Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 August 8

= August 8 =

Lady Violet
"'He said to me, “Well she didn’t really impinge…” but [a bit of Lady Violet here] how much more impinging can you get?’"

What does the Telegraph mean by their editorial comment "a bit of Lady Violet"? And who do they refer to? Is Francesca Messina, who once adopted the stage name "Lady Violet", still famous enough - over 10 years after her brief career - to define a certain mannerism, or does the Telegraph refer to another Lady Violet, one who possibly also inspired Ms Messina? &mdash; Sebastian 07:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Maggie Smith as Countess Violet is the undisputed highlight of each episode of Downton Abbey." &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Damn, you beat me to it. It's badly written, though, since the reference is not explained until later in the article, and even then Violet is referred to as "Violet Crawley" and "Cousin Violet". It's almost as though the writer assumes that Telegraph readers will know who "Lady Violet" is without any further elucidation required. Where is the above sentence from? --Viennese Waltz 07:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize, usually potatoes are quite slow. http://downtonabbeyonline.com/countess-dowager-violet-grantham-quotes/ &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, people, I'm even slower as I'm still reading the Telegraph article, which I find very interesting.

So, I just added a reference to List of Downton Abbey characters to our Lady Violet article. &mdash; Sebastian 07:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The reference is incorrect. The character is "the Dowager Countess of Grantham" or "Lady Grantham". She would only have been "Lady Violet" if she had been the daughter of at least an earl (our article indicates that she is only the daughter of a baronet), and even then only before her marriage. I can't imagine she's ever been referred to as "Lady Violet" on screen, as Julian Fellowes appears to take pride in getting these sort of things right. Proteus (Talk) 15:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Baronetcies of Ireland
A relative of mine has sent me a link to a page on here: Dancer baronets. Which is fine as far as it goes, it's a stub and could do with improvement. So I've tried to trace it upwards, and when I got to the page List of extant baronetcies, under Baronetage of Ireland, I don't see Dancer mentioned - in fact I don't see it mentioned under anything on that page. Is there someone who can do a bit of background research for me please and see where the problem lies? Thank you.--TammyMoet (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As the Dancer baronetcy is extinct, it's not extant! Rojomoke (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Since there is no living heir to the baronetcy—that is, no male-line descendants of the first baronet—(another way of saying that it's extinct), you won't find details in current editions of Debrett's or Burke's. But you will find details in older versions. You can see more in this baronetage. - Nunh-huh 16:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, so I'm presuming that it is certified that nobody has a hope of succeeding to this baronetcy then, and doesn't come under the "dormant" category? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup. It's extinct. It has ceased to be. It is no more. It is an ex-parrot.  It's as dead as a baronetcy can be. - Nunh-huh 18:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Johnson versus nobody
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 15 includes a case Johnson v., and the corresponding Wikisource page is simply Johnson. Why would a case not have both parties' names? Nyttend backup (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a typo (and it seems be a typo before it appeared in Wikipedia as well). In other court documents, it is known as JOHNSON v. PANNEL's heirs. -- Jayron 32 14:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed a mistaken link in my first note. Thank you.  That makes more sense than them just leaving off the name of one of the parties.  Nyttend backup (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is there such a stigma against suicide?
Terminally ill people with no hope left should be left to suffer? I can understand depressed teenagers who fail university entrance exam, breakup with bf/gf, getting bullied, etc, but MANY people are suffering from unbearable pain with no hope of getting better. Why can't there be special committee to decide whether a person's reason for suicide is legit? For many people suicide is NOT to resolve a temporary problem, I'm sick of people using this argument in debates, they want to resolve a PERMANENT problem. Money is tight (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Christianity. Related article: euthanasia. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Now now... there are plenty of other religious traditions that stigmatize suicide... let's not pin this on just one. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad. How systemic bias of me. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, pretty much all of the world religions at least discourage suicide. One doesn't have to be a Marxist to look for socio-economic reasons being the driving force behind Religious views on suicide. Seppuku was acceptable on an island nation with a problematic land-to-people ratio, with reincarnation being used as an excuse.  In India, until recently having lots of kids to help farm was a good idea, Prayopavesa was only acceptable if the person was disconnected from the economy and left as little a mess as possible -- even though there was still the same excuse of reincarnation. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally seppuku wasn't acceptable. Only for a particular class (few in number), and in some circumstances extended to their followers, was it acceptable. If you were too lowly to have any honour to preserve, the concept was nonsensical and somewhat distasteful - mostly because it was seen as pretentious. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, it was only glorified for people who weren't so much contributing to the economy beyond "management." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We also have articles on suicide and social stigma. Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The theory is that only God gives life and only God can take life away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is of course why it's so ironic religious countries like the US have the death penalty. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And don't take care of the poor. And think that stopping gay people from getting married is more important than fixing the 40-50% divorce rate. And think that wealth is a sign of divine favor instead of materialistic greed.  And... Ian.thomson (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The theory does not necessarily stand up to close scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the current state of the law, your second sentence would be more appropriate in a list of grievances against Australia. - Nunh-huh 18:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For the last decade or so, Australia's desperately indebted, inebriated or introverted at least had one last shot at the casinos, from the comfort of their homes. They're back to getting screwed again. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * whatever the question, don't forget to ask yourself "does it impact reproduction? favorably or negatively?"
 * Obviously, any belief that favors suicide will make you a possible winner of Darwin Awards, with lower chance that you pass along this belief to next generation.
 * Moreover, chances are that living people (be they children, friend, or even enemies who want to inflict you pain and death) won't be happy, and resent the suicide itself as an evil that took them the one who committed suicide.
 * On the other hand, a strong taboo against suicide may help you survive through hardship, and have a normal life afterward; when suicide would had ended it all. People who suicide have no chance to regret it, people that considered suicide but did not act may be happy and see suicide as just a temptative wrong way.
 * Gem fr (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Is a cheeseburger with soy cheese and tofu bacon kosher?
The "cheese" is made from soy and nutritional yeast. The "bacon" is made from tofu, marinated and baked in the oven. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes for bacon and burger, per . If the ingredients going into a dish are all kosher, then even if it simulates a non-kosher food, it's fine.  However, cheese can be trickier.  Per here, many ostensibly non-dairy cheeses may still contain meat and/or dairy products.  However, if the cheese-analogue has been certified pareve, then you should be fine as well. -- Jayron 32 14:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a bit of a tricky topic: the principle of Marit ayin says that doing something that simulates disobeying Jewish law can itself be a violation - our article gives the example of consuming fish blood, which resembles animal blood and is therefore forbidden. However, this site quotes Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Rabbis who all think that this isn't really a big deal these days - people know that soy milk and tofu exist, so there's less risk of confusion. Smurrayinchester 10:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * More detail at Kosher Food Production'' by Zushe Yosef Blech (p. 335). Apparently, the manufacture of soya products using machinery that is also used for dairy products is an issue. Alansplodge (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia article about what happens when people don't do what God says?
If a Jewish person eats non-kosher food or a Muslim eats pork or a Hindu eats beef, what will happen to them spiritually? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * hmm, we don't seem to have an article called "consequence of sin". --Lgriot (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not by that name. But we DO have an article about the subject.  See Divine retribution.  Remember, WHAAOE, you just need to know where to find it.  -- Jayron 32 15:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Consequence of sin redirect now created. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Bah - lost due to edit conflict. I would have thought Taboo would have been a good place to start, but it doesn't really say much that is useful.  Ritual purification is a feature of many religions for removing literal or spiritual contamination, whether resulting from contact with something considered "unclean", or from acts or thoughts deemed sinful.  Kosher, Halal, and Harem Haram may all be worth looking at too, although I haven't read them in detail so I'm not sure if they cover everything you want. Iapetus (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You probably meant Haram. --Xuxl (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Corrected. Iapetus (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting that every religion has a different view of sin and different methods for dealing with it. There is no universal answer here, and it will depend on the specific theology one is looking at.  -- Jayron 32 16:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * In Judaism, at least, if one is starving and the only food available is non-kosher, eating it might be a "sin", but allowing oneself to die would be a "greater sin". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is totally incorrect. It's not a sin at all. It's actually an obligation to eat the otherwise forbidden food and foregoing it would be sinful. Babylonian Talmud Tractate Yoma discusses this matter in depth, in the context of someone dangerously hungry on Yom Kippur, and even devises an elaborate hierarchy of different prohibited foods so a learned person would know in which order to go for it. There is some information on the topic in our article Pikuach nefesh. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll go with what my Jewish friends have said about it, rather than with the opinion of an anonymous internet user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You'd rather cite the opinions of your anonymous (and incorrect, or misquoted) friends on a Reference Desk than give an actual citation? Try this. It's a mitzvah to break the laws in order to save life, except for the cardinal issues outlined in the Pikuach nefesh article I referred to earlier, e.g. you cannot murder an innocent bystander to save someone else's life (or your own). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd note as our article halal says it's the same in Islam about it not being a sin in cases of starvation. I think it's generally interpreted as an obligation. Our article includes two links, one is to a passage of the Al-Baqara with translation [//quran.com/2/173]. You can also see [//islamqa.info/en/130815] for one intepretation. Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Somewhat related to that, see the biblical passage 1 Samuel 21:6, an account of the future King David eating the consecrated showbread. I'm unaware of any specifically Jewish discussions of this subject, but given the comprehensiveness of the Talmud, it's probably addressed somewhere.  Christianity's interpretation is rather firmly bound by Jesus' apparent endorsement of the incident in chapter 12 of the Gospel of Matthew.  Nyttend backup (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * By way of contrast, ten years ago a New York writer published The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to follow the Bible as Literally as Possible. Ergo, there is a Wikipedia article about what happens when a person tried to do everything that God said, or was said to have said.Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How many people did he kill? http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/murder-in-the-bible/ &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes: Inquisition. --Kharon (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest Fall of man and Free will in theology for some background; you (the OP) may also find some links there that will be of interest. For a more Eastern perspective see karma and the various links therein.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing would happen to them spiritually, because if a Jewish person eats non-kosher food, or a Muslim eats pork, or a Hindu eats beef, then the Christian God would say " You shall have no other God but me" and forgive them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.221.49 (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that something like [] won't happen? :) Dmcq (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Any person breaking any rule they genuinely consider important to obey shall be automatically punished with guilt. Various souls react variously to it, but that initial twinge is universal and powerful. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of psychopaths don't feel guilt. And I guess quite a few people who aren't psychopaths don't either. Dmcq (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They don't feel guilt when they break rules they don't consider important, which are the rules they're typically noticed breaking (other people's). They still have their own personal codes, though, which are just as vulnerable. Every day, somebody gets shot for making a narcissist look weaker than he thinks he should in public; that's his way of making amends to himself, unlike remorse, but all in the same spirit of erasing the twinge. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

philosophy and propaganda
I saw this artwork on Redbubble. It's called The Pen is Mightier than the Sword. The artwork depicts a woman wearing a red shirt and blue jeans. She's standing next to, and holding up a gigantic pen. The artwork must've been inspired by Rosie the Riveter and 1950s propaganda. What's the real story behind the artwork? Anyone know?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If you look at the page containing a product with that image, it shows you who submitted the image. In this case, it is username "MistressOfLine" with the submitted real name of Lorna Miller. Coincidentally, there is a Facebook account here for a woman named Lorna Miller that includes the same artwork. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I checked, but there were other political cartoons, as well. What can you tell people about Lorna Miller? How does The Pen is Mightier than the Sword connect with the specific artwork I'm referring to?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You are assuming there is a connection. You were directed to her Facebook page where you can directly contact her and ask if the two pictures are connected in any way. It looks to me like she was more influenced by popular Paul Bunyan images, but I don't care enough to contact her and ask. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not assuming anything. She was influenced by Rosie the Riveter and 1950s magazine advertisements.2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well... then you know more than we do, and so you are in a better position to answer your own question than we are. 'Nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The pen is mightier than the sword is a figure of speech meaning that writing is a more effective tool than violence. It sounds like the artwork takes the mighty pen literally and applies it to empowering women. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * More effective tool than direct violence. Not because it counters violence, but quite the opposite: because it gives rationale, prompts and controls where the violence will be directed (e.g. Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines). Gem fr (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How do 1950s magazine advertisements connect with empowering women?2604:2000:7113:9D00:2403:2B1A:44AC:C73A (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

George Washington Carver
When and why did he adopt his middle name? Our article only discusses how he became "George Carver" when freed, where previously he was "Carver's George". Nothing is said about the Washington part. I've found nameless people claiming elsewhere on the internet that he adopted it in high school, but no sources are given. —Akrabbimtalk 23:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking around, almost everyone seems to be agreed that he took a middle name so as to avoid being confused with another fellow called George Carver. At least three print sources (here, here and here) agree that this happened while he was still in high school, and apparently the full name appears on his high school diploma, but I found nothing on why he chose that particular name. --Antiquary (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I found similar sources which only note that he adopted the middle name in his teens, see for example here and here. He later went by George W. Carver as an homage to Booker T. Washington, see here, but I cannot find anywhere that he ever gave a reason why he chose the middle name Washington.  He may have never spoken on the matter, which would make it unknowable. -- Jayron 32 11:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

In some areas of the U.S. the name "Washington" was commonly used as a last name by blacks; this is mentioned at Washington (name)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)