Humanities desk
< March 24	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 25

German name loophole

Have any Germans circumvented the German name laws by temporarily marrying a foreigner who has (or has temporarily changed his or her name to) the desired surname? Is this in general possible, when the German desiring a name change is an unmarried adult? Neon Merlin 10:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how they wouldn't be able to marry whoever they wanted, even if it's for such a frivolous reason as to change the surname. However, I don't see how this could be advisable. Marrying has many legal and financial implications. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How long has Germany required official approval of given names? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle of the Sun

Hello, I would like to ask why (probably) there don't exist any pictures of what the people supposedly saw at Fatima in 1917 - I mean photos which could be inserted in the article. Google doesn't help much either. How come?--Der Spion (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it didn't happen. The 70,000 claim that they saw the sun 'tear itself from the heavens and come crashing down on the multitude'. To quote Richard Dawkins 'It may seem improbable that 70,000 could simultaneously be deluded, or could simultaneously collude in a mass lie. Or that history is mistaken in recording that 70,000 claim claimed to see the sun dance. Or that they all saw a mirage (they had all been persuaded to stare at the sun, which can't have done much for their eyesight). But any of those apparent improbabilities is far more probable than the alternative that the Earth was suddenly yanked sideways in its orbit, and the solar system destroyed, with nobody outside Fatima noticing. I mean, Portugal is not that isolated'. Widneymanor (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the question of whether what was/is claimed to be seen was an entirely subjective phenomenon, or a natural one misinterpreted, or was exactly as interpreted by the faithful, it seems to me quite probable that in a rural area of Portugal in 1917 no-one involved had a camera suitable for the purpose. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be many photographs, some of which are in the article. None of them seem to record anything but people looking up at a very ordinary-looking sky. Paul B (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, that supports the idea that it wasn't an optical illusion, as presumably that could have been photographed. So then, we are left with everyone claiming they saw the "miracle", since to say otherwise would mean they lacked faith. Also, the fact that people around the world didn't see it eliminated the possibility that it was a global phenomenon, say created by a gas cloud between the Earth and the Sun. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the people wanted a miracle, and tried hard to find one, but I'm skeptical that this many people saw nothing at all, and convinced themselves otherwise. Is it possible that a funnel cloud or whirlwind could create a gap in an overcast that allows sunlight to penetrate in an irregular way? (I'm asking possibility, not probability, because frankly, when people start messing with seeing the future this is the kind of stuff that happens...) Wnt (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's certainly a claim that a very few people further away, who looked in that direction with no expectations, saw something weird. And some of the people who were present and saw something were skeptics, there specifically to witness nothing happening. So I'd be inclined to think something happened. I don't think anyone other than Dawkins has suggested that the Earth shifted relative to the Sun. 86.157.148.65 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your satements. But what I simply don't get is why for heaven's sake were there sceptics, jounalists, photographers - there must have been some to take those pictures of the crowd staring at the sun!!! -, but nobody capable of taking a picture of the dancing sun. I mean there were cameras, man! And for sure, there did happen something - that's for clear. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean it really was the Virgin Mary or God himself or whoever else, but even if there was nothing, the sceptics should have documented it with appropriate photographic material. I just don't get it...--Der Spion (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As 212.95.237.92 has said, the cameras of the time would not necessarily be able to record the phenomena described (assuming they were real). You'd be likely just to get an over-exposed blank space. How could you photograph a "dancing" sun? Either you'd have a still image or a blur. Also photography often creates visual artefacts that are claimed to be "supernatural" phenomena, such as "rods" and "orbs". So even if a photograph of something strange existed, it could be explained as a visual quirk created by the mechanics of photography. Paul B (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Widneymanor: Despite what 21st century journalists and teenagers would have us believe, a miracle is not merely something that is "amaaazing". It is something that really happened, as evidenced by a multitude of witnesses (if 70,000 isn't enough, how many would we need?) and/or photographic, medical or other scientific evidence, but for which there is no rational, scientific or logical explanation after all attempts to find such have failed. If it happened, it has to be accepted on its own terms (faith), or not at all (scepticism). What about the claimed apparitions of the Virgin Mary to the children of Fatima, or at Lourdes? The Church teaches that these really happened, despite the fact that nobody else present saw or heard anything or anyone. Look forever but you'll never find a scientific explanation of that. You either accept it or reject it. But it's not really OK to assert that "it didn't happen" just because you believe it didn't happen. Far better to say "I don't believe it happened". That at least is incontrovertibly true. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the interesting aspect of miracles is about anthropology, rather than physics --the physics of miracles is always of such a disarming triviality that it's more convenient to keep them as "possibly authentic" rather than wasting time in finding the totally uninteresting scam. (The explanation of Saint Padre Pio's stigmata? his knife. Virgin Mary's statue's bloody tears? Chicken blood. Etc.) As to a crowd attending a dancing sun, there are dozens of even more striking miracles every week or so, filmed, documented and put on youtube. --pm a 22:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul B: So you think that nobody even tried to take a picture because they knew it would later be worthless in terms of evidence? I can't imagine that. How could they know? They could have tried - even if the image would indeed later turn out to be blurred, it would still at least show the attempt of documenting the eyewitness accounts! I really don't understand why all the sceptics with cameras who came from far away wouldn't have even tried at least to capture something.--Der Spion (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, if you take a non-self-adjusting film camera which has been set up for photographing nearby objects on earth, and just aim it upwards directly at the sun, then the results are guaranteed to be lacking in any useful detail. Someone would have had to have an Astrophotography camera prepared in advance to have a good chance of getting good results...AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis for a reasoned approach which is neither fundamentalist nor dismissive of religion. AnonMoos (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that somehow sounds convincing to me... It's the first time that I get a logical and sensible explanation for the lack of photographic documents in this matter. Thanks a lot, AnonMoos, for your patience and help - and the book recommendation! This is funny because I'm now reading Lewis' The Problem of Pain, and for sure, the next on the list will be Miracles... Best regards,--Der Spion (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To defend Dawkins, he didn't say that the Earth moved relative to the sun, he said that it was more probable than the people were mistaken than that the Earth left its orbit. He quotes David Hume's test for a miracle, namely "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish" If you accept that 70,000 people saw it, why didn't inhabitants of neighbouring villages, or even Lisbon, (or come to that New York, or Sydney feel its effects) Widneymanor (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it doesn't make sense, does it? That's actually the thing about miracles. They are supposed to be things that defy the laws of physics etc. You're not supposed to be able to explain them logically. You're doing well so far in coming to terms with this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mixing up issues here. If the Earth had "left its orbit", we would know about it. If it somehow left its orbit, but there was no evidence that it had, we would have no reason to believe it had ever happened at all, so there would be no reason to believe that anything had happened to "defy the laws of physics". Widneymanor is saying that to interpret the event as as if the sun or earth actually moved from their orbit is doesn't make sense as an explanation. That's quite different from saying an event doesn't make sense because it's genuinely a miracle which defies "the laws of physics". Obviously Dawkins can be criticised for ignoring the possibility that what witnesses describe seeing was a real phenomenon, like the Northern Lights, or rainbows (after all we all really see rainbows though we know they are not real objects existing in space). But that's nothing to do with defying the laws of physics. Paul B (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the point. Nobody who defends the miracle explains it as being the Earth shifting relative to the Sun: that simply is not what the miracle is claimed to be. For Dawkins to say that something different to what people say happened is less likely than that they were all mistaken, is disingenuous. The claim is that people experienced something very odd that they could not explain, and the religious claim is that this was a miracle sent by God. At no point does the shifting of Earth from its orbit come into things. Perhaps Dawkins imagines the only possible options are that either the Earth shifted, or everyone was mistaken and did not experience anything at all? 86.157.148.65 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miracles aren't restricted to Christianity and the West of course, nor have they ceased. At the birth of Hun Manet, first son of Hun Sen, the prime minister of Cambodia, brilliant light shone from a chrey tree in the grounds of Hun Sen's mansion and were witnessed by many - a sign no doubt of the child's future greatness (he's odds-on favourite to the next prime minister). The source for this is impeccable, a biography of Hun Sen written by Harish C. Mehta, a highly regarded journalist and historian - rather more reliable than the gospel-writers or the witnesses to Fatima IMHO. Wish I knew what a chrey tree was. PiCo (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean government propaganda announces numerous omens and portents connected with members of the Kim family, but since they're constantly lying about basic facts (such as Kim Jong-Il's brithplace), I wouldn't place much credence in it. AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magnet motor

Hi, on WP there is a redirection on Magnet motor to Perpetual motion. Don't magnets lose there magnetism over the years? What do you think of those videos [1] [2] [3]. Thx --YB ^✍ 13:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected towards Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by YanikB (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sistine Chapel

When do they put up Raphael's tapesteries , over the faux tapestries? Lagosman 17:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last time seems to be Wednesday 14 July 2010, according to this press release: "Following the press conference visitors were invited to enjoy the privilege, for one evening only, of admiring Raphael's tapestries displayed in their original sixteenth century location." —See also:[4] ~71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that these aren't "Raphael's" tapestries. He painted cartoons which were copied by weavers to make the tapestries. He had no knowledge of tapestry-making and had nothing to do with the production of them. Paul B (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little-kid-going-off-to-live-with-some-adult-in-the-middle-of-nowhere literary motif

In classic literature, you sometimes find this ongoing motif about this little girl or boy going off to live with some adult in the middle of nowhere; parents are usually not present. Examples include Pollyanna, The Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe, The Secret Garden, etc. How old is this literary motif? And just how popular orphan-like stories were back then? 140.254.227.100 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't forget Hansel and Gretel. Or the Bewitched Bunny. Not sure how old. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm talking about whether or not there was a literary trend toward the rising popularity of orphan-like stories, not whether or not such motifs existed. 140.254.227.100 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fail to answer the question as well, then, after an edit conflict :)

It may not be so much a literary motif as just a reflection of how a great many societies have dealt with youngsters. Can't think of any specific examples from Homer, since Patroclus isn't really a little kid (though some of the assorted un-named cup-bearers and such would've been). Probably several examples in Herodotus, some mythical and some not - Spartiates were separated from their parents at age 7 or so (not that there's much contemporary literature from their point of view.) Of firmly historical figures, Philip of Macedon spent a few years as a child far from home with some clever Thebans from whom he learned a lot. See also What medieval Europe did with its teenagers. Doubtless some fiction of that period or before would cover such adventures.

It's also just natural for stories aimed at children to allot greater initiative to the children and less to their parents. Various of Enid Blyton's stories apparently have a bunch of children "romping around Dartmoor taking on criminal gangs" without any parental oversight. Swallows and Amazons has parents occasionally appear to approve or disapprove or temporarily interrupt the proceedings, but even there the focus is not on them, and the father of most of the children is conveniently away and just sends permission by telegram for them to go sailing unsupervised. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What at least The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe has in common with the Swallows and Amazons series is the military context of Britain in the early 20th century. In Ransome's stories, the Walkers (Swallows) are the children of a naval officer who spends a lot of his time in the Far East (which is plot-relevant in We Didn't Mean to Go to Sea), while the Blacketts (Amazons) have no father - no cause of his death is given, but it seems likely Bob Blackett died either in WW1 or the 1918 'flu epidemic. So both families have only a mother present; Mrs Walker has five children, so supervising all of them at once would be a bit of stretch. As for Lewis' Pevensie children, they are WW2 evacuees, lodging with Professor Kirke because their own home in London is threatened by bombs. There are other children's novels using the evacuation as a reason for children to be far from home. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In The Borrowers, "The Boy" has parents who are colonial civil servants in India. The distressing consequences of this type of family break-up are the subject of an autobiographical short story by Rudyard Kipling called Baa Baa Black Sheep. Children would be sent back to the UK from India and other colonies to attend boarding schools while their parents steadfastly continued with their Imperial duties. During the long school holidays, the children would be farmed-out to various reluctant relatives. In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, separation was due to the evacuation of children from British cities during World War II, that would have been experienced by millions of British children in 1950 when the book was published. As a plot device, it allows for all kinds of adventures without the intervention of tiresome parents. Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember the central character in Heidi by Johanna Spyri was sent off to live with an aunt in the mountains. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi was dumped on her grumpy grandfather, "Uncle Alp", by her aunt who had found a job as a domestic servant. In Worzel Gummidge the children are sent to the countryside to recover from whooping cough. I used to like The Children Who Lived in a Barn, whose parents just go away and leave them. The shipwrecked schoolboys in Lord of the Flies (not a children's book) are prefigured by the boys in The Coral Island. The heroines of The Secret Garden and A Little Princess are both sent to England from Raj-era India. From earlier times, Jane Eyre and Fanny Price were sent to live with relatives. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant to the point discussed above - the children in Lord of the Flies are also evacuees, during a nuclear war. Given the book's date, this is an obvious combination of the cold war thread of nuclear war with the established convention of evacuating children. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you wear to Catholic Mass?

I am just wondering what you wear to Catholic Mass. Should people be dressed formally, semi-formally, or casually? Should women's heads be covered with a headscarf? If she should wear a headscarf, how should it be wrapped around the head? Or do dress codes only matter for believers, not visitors? 140.254.227.100 (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihow has a tutorial for the visitor. For attire, search "what to wear to Catholic mass" as there are numerous sites that each address the query somewhat differently. Your local customs may vary. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to consider: 1) There is absolutely no dress code for believers or visitors. Dress how you would feel comfortable. Many people wear "nice-casual" clothes (clean button down shirt and khakis, for example) and others like to wear a shirt and tie or even a full suit. If you wore any of that, or even a T-shirt and jeans, no one would really notice. Aim for the middle and you'll blend in fine. 2) Catholic churches are unlike other churches in that there are parts of the service that non-Catholics do not participate in, specifically the Eucharist. All other parts of the Mass you can feel free to participate in. Just keep an eye on your neighbors for the appropriate times to sit, stand, or kneel, pass the peace, or other events (Mass has standard format, and regulars know what to do at the right times, so just keep an eye open). When it comes time to receive communion (the Eucharist) simply stay in your seat. Non-catholics are not supposed to take communion, but also neither are Catholics who are not of clear conscience. Many practicing Catholics will decline communion if they have not taken confession for some time, and have unconfessed sins on their heart, so not taking communion will not make you stand out as a stranger, per se. Otherwise dress nice, but comfortably. --Jayron32 01:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that that's a US-specific answer. Many Catholic churches in Europe have dress rules, even for visitors. Looie496 (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, while the idea of wearing your "Sunday best" is no longer valid, skimpy clothing is still frowned upon (bare shoulders or shorts, although there are outdoor masses where even that wouldn't be a problem). A church is a holy place of worship, so some decorum is appropriate, in both clothing and behavior. There will often be a plaque at the entrance reminding visitors of this, particular in churches that see a lot of tourists. Women traditionally wore hats (not headscarves) in church and kept them during the entire mass, but that has gone by the wayside. --Xuxl (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodox and Traditionalist Catholic women still wear headscarves. 140.254.226.227 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that while in most Catholic churches women may choose whether they want to wear some sort of head covering or not, it's obligatory for men to uncover their head when entering the church. Non-believers are expected to do the same as a sign of respect. See also: Christian_headcovering: Catholicism — Kpalion^(talk) 16:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. My local Catholic church (American South; a basilica, not itself traditionalist) has a number of female parishoners who wear headscarves. I've found that a button-up shirt and khakis is acceptable, or at least no one said anything to me; I've seen others wearing jeans, and I've yet to witness anyone being taken to task for breaking a "dress code" of any sort.64.134.184.144 (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace of Christopher Isherwood

Our article about the novelist Christopher Isherwood says he was born at Wyberslegh Hall in High Lane, a village in Greater Manchester. However the article Disley (referring to a village in Cheshire East) says that Isherwood was born there. Can these statements be reconciled? --rossb (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Lane is about a mile from Disley. My guess is that the house is somewhere between the two villages.--Cam (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - see this map - Wyberslegh_Hall is in the centre. High Lane may be marginally closer and is the larger settlement at present. Most sources such as The Oxford Dictonary of National Biography go with "Wyberslegh Hall, High Lane, Cheshire" although it seems to have been swallowed up by Greater Manchester in 1974. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if Wyberslegh Hall is just barely within the boundaries of Greater Manchester, so High Lane is the better way to describe its location. Marco polo (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. According to its Listed building citation, the postal address of Wybersley Hall (note the variant spelling) is 24 Wybersley Road, High Lane, Stockport SK6 6BN.[5] There you have it. Alansplodge (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the wording of the Disley article slightly and found a ref for Christopher Isherwood's birthplace being "near the villages of Disley and High Lane" which I have added inline. We don't want to destroy their local legend do we? Alansplodge (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]