that adding a bit of tap water to previously blessed tap water results in 100% holy water, not water that is 90% holy or anything like that. Here are a few other sources that say some added non-holy water keeps holy water's holiness intact . Very few refs though, even for weird claims that 1:2 ratio is OK, or that as long as more than half of the final volume was holy, the mixture remains holy. I understand that opinions on this will vary, I'm just looking for more credible sources. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's another answer from a Fr. Robert Levis, supporting a 50% rule: . The book "Holy water and its significance for Catholics" says something similar: "(d) Another question. If the holy water at hand might not be sufficient for the occasion, may water that is not blessed be added? Yes. But care must be taken not to add as great a quantity as there is of holy water." Note that the questions "Is it still holy water if diluted?" and "Should one dilute holy water?" are different questions and do not necessarily have the same answer. You can find guidelines about how one ought to prepare and reverently handle holy water, but that doesn't mean that any deviation immediately and definitely renders it non-holy-water. --Amble (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Lets keep this simple. Holy water can be that which comes from holy spring or dihydrogen monoxide that priest/vicar got out off his water faucet and blessed. It is the symbolic attribute given to it that matters. I once heard a vicar say that his was asked to baptize a chid with a bottle of water that her parents brought back form the river of Jordan. It was so rank and mucky that he boiled it for 15 minutes. P.S. Should any one bring home some holy water and a  Customs & Excise  Officer suggest that it smell like poitín – all you need to say is : Oh. Another blessed miracle ;-)--Aspro (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that scientific rules of chemical composition, dilution and stochiometry won't apply to the concept of holiness of water. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You can destroy holy water very easily by adding enough blood or urine or soda or milk etc. Well at least the baptismal grade stuff. I'm not sure on the rules if it was blessed as water but then reddened with blood. You can bless non-water things but I don't know what happens if it changes form (like from lemon juice to lemonade). I don't know if it's still holy after freezing and melting but it cannot be used for baptism while still frozen and has to be enough to flow. But the Catholic Encyclopedia says that it's usable for baptism only if men would call it water. It lists things like ice, tears, blood, oil and I think milk, steam, sweat, saliva and maybe fire as examples of not water, many of which presumably are because of possibilities like somebody someday might rationalize in a salvation emergency that the blood gushing out of the soldier's wound is like 99% water. So if you don't use water to dilute it you could dilute it with a very small parts per million of blood, as blood makes water look bloody at very small concentrations. I don't know if food coloring disqualifies it, personally I'd call it colored water but disqualify pink water contaminated by blood. Maybe it said you should try to get as much holy water-skin contact as possible (wiping off any sweat, cleaning the area first) to apply directly to the forehead or could just baptise any attached hair even if the person died before the water ever flowed on their skin. I don't remember. I believe it made a judgement on seawater and maybe brackish water. Maybe it's okay. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * [not an answer, sorry...] Honestly, it doesn't seem any weirder than wave-particle duality, but perhaps a better comparison is to murder weapons.  If you replace the firing pin on a gun that killed someone, does it remain a murder weapon?  How about the stock?  Barrel?  Reforge a sword like in LOTR?  (The films' worst scene, by a mile)  (Cf Ship of Theseus)  Can you extract the murder from a murder weapon and transfer it into something else?  I think not.  At some point you might decide that you're trying to track a social construct, a choice to remember and consider something, an idea, which though not meaningless is not a physical substance.  Now, if we could only get the hard-core capitalist fundamentalists to question whether 'property' is a physical substance, we'd have something. Wnt (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Calamity Jane's cap
In Calamity Jane (film), Doris Day often wears what appears to be a blue Union Army forage cap which bears gold insignia. This looks, to me, to be two crossed cannons with a 5 above and a G (I really don't think it's a C) below. Some okay-ish photos are on these pages:,. The prop cap looks quite a lot like this artillery cap. So: Thanks. 87.114.100.65 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is a specific unit denoted by the 5 G?
 * Is there anything in the film which explains why Jane is wearing this specific cap?


 * On this page (do a find on "1858 DRESS") there's a fancy dress hat with those insignia, but with crossed swords instead of cannons.  It means "5th Regiment, Company G", according to the text. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Like this? I agree with StuRat (that doesn't happen often) that the number represents the regiment and the letter the company, or battery in the case of artillery, or troop if it was horse artillery. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. now moved.--Aspro (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this answer may be intended for the question above. Tevildo (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

European Union Referendum Bill
Has the bill been blocked? I went here today to see if it has reached its Third Reading and saw that it was where I had left it (Committee stage, 18 June), with the Report stage "not anounced yet". I browsed some newspapers and from their utter vagueness I figured out that Sir Bill Cash and a team of rebel Eurosceptic Tories nearly blocked the bill with an amendment concerning the date of the referendum. The only vote, however, involving Tory rebels that I could find was this one, but it was not about the date, it was about the publication of campaign material. I stand a little confused, which is not normally the case...--The Traditionalist (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It all looks fine to me. It's perhaps worth remembering that the commons rise for the summer recess a week yesterday and don't return until the seventh of September and in the next week have to deal with various other things. (Like beginning to approve the announcements in the budget that require legislation). Fixing detailed dates six weeks in advance is probably unnecessary. In support of this, I will point out that of the government bills before the commons (, and make appropriate selections at the top), only the Finance and Work & Welfare Reform Bills have dates for their next stages, and both of them are in July. 128.232.236.110 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was sure that such a bill cannot get withdrawn so easily. But you can understand my frustration after reading that the Eurosceptics nearly blocked the Referendum bill.--The Traditionalist (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't that "Euroskeptic" ? A "Eurosceptic" sounds like a spray you use to get rid of all those nasty Europeans crawling about. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Eurosceptic" is British English, "Euroskeptic" is American English. Source: I'm a British sub-editor (copy editor) for an American newspaper. "Euroskeptic" looks weird to me. 36.225.127.230 (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, see Euroscepticism and Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * And note that sceptic is pronounced like skeptic, not like septic. --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * A gathering of positive-thinking British individuals could be called an antisceptic tank. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Curiously, the Cockney rhyming slang for an American person is "septic tank" (rhymes with "Yank"). Alansplodge (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And I can think of some things that rhyme with "Brit". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pitt?--The Traditionalist (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The trick with rhyming slang is that the rhyme itself should not be profane, even though it might allude to something that is. Those are the rules. Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Wake Island claimed by Marshall Islands?
Our article states that Wake is claimed by the Marshall Islands. Its source - and the only source, from what I can find - is a single sentence in the CIA World Factbook. Is there any further evidence of this? Either a first party source, or a third party source specifically citing something other than the CIA World Factbook? --Golbez (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a claim that seems to be being pressed very vigorously, but it has been asserted from time to time. See, for example,, . Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hrm. Thank you for these. The second source is exactly the problem; I can find lots of sources saying it's claimed with absolutely nothing backing it up. I'm starting to wonder if everyone's quoting everyone else and it's taken on a life of its own. However, the first source is by far the most info I've found on the subject, even giving a year (1990) and a person making the claim. Unfortunately, that source seems to be the only one on the Internet with this information, making it difficult to verify. The best I suppose I could do is search the Congressional Record in 1990 for mentions of Guam and Wake but that still doesn't give me info on the claim. --Golbez (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You could try contacting the Marshallese Embassy and see if they have any information. For what it's worth, though, I'd note the obvious fact that the CIA World Factbook is a U.S. Government publication. It's hard to imagine that that particular source would mention another country's claim to U.S. territory unless the country had actually asserted the claim in some way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is true, but misstatements can have inertia, and it's also odd that the World Factbook appears to be the only US government publication that even alludes to this dispute. --Golbez (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Circumventing ATM problem in Greece
I'm not naive enough to think a million other people haven't already thought about this and a thousand other things, I just ask because I don't know the answer. I have heard there is a limit to how much cash people can get out of ATM machines in Greece. Supposing a Greek has a lot in their account, do most have debit cards for their bank accounts? As an American, it is a common experience for me to be able to, when buying groceries at the supermarket, request "cash back" so that my food bill + $X is taken out of my account and I can get $X cash in change. Do supermarkets in Greece, or elsewhere in Europe offer "cash back"? Of course if supermarkets are getting as squeezed as citizens are, I could understand if they didn't offer this.

One more question: If the answer to my previous question is "Yes, there is cash back in Europe," what if a Greek with money they wanted to get out of their account but couldn't because of the withdrawal restrictions took a trip to Italy, bought some celery, and asked for a bunch of cash back? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well first off, I wonder why you would have a bank account without a debit card, unless it's a long term savings or investment account or the like. Of course there is cashback. Card payments may be limited in Greece at the moment though, apparently lots of shops are insisting on cash. Haven't heard anything about cashback. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Could Greeks get 10 times the cash in one go if they don't withdraw for 10 days? Not that that could help anyone beyond a little convenience. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if they could, the Greek economy currently is grounded to a halt. And that's a problem not at the level of the individual: "it’s dangerous to have money in your account". Besides of it, the Greek law, and in the same way several other European countries all put a limitation on cash payments . --Askedonty (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, you'd be stupid to not take it out every day. But I wasn't sure it was technically impossible. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, ATM for your comfort. I also tend to think of the "teller" in "ATM" as of one sort of Oracle, not as a dish, which is what "Teller" stands for in German. --Askedonty (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Supermarkets in the UK certainly offer cashback, though usually only up to (I think) £50 per transaction. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no cashback possibility in Greece (there wasn't before capital controls). When using a debit/credit card or web/mobile banking for a transaction there is no limit for purchases/transfers within Greece (except the pre-existing daily,monthly or whatever limits). Finally, the daily ATM withdrawal limit applies always, even if one hasn't withdrawn during previous days. 79.107.43.132 (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it common, or even possible, for Greeks to have a second account with a different bank? In the UK it is fairly trivial to open as many as you want, if you can visit all the relevant bank branches and you don't need overdrafts. Then you could make transfers between the accounts and withdraw €60 per account per day. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, if one already had many accounts/cards (before the banks were closed), they could withdraw many times, and indeed this is quite common. Anyway, there haven't been major problems of shortage of cash for simple everyday transactions. The main problem of course concerns buisiness transactions with other countries. Also, a very large number of elderly pensioners who had no bank cards could only withdraw 120 euros per week in some banks open only for them. 79.107.21.73 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer the OP's question, I would think no supermarket or other business is going to accept a greek credit or debit card these days, whether for "cashback" or purchases. The "payment" would be purely theoretical, as the business would have no way of utilizing the customer's money which has been transferred into their (for all practical purposes, frozen) business banking account. 121.219.62.223 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Related question: suppose a business sets up in Greece where they accept local bank payment for goods offered, and those goods are U.S. dollars, bitcoins, gold, rare collectible trading cards... the most monetary thing they can legitimately sell under current controls. The hitch is that they provide less "hard cash" than the customer pays in Greek bank-euros.  If the crisis ends without a huge loss in value, they sell the bank-euros they collected at a profit.  Well, the question is then, does such a business exist, and if so, how much apparent profit in bank-euros does it demand?  It would sort of be a gauge of the severity of the crisis. Wnt (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Such a specialized buisiness does not exist to the best of my knowledge. As a remark, everyday life in Greece has not been disturbed as much as most commenters seem to think (and all guesswork in this thread is misleading), nevertheless the negative impact on the economy is substantial for many other reasons. Sorry for not providing sources. 79.107.21.73 (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)