Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 July 26

= July 26 =

Russian Embassy chapel in Athens?
The article Embassy chapel discusses places of worship in foreign embassies which benefited from extraterritoriality and diplomatic immunity. For example, from the 16th through the 18th century when the Catholic Church was suppressed in England, a number of embassies in London from Catholic countries maintained their own chapels which were sometimes attended by English Catholics. However, the article lists as another example of an embassy chapel "Church of the Metamorphosis (Kottakis) (Russian embassy in Athens)", cited to a dead link. This doesn't make sense, since Greece has been an Eastern Orthodox country at all times when it was independent and hosted embassies; there would have been no need for Russia to maintain a clandestine chapel in the embassy when both Russia and Greece followed the same religion. Is this a proper example of an embassy chapel or more of a misunderstanding by a contributor? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There’s an article on the church in Russian Wikipedia (ru:Преображенский храм (Котаки)) that says the church was given to the Russian embassy as an embassy church and parish church for the Russian community. Although the Greek and Russian churches are both Eastern Orthodox Churches, they are different autocephalous churches that have their own leadership, government, and rules. So they are not interchangeable. Different Eastern Orthodox churches only set up churches in each other’s countries by special permission, as in a metochion. —Amble (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. "Different Eastern Orthodox churches only set up churches in each other’s countries by special permission" would explain it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My guess is that if the Russians were celebrating Christmas there wouldn't be much point them going to a Greek Orthodox church because the Greeks had celebrated thirteen days before.  The number of people who miss out on Christmas entirely because they left Russia/Ukraine whatever early in January would surprise you. 2A00:23C5:E148:1D01:4945:3810:F476:9E4C (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Eastern Orthodox churches do not really celebrate Christmas. Their big celebration is what is called the Theophany of Christ, Epiphany in English. --Lambiam 11:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Utter tosh --Ghirla-трёп- 10:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, the split began at the Council of Constantinople (1923), which I have added to our Christmas article - strange how nobody had fixed it previously. I also imagine that Greek Orthodox liturgy is challenging for those Russians who don't speak much Greek. Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually, every Imperial Russian embassy had some kind of Orthodox chapel (if only just one room fitted out for the purpose). ru:Русская посольская церковь lists Church of the Holy Trinity, Athens, the famous church in Sofia (which is still one of the city's major sights), Welbeck Street Chapel in London and the chapel in Constantinople. Some other embassy churches are listed here. The embassy staff was to be served by a Russian priest. Apart from the language barriers, having a native-style church would make the staff feel more at home. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Dates of Christmas celebration

 * @Lambiam: The relevant passage in the article is

If this is a reference to the celebration of Christ's birth (my emphasis).

See, entry for 6 January and entries in December. An accurate indicator is the incidence of public holidays (note that some of these are "optional holidays" and that a bill is going through the Armenian parliament to reduce the holiday period from 31 December - 7 January to 31 December, 1 and 6 January). The larger a country's Catholic population the more likely it is that 25 December will be a holiday.


 * 24 December (Christmas Eve) is a public holiday in Bulgaria (notwithstanding it's a Saturday).
 * 25 December (Christmas Day) is a public holiday in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece and Romania (notwithstanding it's a Sunday).
 * 26 December is a public holiday in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece and Romania.
 * 27 December is a public holiday in Bulgaria.
 * 28 December is a public holiday in Bulgaria (proving it's not just Britain and Ireland that give days in lieu when a holiday falls at the weekend).
 * 6 January is a holiday in Greece alone.

Of the countries which did not accept the 1923 reform:


 * Belarus has 7 January (and also 25 December).
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina has 6-7 January (and also 25 December).
 * Kosovo has 7 January (and also 25 and 26 December).
 * Macedonia has 7 January.
 * Moldova has 7-8 January (and also 25 December).
 * Montenegro has 6-7 January.
 * Russia has 1-9 January.
 * Serbia has 7 January.
 * Ukraine has 7 January (and also 25 and 26 December).

In these countries the Epiphany is celebrated on 19 January, but it's not a public holiday in any of them. 80.43.241.98 (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Did Vasco da Gama and Ferdinand Magellan know eachother/interact?
Did Vasco da Gama and Ferdinand Magellan know each-other/interact? It just occurred to me that they were both Portuguese and from essentially the same period. Surely they must have at least known of each other's accomplishments?  Aza24  (talk)   03:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Magellan predeceased the circumnavigation so da Gama didn't know of his accomplishment while he was alive. Sleigh (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Magellan expedition returned to Spain in September 1522, and Vasco da Gama died in December 1524, so there was ample time for the news of Magellan's death and the successful circumnavigation to reach him. --Lambiam 09:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Both men were in Portugal in the period 1513–1517, so they could have met. They were not particularly welcome at the court and not in a position to do the other a favour, so I see no obvious incentive for them to seek contact. Our article on Vasco da Gama contains the sentence, 'After Ferdinand Magellan defected to the Crown of Castile in 1518, Vasco da Gama threatened to do the same, prompting the king to undertake steps to retain him in Portugal and avoid the embarrassment of losing his own "Admiral of the Indies" to Spain.' This is the strongest connection I could readily find. --Lambiam 09:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Magellan would have known of Da Gama, his first significant voyage was on board the 7th Portuguese India Armada, led by Francisco de Almeida, a rival of Da Gama; Da Gama was a well-known explorer well before Magellan even set foot on a ship, and was expected to be granted, but passed over for, the viceroyalty of Portuguese India in favor of De Almeida. Da Gama basically went into a decade-plus long retirement at that point. -- Jayron 32 11:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

reversing US federal statutes
Some decades ago, pot was made into a schedule I narcotic, highly against federal law even if some states legalized it and federal enforcement is currently lax. There is some noise about getting it legalized by Congress, which seems mostly a matter of political will and having the votes (I'm not saying it's good or bad, just describing an example of a law that might get reversed).

Similarly some decades back (under Clinton, I think) there was an assault weapons ban (AWB). It sunsetted under Bush_43 and now Biden wants to put it back in place (pass new legislation).

Finally a faction in Congress currently wants to pass legislation to codify access to abortion and contraception, formerly considered Constitutionally protected until the recent Dobbs decision. Again not saying good or bad, but just another example of laws that come and go.

My question is: what is procedurally (as opposed to politically) necessary to reverse an existing law? Isn't it just a matter of introducing a bill and voting on it like in the cartoon? Why did the AWB have a sunset clause: political compromise, or some procedural requirement? If the clause wasn't there and Congress wanted the AWB gone, couldn't they have just gotten rid of it by legislation? (Edit: I guess the existence of the filibuster is a factor).

Motivation for asking is the talk of having the currently installed Congress make some new laws to undo effects of recent SCOTUS decisions that it doesn't like. The current majority party in Congress will probably be voted out in a few months, so can't the next Congress simply throw out any new laws that the existing one creates? I don't think it's possible to put entrenchment provisions into ordinary statutes, which is probably a good thing. I've heard of policy laundering used to enshrine agendas into treaties instead of ordinary statutes, since treaties are harder to undo, but afaik that is not in play here. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * A bill can simply state that a prior statute is repealed, making it an "express repeal". The AWB bill passed the House by a slim margin, so I guess the sunset provision was inserted to pull a few "moderates" over the line. --Lambiam 08:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

chinese book
i once read a book about a chinese man and his life in the village and work for the government on the mountain in 20th century china bo something what was the name of the book? 2600:1700:9758:7D90:0:0:0:1E (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That is very little to go on. Was this before, during or after World War II? There is a world of difference between Imperial China, the Republic of China, and the People's Republic of China. (I assume the setting is China – there have also been Chinese men who worked for the USA government.) Was it a work of fiction, like a novel, or perhaps autobiographical? What is the meaning of "bo something"? Is that about the name of the book? --Lambiam 10:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * bo was his name bo rai cho maybe many mentions of following the party line during the early prc period. yes in china. the book was maybe light blue. less than 400 pages more than 100. does that help? i think he was planting trees on the mountain too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9758:7D90:F1DF:BDC9:ECB4:8F4A (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Wild guess: Soul Mountain, by Gao Xingjian. It doesn't match the description exactly, but is pretty close and was widely translated and available in the West, so the OP could easily have found his hands on a copy. Xuxl (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * close but this gao guy is from beijing bo was from the countryside and worked there he didn’t flee there hmm any other suggestions? this book sounds interesting too though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9758:7D90:9DF4:41EA:D488:A145 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds a little like Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress, but not sure.  Aza24  (talk)   03:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Might be The Republic of Wine, that's what a quick Google search throws up. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 04:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Fishing quotation with varying attribution
I was trying to find the origin of a particular aphorism, but found that a variety of sources attribute it differently. Examples:
 * "God does not charge time spent fishing against a man’s allotted life span" &mdash; attributed as an "American Indian proverb" by Forbes, but I think this is wrong because American Indians weren't monotheistic and wouldn't say that.
 * "The gods do not deduct from man’s allotted span the hours spent in fishing" &mdash; attributed to Herbert Hoover.; it is likely he actually did say that because he was known as an avid fisherman (an entire book was written about it), but was he the first?
 * Other sources attribute this same wording to a "Babylonian proverb".
 * "The gods do not subtract from the alloted span of men's lives the hours spent in fishing" &mdash; claimed to be an Assyrian proverb by a stock photo provider.

The variations in wording make it difficult to search for origins. I have doubts about the Assyrian or Babylonian proverbs unless the aphorism appears in ancient written texts, but searching Google Scholar didn't turn up anything.

I had hoped to find an article on Wikipedia, if not about this quotation, then about the origins of quotations in general, but I don't know what to look for. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I had no luck finding anything about it in Wikiquote. My googling produced nothing more than you've already found. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I asked about this just now on Wikiquote:Talk:Fishing. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt Hoover was a polytheist, either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A statement like "American Indians weren't monotheistic and wouldn't say that" seems to reflect a profound misconception of American Indians, monotheism, polytheism, and metaphorical speech. The respective articles link to references discussing more specific examples and counterexamples, or a more general discussion, or even (as in Paper 2005) a blanket claim that everyone's a polytheist, especially you! If you want a specific case that people are most familiar with in the Western canon, you can just start asking what conception of God Plato and/or Socrates had (StackX link because there's hundreds of papers on this and sometimes plain English is just a little nicer). SamuelRiv (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Not much progress, but;
 * The Gods do not deduct from man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing. Described as a a 'Babylonian proverb' in The International Thesaurus of Quotations ( 1970 ), this was apparently a favourite saying of President Hoover... Mark My Words: Great Quotations and the Stories Behind Them (2002) p. 31
 * Sadly, that's all I could get from the Google Books "snippet view". Alansplodge (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hoover himself wrote down the "proverb" in the form The Gods do not subtract from the allotted span of men's lives the hours spent in fishing in his book Fishing for Fun – and to Wash Your Soul, in a piece entitled "Where Ponce de León Lost the Fountain of Youth". He ascribed this to "a tablet of 2000 B.C.", hedging the ascription as "there is said to be". That can only refer to a Sumerian clay tablet. Reportedly, this proverb was included in some form in The International Thesaurus of Quotations by Rhoda Thomas Tripp (1970) and called a "Babylonian proverb". I am fairly convinced Hoover made thus up, including the centuries' old ascription to make it look venerable. --Lambiam 10:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Tren Maya ownership
I was reading the Tren Maya article and came across this paragraph:

In December 2020 president López Obrador announced that the armed forces would operate three sections of the route, and that profits would be used to strengthen finances for pensioners and retirees of the armed forces. In March 2021 Fonatur general director Rogelio Jiménez Pons said that the military would own the entire route, not just the three sections, and would receive all of the profits.

(This paragraph contains two sources, but both of these are in Spanish so I can't read them unfortunately. )

Which part is "the route" referring to here? Is it a section of the Tren Maya system or the entire Tren Maya system?

What's the rough percentage ownership (in terms of mileage or voting shares) of the armed forces of Mexico over the Tren Maya system?

What's the rough percentage ownership (in terms of mileage or voting shares) of the armed forces of Mexico over other rail systems in Mexico?

I'm very curious because it's rare to see military ownership of public transit projects in democratic countries. My understanding is that this type of arrangement most commonly occurs in Junta-style government where the military holds majority political power.

Thanks for the help. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Try running the sources through Google Translate; it does a good job with Spanish. The first source makes it clear that what the paragraph refers to as "three sections of the route" is actually "Mayan train" (or tren Maya), meaning three sections of the entire train route. The translation of the second article shows that this ownership arrangement is controversial. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Are there any English sources that talk about the controversy behind this military ownership? The WP article itself doesn't quite present it as controversial so I had no idea. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Try Tren Maya, the Mexican megaproject threatening the ecosystems of the Yucatán Peninsula (I haven't read the whole thing). Alansplodge (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also The Tren Maya and the remaking of Mexico’s south and Mexican Army To Receive All Benefits From Tren Maya. Alansplodge (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thank you very much! Cheers. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)