Humanities desk
< May 17	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 19 >

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.

May 18

publicly owned pets

Are there recorded examples of quadrupeds who hung out in towns but did not belong to any specific person? I feel like there’s been a film or show about one of those, but I have no idea what it was (if anything). — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 07:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military mascot might meet some of your criteria. Phil Holmes (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanophile -- Semi-feral cats, who at least partially rely on human food handouts, but are not part of a human household, are quite common in some areas. The cats of Rome have been described and depicted a number of times (what Wikipedia has on this is apparently in the Largo di Torre Argentina article), while recently there was the movie Kedi (2016 film) about cats in Istanbul... AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks that live on and around public ponds are common throughout at least the developed world, the municipal parks authorities usually bear some responsibility to maintain their habitats but do not actually own them. Various sacred animals associated with certain deities in India may be fed/maintained by temples. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sacred geese in the temple of Juno, who are supposed to have saved Rome from a Gaulish attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wymspen (talk • contribs) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks and geese may have four limbs, but are bipeds. See Quadrupedalism. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Street dog, urban fox, rats and mice, grey squirrels. All these may occasionally be treated as pets. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be the Canadian Parliamentary Cats. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Larry the 10 Downing Street cat, the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenton, Tennessee has a large population of white squirrels, who are featured in an annual festival and protected from harm by local law enforcement. Original research warning: I have been there and seen them. A restaurant owner said that when non-white squirrels are seen in town they are "encouraged to leave." If I recall correctly, they did not have pink eyes as one might expect in albinos, so they may just simply be white furred animals. The would seem to qualify as municipal animals.Edison (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Encouraged" to be put into a big pot of burgoo given my understanding of the culinary history of the area... --Jayron 32 13:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall an old British film (1940's maybe ?) where a dog was ordered to be destroyed as a stray, but a barrister (lawyer) argued that the dog was in fact public property, and therefore not a stray, and not subject to the law. This dog would "do his rounds" where he visited various residents and locations. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of Greyfriars Bobby (1961), a Disney production but set in Scotland: "Bobby's fate rests with the Lord Provost of Edinburgh (Andrew Cruickshank) and, without a license and someone to take responsibility for Bobby, he may be destroyed. The children of Edinburgh contribute their pennies for Bobby's license. Bobby is declared a Freeman of the City and adopted by the populace of Edinburgh". The film is loosely based on an actual 19th century dog, Greyfriars Bobby. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's the one. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no large city at the mouth of the Susquehanna or Connecticut River?

Philly and Wilmington are at the mouth of the Delaware (or close enough), New York's at the mouth of the Hudson, Boston's at the mouth of the Charles, DC has both tidal Potomac and the head of navigation (but inner DC was on soggy ground so I can see why there was nothing there in 1787), Hampton Roads has the mouth of the James.. I guess Cairo, Illinois at the mouth of the Ohio isn't big because it needs a 64 foot tall flood wall. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pure speculation here: the Susquehanna is fairly shallow at its mouth and therefore probably never played an important role in shipping. With little industry depending on the river for transportation, no city grew to support it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not speculation at all: The text of the article Connecticut River states in clear English why there is no large port there. I will not insult SMW by quoting the text he could read himself in the article he cited. The Susquehanna does have a small but significant city at its mouth, Havre de Grace, Maryland; it was a significant enough port that it was seriously floated as a Capital for the United States. Its proximity to Baltimore; which has a better natural harbor, probably prevented Havre de Grace's development into a larger city. Many major early American cities were sited and grew up around large, well-protected harbors rather than the size of the river they were sited near; compare New York (Upper New York Bay), Boston (Boston Harbor), etc. Boston is particularly a good parallel for Baltimore; just as Baltimore's harbor is more important than the Susquehanna in terms of siting a city, Boston is not sited at the mouth of the the Merrimack River, which is a very important river in New England, but which also has no major settlement at its mouth. Mouths of rivers are only useful where they also include a well-protected harbor; not merely for being rivers. --Jayron 32 15:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Site is different from cite. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So corrected. --Jayron 32 16:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone posts a link which they have not actually read, they could be said to have "sighted" it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of cite, out of mined. —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia is nowhere near the mouth of the Delaware, although it is at the mouth of the Schuylkill River. Baltimore and Philadelphia are suitable inland ports with access to the upper Delaware and Susquehanna. Plenty of people not native to the are actually think Philadelphia is on the coast, while in fact it is an hour's drive inland from Atlantic City at the South Jersey shore. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia lowest elevation: sea level. Just like Baltimore. I really don't know where the mouth of the Delaware is, it just sort of fades into its bay without getting much wider in a short or shortish distance like the Hudson or Charles. Delaware Bay seems to suggest it's Wilmington. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Delaware river is tidal up to Trenton, NJ, so if we want to talk about where the river ends, it's still nowhere near Philadelphia. You are trying to force words onto things. Words are human tools, not Platonic Ideals. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomed in, Google Maps apparently keeps saying Delaware River till the Mad Horse Creek Wildlife Management Area which is way downstream of Wilmington. So Wilmington is wrong too? There's also different kinds of tidal infiltration. Saltwater can infiltrate on the river bottom when the surface never drops close to high tide. Then there's where the surface is the height of high tide but it's still like 2+ feet above sea level. 0 feet would be less riverine than that and reaching the low tide level of the area at low tide would be less riverine than that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here:

The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) uses a stream location and identification system based on river mileage. The stream mileage system was published by DRBC staff in 1969 with revisions in 1988. The mileage system for the Delaware River and Bay consists of a "mile zero" and a line along which distances from mile zero are measured (the "mileage line").

What is "Mile Zero?"

Mile zero is located at the mouth of the Delaware Bay (i.e., where the bay meets the Atlantic Ocean) at the intersection of a line between the Cape May Light (New Jersey) and the tip of Cape Henlopen (Delaware) with the centerline of the navigation channel. The position of this point is Latititude 38° 50' 32" N and Longitude 75° 03' 18" W.

This makes sense as there is not a clear dividing line between the river and the bay, the river gradually widens into the bay and there is not any meaningful way to differentiate the end of the "river" as there is no delta or similar structure as there is with some other rivers. As Medeis notes, the estuary system (where the river has tidal influences) begins way further north than what is typically called Delaware Bay, at Trenton. From Trenton southwards, there's no meaningful line to draw to say "the River ends here and the Bay starts here" except in a purely arbitrary way; there's no particularly geographic reason to choose one spot or another, the DRBC's definition above is as good as anyone's, Google's is fine too, as is "Wilmington-ish" or the southern limit of the Twelve Mile Circle or any of a number of other places. As Medeis notes, also, it's not that important; understanding how the entire hydrologic system works is probably more interesting than picking some arbitrary point where the river becomes the bay. --Jayron 32 02:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, you might want to read the 2nd, 3rd and last quotes in the header of my talk page. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salinity, and surface freezing are also relevant. The water at Philly is normally fresh but sometimes brackish, and normally unfrozen even on the coldest day of the year, but it sometimes freezes for weeks. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mention DC. There was a little city at the head of navigation of the Potomac river: Georgetown. Ships could reach it from the sea but could not go further upstream because of the rapids. -Arch dude (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those rapids being the Great Falls (Potomac River). The limit of navigability for many rivers on the East coast of the U.S. lies downstream of the Atlantic Seaboard fall line. --Jayron 32 14:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the limit of navigation is at Little Falls, which is where Georgetown is. Great Falls is well upstream from there. -Arch dude (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying a prayer before a meal by Christians and Muslims

I observe that Christians only pray before a meal in groups but never individually, but Muslims do so individually in public. By the way, I think I can distinguish Christians from Muslims. Muslims wear a headscarf and/or pray in Arabic. Christians have no headscarf and pray in English. Why do Christians never pray individually, when eating alone? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know they don't? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From my observations in the movies, Christians gather and hold a prayer. In real life, I see Muslims praying solo. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Movies are generally fictional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Among the many misconceptions of your post, I present: Christian headcovering. Minimal research will also find Muslims without hijabs, Christians praying in Arabic, Muslims praying in English, Christians praying individually, and, I strongly suspect, Muslims praying collectively. — Lomn 18:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note the specific wording was head scarves and a substantial proportion of of Muslims don't wear headscarves as these generally refer to specific types of coverings only generally worn by women except sometimes for practical reasons (in which case the religion is probably moot). Even if you call the Keffiyeh a head scarf, many Muslim men do not wear that, as it's even more of a cultural thing than the headscarf. This isn't to say all Muslim women wear headscarves, as some don't wear any head coverings and others wear things like the Niqāb not generally considered a headscarf. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that the world population is about 7 billion people, right? And that you've probably only observed a few thousand of them at most, right? So, your experience and your observations only account for something like 0.01 % of all people in the world? So why would you decide to base your understanding only upon your observation when your observation is such a meaningless portion of humanity? You could instead read about these religious groups and learn about all of the different kinds of people you've never had the opportunity to meet. There's a billion muslims and a billion Christians in the world, and their diversity of religious practice is bewildering (there are probably several hundred to several thousand different sects of EACH, and there's a wide variance in practices between each sect!) Wikipedia has articles titled Christianity and Islam that are probably a good start; your local university or college may offer courses in Comparative religion which would expose you to the diversity of faiths and practices... In short, don't trust your personal observation of human behavior as anything resembling universal; humans are far too vast and diverse for any one person's individual interactions to create any larger picture. --Jayron 32 19:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean 0.0001%. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even moreso. --Jayron 32 11:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- And the OP is talking about observance of actors playing Christians in movies, where a group prayer would be part of the plot and the dialogue - as with the family's weekly Sunday dinner gatherings on Blue Bloods. Someone praying alone in a movie would inherently tend to lack dialogue (unless God talks back). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also appropriate for this question to note that in the Simpsons the Rigel 7 Children's Choir sings before a communal meal 'Tasty creature, we salute you. ((Slurp) For your juicy sacrifice. (Slurp)' Might I suggest yet again a quick check with Google when one has a query before posing them here. Dmcq (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look in Wikipedia and unfortunately the articles on comparing religions are mostly with a Christian bias. A big difference between Christians and Muslims in general is that Christianity is more oriented towards saving the individual - it is more of a personal religion, whereas Islam is more oriented towards working within a society. Rituals are much more important to Muslims even if they are alone and their thoughts and deeds otherwise are not so important in general, in this way they tend to be much closer to Jews than Christians. Dmcq (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]