Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 July 16

= July 16 =

the Riverside Silk Mills in Paterson, New Jersey
Hello at the Reference Desk of Wikipedia,

I am putting together an outstanding historical documentary, titled: "The 1913 Paterson Silk Mills Strike", for television viewing. During my research, I discovered that 19 of my direct ancestors were involved in this strike. Many strikers died from tuberculosis or other types of respiratory diseases. One of my of ancestors died, on May 10th, 1913, from an unusual respiratory disease, due to being among the silk mills in Paterson. In total, three of my ancestors were silk workers. Two were living near Madison Avenue and one was living on Madison Avenue. At that time, Madison Avenue did cut right through the heart of the (781-821) River Street area which was near the Riverside Silk Mills and PS#18 (Paterson's Public School #18).

My three ancestors were employed within the "Riverside Silk Mills", during and possibly even before 1913, do you know where I can locate any of their work hire applications (before they began employment), or any of their other employment records, or any papers that were being circulated about the upcoming 1913 Paterson Silk Strike? During and several years before 1913, within the 'Riverside Silk Mills' in Paterson, New Jersey, can you tell me more about what types of work was actually done inside each of the buildings, how many workers from "those mills" went on strike, when those mills were created and when they were no longer active, etc.. Can you supply me with map pictures of the 'Riverside Silk Mills location along the river? At that time period, how far was School 18 from those mills? Can this school be seen from any particular mills?

Sincerely,

Andrew Jacob Palamidy Sr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajp 4577 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: "One of my of ancestors died...from an unusual respiratory disease, due to being among the silk mills in Paterson." Pneumoconiosis, by any chance ? StuRat (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sometimes there is a substantial quantity of information about a particular locality available on the internet if you know how to tweak Google, however it seems not in this case. I can only suggest that you try the Patterson Local History Center. The name, phone number and email of their Local History Librarian is quoted on that page. Good hunting. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * And you also need to search the newspapers (e.g. NYT 26 Feb 1913, p. 22). The IWW apparently objected to new self-stopping loom technology that enabled the use of fewer workers. - Nunh-huh 23:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a link to Luddites is relevant here. StuRat (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well done. The IWW, it seems, wasn't trying to protect workers from bad working conditions, it was trying to make sure that workers continued working in their former conditions—though our article tells a more one-sided story. - Nunh-huh 01:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Etruscan conquest of Rome
When did the Etruscans conquer Rome?Uncle dan is home (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's very uncertain whether they ever did, since there's no account of Roman history written anywhere near that date. Livy and other ancient historians writing several centuries after the event say that the fifth and seventh kings of Rome, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus and Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, were of Etruscan origin and gained the throne by wealth and intrigue respectively rather than through military means.  Some modern historians interpret that as a Roman face-saving revision of history concealing an Etruscan conquest of Rome, but there's no consensus on that .  The first Tarquin is traditionally said to have reigned from 616 to 579 BC and the second from 535 to 509 BC, but those dates are just as unreliable as everything else in this whole story. --Antiquary (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What can be said, without too much uncertainty, is that early Rome was a fairly insignificant town in an area dominated culturally and economically by the Etruscans. There may or may not have been an actual conquest - but if there wasn't it was probably because Rome accepted the situation and did nothing to provoke its very powerful neighbours (until they had grown strong enough to do so with some success at a later period). Wymspen (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See Roman–Etruscan Wars and Roman conquest of Italy. According to Livy an Etruscan League of twelve cities was formed between 600 BC and 500 BC. The city of Rome founded some time during the 8th century BC was not yet a major power center. By 500 BC the political destiny of Italy had passed out of Etruscan hands as Rome gained regional dominance. By 218 BC Roman conquest of Italy had been completed. The last Etruscan cities were formally absorbed by Rome around 100 BC. The Roman Empire was established under Octavian in 27 BC, after Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul. Blooteuth (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Six-Part Seating
Do each of these six seats weigh 1500 pounds or do the six of them added together weigh 1500 pounds? Here is a good picture of kids playing around them. Or here is a woman sitting on one of them. Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The formulation at the site of the National Gallery of Art is not entirely clear either, but they give the measures of the seats as 95.3 x 44.5 x 100.3 cm3. About 75 per cent of that volume is filled with granite, with a density of around 2.7 g/cm3. That gives an estimate of 860 kg or 1900 lb, and given the uncertainties in that estimate, it seems safe to say that 1500 lb is the weight of a single seat. --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The source quoted, The Collection - National Gallery of Art says: "overall (each of six elements): 95.3 x 44.5 x 100.3 cm (37 1/2 x 17 1/2 x 39 1/2 in.) gross weight: 1500 lb." I would say it obviously means each one of the six elements. This is borne out by the fact that granite weighs 2.72 tonnes (6,000 lb) per cubic metre.  Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you to and thank you to . Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Church decorations in different denominations
Um... I have no idea whether they're really called "church decorations". All I know is, they "decorate" the church in a way that aligns with the teaching of THAT church. For example, Catholic churches have pictures and statues of the Virgin Mary (the Madonna). Eastern Orthodox churches often have pictures of the saints as the most salient characteristic. Then I watched "Helena" by My Chemical Romance, and I thought the set of the music video looked very Catholic, but someone corrected me that it was a Presbyterian church. When I looked at the article on Wikipedia, I realized it was indeed shot inside a Presbyterian church. So, do Presbyterians emphasize anything about church decorations (statues, pictures of saints, pictures of the Virgin Mary, stained-glass windows, lofty ceilings, candles, pendulum thingy with the smoke)? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 'Pendulum thingy with the smoke' is an incense "censer" or thurible. Orthodox presbyterian churches tend to not have (or at least not emphasize) a raised altar, using instead a table for "the Lord's Supper". - Nunh-huh 23:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The Anglican Church was recently told to take it easy on all the smoke, for health reasons. In other words, their incense censers were censored, leaving them incensed (if my 2 cents of nonsense makes any sense). StuRat (talk)
 * I love a nice frankincense & myrrh or a floral incense; it alters my sensorium—sensually—as I approach the altar. - Nunh-huh 01:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, the Catholics are fine with hypoallergenic incense. But gluten-free communion wafers or non-alcoholic communion wine are definitely verboten. - Nunh-huh 01:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With regard to Anglicans, at the time of the Reformation in England, all church embellishments were thought to be "Popish" and successive acts of parliament forced churches to whitewash over wall paintings, remove precious artwork from altars and dismantle rood screens. During the English Civil War, Puritan troops often broke the faces off the remaining statues and smashed stained glass windows, since they represented "graven images" which are proscribed by the Ten Commandments (see also Iconoclasm). During the 19th century, the Oxford Movement led some Anglicans, later known as Anglo-Catholics, to rediscover their Catholic heritage, including devotional statues and images. These changes trickled down into the mainstream or Broad Church, meaning that stained glass and religious paintings again became acceptable, but for a majority of Anglicans, these are decorative rather than devotional objects. I suspect that a similar process has taken place in the Lutheran church, but they have a very small presence in the UK and are outside of my personal knowledge. Alansplodge (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, most protestant churches tend to avoid images in their buildings. Thus you will see a cross, but not a crucifix (which has the figure of Christ on it). Anything used will either have a symbolic meaning, or will represent one of the persons of the Trinity or a biblical character, rather than any of the saints or the Virgin Mary. So there may be a candle (light), or a dove (the Holy Spirit), or water (baptism), or a crown of thorns (Christ's suffering). There may be stained glass - but it is most likely to show biblical scenes, or be symbolic. There will certainly be a Bible, and a table for communion. Note that the Anglican churches fall somewhere between the Catholic and Protestant traditions - and vary widely among themselves: some may be almost indistinguishable from Catholic churches, while others will be much simpler - a good clue is whether there are six or just two candles on the altar. Wymspen (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not an unfailing distinction, unfortunately. Catholics are just fine with just two candles, as well. And some Protestant churches like to add additional candles – though, yes, not as much as Catholic churches seem to. - Nunh-huh 22:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Catholic churches are quite a bit happier with rituals than Protestant ones. However this idea that Catholics adore images and any statues or pictures should be removed or even destroyed is just some extremist idea Protestantism got when it first started up. It enabled them to say they were different like Sunni and Shia Muslims with five or three prayers a day and it led to destruction rather like that nowadays in Palmyra or Bamiyan. Dmcq (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, "just some extremist idea" is not quite right. The early protestants wanted to strip away all the accumulated dogmas and traditions to leave a faith in which each practice was specifically grounded in the Bible. How strictly this was to be applied led to the diversity of Protestant traditions that exist today, but very few of them include devotional images. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How about Fundamentalism then which seems to lead to people killing each other in the name of a loving God in both Christianity and Islam. Dmcq (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It was an issue long before Protestants -- see Byzantine Iconoclasm... AnonMoos (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)