Miscellaneous desk
< March 3	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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 4

275 gallon oil tank for home heating

I am looking for the weight (empty) of a 275 gallon heating oil tank: the kind usually found in the basement of a home. The dimensions being 28" wide, 45" tall and 60" long. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.82.254 (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The missing dimension is the thickness. We'd also need to know the material. Is it steel ? If yours is the same as this one, it weighs 280 lbs, empty: [1]. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this link the standard tanks weigh roughly 280 lbs empty (and close to 2000 lbs fully loaded). that's a single-walled steel tank. double-walled tanks might be somewhat heavier, and there may be more modern plastic or composite tanks that are somewhat lighter, but this should work for a ballpark. --Ludwigs2 03:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism

Is Catholicism Related A Bit Like Christianity. Because If It Is That Would Be Weird. Answer As Soon As Possible.173.178.93.250 (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I Mean Like Is Catholicism A Form Of Christianity.173.178.93.250 (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman Catholic Church is a denomination of Christianity. A big honkin' one, at that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism is one of the primary branches of Christianity. Other major branches include the Orthodox Church and Protestantism. Note that while outside observers will almost universally classify all these as "Christian", the sects themselves may not recognize the other members as such. — Lomn 03:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably more than just a denomination. In any case, the OP's question was triggered by his assertion that Catholicism is not a form of Christianity,[2] but he backed off from that and said he would check. I'm totally stumped as to why anyone would think that Catholicism is not Christianity. It is, in fact, the largest Christian branch or denomination in the world. Roughly half the world's Christians are Catholic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Hi I Am The Person WHo Asked The Question In First Place . I Did Not Ask The Question To Depaert An Argument. I Just Wanted To Know. I Am A Kid. I Am About Twelve Year Old.173.178.93.250 (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well You See I Do Not Know A Lot. I AM Still Studying Religion . Here In My School. I Just Needed Help.173.178.93.250 (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)__ __[reply]

There's a several-hundred-year history of suspicion, fear, misinformation, and active hostility between Catholics and Protestants, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that the same is true between Catholics and the Eastern church. I'm far from "totally stumped" regarding how people conclude that "they" are not "like us". — Lomn 03:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was raised Protestant, and there was no shortage of questions about how the Roman Catholic Church distorted Biblical teachings. But at no time was it ever suggested they weren't Christian. I mean, come on, that's silly. Their symbol is Jesus hanging on the cross, having "died for our sins". That in-your-face symbol must be what fooled everyone. They're really Zen Buddhists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more frequently heard expression from one Christian about another of a different label is "He's not a real Christian." "Real" means "Us". Although when there is a need to emphasise how strong Christianity is, it seems everyone gets counted. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different story. Almost every branch thinks it's the "right" version of Christianity. But they don't deny that the others are Christian, just that, "they've got it wrong." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience it's quite common for Chinese people to believe Catholicism and Christianity are two separate things. I've had more than a few students inform me of the 5 major world religions: Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Catholicism, and Christianity. There's a disconnect somewhere in the sparse bit of education they get on the subject. The Masked Booby (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's mis-educating them? The Catholics? Or the Protestants? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume The State or popular culture, though I have no proof. Certainly not the (few) believers on either side. The Masked Booby (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's history. Protestantism and Catholicism were introduced into China by different missionaries and for a long time the Catholics emphasised that they were "Catholics" whereas Protestants were happy to identify themselves as generic "Christians". The Chinese have always had a syncretist view towards religion, so just because both "Christianity" and "Caholicism" shared some of the same "deities" (from the Chinese perspective) in the persons of Jesus, God and Mary, for example, did not, to a Chinese perspective, prove that they were the same religion. Afterall, they also had many differences in philosophy (incluidng, but not limited to, beliefs surrounding the Pope) and in other "deities" - for example the many Catholic saints who are not "worshipped" by Protestants.

The Catholics called their religion, in Chinese, Tianzhu Jiao - "the Religion of the Lord of Heaven", and when referring to God in Chinese the Catholic church in China has usually used the term Tianzhu. By contrast, the general term for Christianity, Jidu Jiao - "the Religion of Christ", has usually been used to refer to Protestant denominations, partly because their identity is largely defined negatively as "not Catholic".

To give a comparison, the traditional view of Catholicism and Protestant Christianity as two separate but related religions is probably akin to the ancient Chinese view of Jews and Muslims in China - they also shared many similarities, such as their single, main, deity, some but not all of their prophets, practices such as with respect to pork, but they differed in some respects as well, such as (most obviously) the colour of their headgear. As a result, Jewish and Muslim Chinese were, in ancient times, conceptualised as part of the same ethnicity, the Hui. The Jews were often known as the "blue-hatted hui-hui" to identify them from the Muslim Hui. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! Thank you for sharing! The Masked Booby (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses use Christendom to differentiate Christians from True Christians. Schyler! (one language) 04:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JW's have a reputation for weirdness. But they're still Christian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yes Really . I Am Sure Real My |Friend Would Not Be Happy With What You Said Here BaseBall Bug . And You Should Not Be Talking BaseBall Bug. Though I Bow To You The Fact You Helped Me On Some Stuff. 173.178.93.250 (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sort of. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and things like Christian Science could all be lumped together as not really Christian except in a very loose historical sense. Especially from the viewpoint of Catholicism or one of the more mainstream versions of Protestantism. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a slippery slope. Those groups all claim to follow the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, ergo they are Christian, whether mainstream churches "recognize" them or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, at least, Christian denominations are listed at Category:Christian denominations. They include the Roman Catholic Church and its sub-categories. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to bear in mind is that historically, the Protestant churches all have their roots in the Roman Catholic Church. See Protestant Reformation. Any non-Christians reading this might think that we are all at each others throats. In England, the mainstream denominations in each area regularly meet together in a "local council of churches" and hold joint services in each other's buildings. See Ecumenism. Alansplodge (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...while still believing those others have got it wrong ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'd prefer to say "have a different tradition". Let's be nice to each other now. Alansplodge (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are multiple christian denominations that have varying degrees of compatibility in their doctrines, and they have no universally acknowledged living leader, it is a wonder how any individual can claim to represent, speak for or apologize for "all christians", since there is no general agreement on how such authority can exist. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the section title for easier reference. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of this ignores the fact that catholic is used by almost all Christian groups to mean "universal" in reference to a single "church" established two milennia ago (see Apostles' Creed). The Pope is not just head of the Roman Catholic Church, but also head of a host of other "Catholic" and "Orthodox" churches as well (some of which have married clergy,etc.) The Church of England and others which adhere to Apostolic succession (the WP article errs - the Methodists are scions of the Anglican Church, the Moravians also are in joint communion etc. Similarly others such as the Presbyterian Church in [3] acknowledge it. Apostolicity (note the redirect) represents a direct line to the beliefs of the Apostles in the view of other Protestant groups) also are "catholic" directly, amazingly enough. It is fair to say that "apostolic succession" is key to saying whether a church (or sect, if you prefer) adheres to the principle of a continuous line in the Church. This is not a simple topic. Collect (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does the article err with respect to Methodism? Even though Methodism started out as a group within the Anglican church, Methodists don't even have bishops in many parts of the world, and in the parts where they do, the bishops are simply senior clergy; there's no attempt to keep an apostolic succession going from bishop to bishop. I don't see how you can claim that the Methodist churches are or claim to be within the apostolic succession. Marnanel (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See articles about Methodism. It was initially an Anglican group. There are now additional "Methodist" groups, but I was referring to the main one which still has Bishops etc. The WP article (not an RS, but representing a claim backed by RS) says "In light of Wesley's episcopal consecration, the Methodist Church can lay a claim on apostolic succession, as understood in the traditional sense." Collect (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, when I was in high school, I was amazed in one class I was in that a huge number of the low-income students there did not know that Catholicism was a form of Christianity, or what it was about at all (whereas they sort of knew what Judaism was). This was in California. I'm not really sure what accounts for that level of ignorance, but it was rampant. I suspect there are just not as many Catholics around where I was from, or they were a lot less prominent. (In the Northeast, Catholicism is a Big Thing, and half of the houses where I live have Bathtub Madonnas in front of their houses. I never, ever, saw such a thing in California in all my years I lived there. Incidentally, I'm surprised we only have one, grainy image in our article. I could provide much better ones just by walking around the neighborhood... maybe I will this summer, when the snow has all melted.) So I don't think ignorance on this point is completely limited to other countries. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For information about identifying true Christianity, see http://www.multilingualbible.com/john/13-34.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/john/13-35.htm and http://www.multilingualbible.com/matthew/7-13.htm through verse 23. (Which professed Christians refuse to fight against their spiritual brothers in international conflicts?)

—Wavelength (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have known Roman Catholics who were taught that Presbyterians were not Christians. :) Collect (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quakers. (Even granted your premise that loving your neighbour precludes employment as a soldier.) Marnanel (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which persons claiming to be Christians are fulfilling the Great Commission? If you had hired a babysitter to babysit your children, would you be grateful to return home and see her washing the windows but not babysitting your children? Likewise, is Jesus grateful to see professed Christians building hospitals and performing other humanitarian works but not following his instructions by teaching the things that he taught?

—Wavelength (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus also taught His disciples to take care of other people. I'm sure He would be quite pleased to see hospitals and humanitarian works being done in His name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those people "claiming to be Christians" have read, for instance, Matthew 25: 31-46, and have the impression that in feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and visiting the imprisoned, they are in fact doing things that Jesus encouraged them to do. One might ask whether there's any value in saying "Go in peace, keep warm, eat well" to someone who lacks clothing or food if you don't do anything to clothe or feed them. I couldn't say for sure, though, any more than I could say for sure what Jesus would or would not be grateful for. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus told His disciples that when they helped "the least of these my brethren", it was the same as if they were helping Him. That message seems clear enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, helping others is good, but he didn't tell them they had to believe the others had the right religion. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like hungry children crying to a negligent babysitter, many people are "crying" to be fed spiritually. See http://www.multilingualbible.com/matthew/9-36.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/john/21-15.htm to verse 17; http://www.multilingualbible.com/matthew/4-4.htm; and http://www.multilingualbible.com/amos/8-11.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this google search link works,[4] it should take you to a Peanuts cartoon that seems to fit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: List of Christian denominations by number of members indicates 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, and a quick calculation indicates that's at least 50 percent of the overall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that brings us back to "What is a Catholic?" (Or Christian) The figures in Wikipedia for my country, Australia, come from the national census, which delivers a figure ten TIMES greater than the number who attend church most weeks. It's all very unclear. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an issue only if one had a pre-conceived notion that being a Christian was supposed to imply weekly church attendance. To my knowledge, the only church that requires that on pain of sin is the Catholic Church. They may represent the largest denomination, but they are still only 1 of a multitude of Christian denominations. Also, adhering to the tenets of a particular faith does not guarantee perfection; how many Christians profess to be law-abiding yet consistently fail to indicate when pulling out of a kerb or when changing lanes? Or give some lame white lie when asked for a donation to a charity? The just man sins seventy times seven every day, but is still a just man. You don't stop being a Christian - if that's your thing - even if you become a raving rapist or murderer, let alone just not going to church every Sundsay. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The true figure, for both Catholics and Christians, would be somewhere between the church attendance figures and the census figures. But it is an issue, because governments, other bodies, religious leaders and politicians use the census for planning purposes, and religious and political point scoring. Because religion is such a personal issue, we have no idea at all of the true adherence to various religious faiths. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the right answer is whatever the answer is to, "What religion do you identify with?" My answer is Christianity, even though I'm not a churchgoer and a lot of folks think I'm an agnostic or an atheist. But it's what I identify with where religion is concerned. I expect a lot of non-participants identify with something that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/hebrews/10-24.htm and http://www.multilingualbible.com/hebrews/10-25.htm on meeting for worship.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup note

The IP OP here is a troll, and also a sock. Just FYI. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And both now blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call a person who knows a troll is trolling and grabs the opportunity of the troll's post to declare their alleged religious identfication? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another good question could be, What do you call someone who thought a question was posted in good faith, only to be informed by another user that it was indeed trolling, and then had to wipe some egg from its face? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be ashamed of, though. It was a good question, and one that, as a Catholic, I've had to deal with too many times to count. Aaronite (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth Fox Terrier

I have read all that you have on your site but was unable to find the average or sustainable weight for a female Smooth Fox Terrier.I mhave a young spayed femail and wouldf like to know what I should look for not to have her over weight.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.71.188 (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Oda Mari (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for info on how to tell if a dog is under/overweight, see here. Dismas|^(talk) 01:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reservehandverfahren

Hello, does anyone know how I fidn out about this cipher and how it worked, same as articles on Playfair cipher make clear? THanks. 122.174.100.234 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finding pine mushrooms to eat

In Michigan, where might one find the edible mushrooms Lactarius deliciosus and Lactarius sanguifluus to forage or, more preferably, purchase? —Cheng ✍ 07:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the grocery store doesn't have any then your best bet would be to look up local specialty food stores(organic stores/asian cuisine stores/etc) to see if they have any. If your local organic produce store doesn't have them then you can ask them where you can find them and they can probably point you in the right direction.AerobicFox (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend to forage for them (implied by asking "where might one find . . .") and you are not an experienced mycologist, make sure that you hook up with area experts before setting out in the woods to pick your 'shrooms as there are some very deadly varieties that regularly kill the ignorant. Siddartha Gautama (aka, The Buddha) and the King of the Elephants (from Babar the Elephant) both died of mushroom poisoning. The wikipedia article on Tricholoma magnivelare (the Pine mushroom) states that "Serious poisonings have resulted from confusion of this mushroom with Amanita smithiana".--Quartermaster (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quartermaster, you are talkig about a different "pine mushroom". The OP asked about one that grows in a different region and looks nothing like A. smithiana. This is a good illustration of why you shouldn't use common names when dealing with potentially deadly subjects. Pine mushrooms grow among pine trees as our articles point out. Michigan has lots of those. Michigan Mushroom Hunters Club may be able to help you. Rmhermen (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the illumination and clarification. I obviously went by the title of the posted request without paying particular attention to the body. In any case, I think we both still agree that when foraging, if you are not experienced (and I am NOT but have foraged with those who are) you should try to connect with the local experts. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Converting videos to MTS

How do I convert MP4 videos to MTS free on Mac? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.143 (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LIC MONEY PLUS

what is the present growth rate of insurance policy LIC MONEY PLUS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.96.217 (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fund's NAV as of yesterday, along with the repurchase and sale value of units, are given here on LIC's own website, if that helps at all. Ka renjc 22:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl 21

In Super Bowl 21, the New York Giants wore a patch on the front of their jersies and I want to know what was the patch and why was it worn. No team had ever done that before.drv 74.226.69.231 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it reads "SPIDER 43" in memory of Carl "Spider" Lockhart, a former Giant who had died in 1986. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket TVs in the UK

Many years ago in the UK it used to be possible to buy TVs with tiny CRTs that would fit into a large pocket - one of the Sinclair products I think.

Is it possible to buy a pocket tv nowadays - in other words a very small portable tv? Thanks 92.24.182.238 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The switch to digital TV appears to had made these less useful, at least in the US. The reason is that the tiny antenna isn't likely to get very good reception, especially if you're out camping in the woods. Unlike with analog TV, which just gets a bit of snow with poor reception, digital TV is utterly useless with poor reception.

On the plus side, a small LCD TV would weigh less, take up less room, and last longer than a CRT, with a given set of batteries. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can watch TV on mobile phones now, so I guess that soft of counts. --Tango (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tango, I will try to go soft on you while pointing out that you need to sort out your spelling. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

My spelling is fine; it's my typing that leaves a lot to be desired! --Tango (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the immortal words of Milkbreath: My spelling is better than my orthography would indicate. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

There are a variety of DVB-H and DVB-T handheld TV's available to purchase online from Amazon and specialists (such as [5]) and in the High Street at specialist shops like Maplin. These typically have a 3.5" screen. A lot of users on forums etc report low signal strength, manufacturers advise that reception quality will increase when the Digital Switchover completes and the transmitters switch to full power. Nanonic (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe it, it didn't happen in the US. Digital TV reception is still poor, long after the switchover completed here. StuRat (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One obviously doesn't preclude the other... Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, there was some speculation that cable and satellite TV companies wanted to ensure that broadcast free TV reception was poor, thus making their products more valuable, and therefore influenced politicians to pass laws resulting in poor reception. StuRat (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the north of Scotland, where I am, digital reception definitely got worse after switchover. Although the power increased, they altered some transmission protocol to squeeze in extra channels and HDTV. Thincat (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the video/audio quality got worse or the reception got worse? Nil Einne (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The picture (and sound) break-up is worse. It was extremely disappointing after we'd been led to believe that removing analogue would improve the digital reception. When the picture is there the quality is the same so far as I can tell.Thincat (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here in an isolated area of northern UK, we have no terrestrial TV signal at all now that the transmitters have gone digital, so my pocket TV is totally useless. Does anyone want one? I suppose the future of pocket TV is mobile phone reception via the internet over phone transmitters, but they don't have the necessary bandwidth round here. Dbfirs 21:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really giving it away? I would like it :) 82.43.92.41 (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used it for years. I'll look for it, but it will soon become useless in most of the UK. Dbfirs 10:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you so much! 82.43.92.41 (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Templeton background

Does anybody have any information about Charlie Sheen's mother, Janet Templeton? In an interview today, he said that she was Jewish, but "nobody knows anything about her father". Templeton isn't likely a Jewish name, did she take somebody else's last name, or is her mother Jewish? Corvus cornix_talk 22:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templeton is indeed not a common Jewish name: it usually derives from Templeton in Ayrshire, Scotland. Google tells me that Janet Estevez/Sheen is a devout and devoted Roman Catholic. Whether she has Jewish ancestry I don't know. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Charlie Sheen a reliable source regarding the ancestry of Charlie Sheen? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's a reliable source for anything at this point in time. Corvus cornix_talk 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except maybe as a poster child for self-destructive behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find many references to this alleged "fact" in google, but all of them seem to be merely quoting Charlie Sheen. I can't find anything that pre-dates Charlie's recent problems and would theoretically have more of the ring of truth. Supposedly, Martin Sheen adopted his stage name as a combination of an acquaintance with the surname Martin, and a reference to Fulton J. Sheen. The ultimate irony in Charlie deciding that he's of Jewish extraction is that "sheeny" is an old-fashioned but highly derogatory term for a Jew. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]