Humanities desk
< February 14	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 16 >

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.

February 15[edit]

British Parliament Procedure[edit]

Hello, I have been reading the British Parliament Wikipedia article but I'm stuck with something. Why is it before an MP says something do a dozen people stand up before promptly sitting down again once the MP starts to speak? Thanks, 121.90.59.139 (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be related to the old manners rule "A gentleman always stands when a lady enters the room" ? Was the MP female ? Or perhaps this sign of respect is also extended to members of their party, regardless of gender. StuRat (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. Why answer is you clearly don't know anything about the question? The below is correct. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew the answer, why didn't you post it instead of hassling another editor? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the purpose of posting an answer which was already posted? Pointing out an answer is completely wrong is surely useful though. Nil Einne (talk)

Yes there's absolutely nothing wrong with "hassling another editor", whether one knows the answer or not. Especially when (as is usually the case with StuRat) he doesn't have a clue what the answer is and is only guessing. --Viennese Waltz 17:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly acceptable as long as one is standing. Harassment while seated would be an unseemly breach of etiquette. Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest your comment has to be sophisticated enough that you can hassle without it being too overt. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of thing has been discussed on the talk page many times. Attacking an editor does nothing but poison the ref desk atmosphere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never been anything close to consensus for that. There are in fact many who believe completely crap answers poisons the ref desk atmosphere (which is after all supported to be a ref desk, not a random stuff I came up with despite little actual knowledge of the subject desl), much more than an occasional indication that someone is clearly wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Australian parliament, which uses the British system, the MPs stand to signal the Speaker that they wish to speak. The other MPs sit down when the Speaker says the next MP's title.
Sleigh (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming the above, see page 4 of this. Nanonic (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rule requiring an MP who wishes to raise a point of order during a division, having to speak seated with a top hat on, was abolished in 1998. "Some Traditions and Customs of the House" (p.8) Shame I say. Those who accept positions of responsibility in our country should be made to dress in a ridiculous fashion every so often; it teaches them humility in my view. Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was the bleeding woman that Jesus healed menstruating?[edit]

Six years ago, I took a Classics class, and somehow, for some reason, I asked the instructor what the bleeding was about, and he replied that she was menstruating. Now, that mental image repeats itself in my mind, and I try to look up if the bleeding woman that Jesus heals is truly menstruating. Is it tied to menstruation? What is the parable supposed to mean? That menstruating women are going to be healed by Jesus miraculously? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't regard menstruation as a sickness that needs to be "healed", but who knows what their attitude was back then? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it speaks for the Jews of 20 CE, but there are plenty of cultures where menstruation is considered a disease or source of uncleanliness. I wouldn't be surprised if there was such a belief in Israel at the time. On a barely related note, one of the interviews I'm translating for RL work states that, in Maluku, there used to be a belief that if a man was in the same house as a menstruating woman, he would lose all of his vigor. So they went and built special houses, called pinau, for menstruating women.... read that as you may. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Menstruation is indeed considered ritually impure by the Bible. According to Leviticus 15:19-24:

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening. If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean. [..]

When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting.

So menstruation is a minor source of ritual impurity that transfers to people and objects that the woman touches, but these people/objects are only unclean for one day. However, the woman herself is unclean for seven days, after which she must make two small sacrifices to cleanse the impurity.

Impurity is not the same as disease. There are 4 causes of impurity in Leviticus: human corpses, animal corpses, fluxes of life fluids (genital discharges and blood lost in childbirth), and skin conditions called Tzaraath. They all have to do with death or the loss of life forces, but note that almost everything we would consider disease are not included. --Bowlhover (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. "Ritually impure" ≠ "disease," and there is surprisingly little overlap between the two (in fact, no overlap at all if you accept the traditional understanding of Tzaraath as a sort of "scarlet letter" for the crime of Lashon ha-ra). We have a pretty thorough understanding of Jewish attitudes toward menstruation, at least by the early third century, courtesy the Mishnah, and none of them would view menstruation as a disease in need of a cure, supernatural or otherwise. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this parable of which you speak? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The woman was bleeding for 12 years--it definitely wasn't menstruation. See Jesus healing the bleeding woman. The story (it's not a parable) is meant to demonstrate Jesus' miraculous healing powers.

The author of Mark was not stupid. He knew what menstruation was, and that it wasn't a disease. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, it was just some strange bleeding for 12 years? I would have thought that the woman had menstruated for 12 years non-stop. I think "12 years" just means "a very long time", not literally 12 years. The same with all the numbers in the Bible. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather a bizarre response. Do you have a citation for the idea that all numbers in the Bible are to be taken figuratively? When the Bible wants to express "a lot," it often does so numerically, but usually in multiples of seven. The number twelve has many associations in the Judeo-Christian tradition, none of which would make a metaphorical reading of it in this case seem very plausible. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just restated what I said. "When the Bible wants to express 'a lot', it often does so numerically." That's what I meant by "metaphorically". 71.79.234.132 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote above is correct, except for the fact that twelve, as far as I know, is not used anywhere in the Bible, even in the Apocrypha, as a stand-in for some large-but-unknown number. That is (generally) what multiples of seven, or superlative thousands (see Jude 14) are for. Twelve has its own sphere of meaning that would make any generic "really big number" use of it confusing. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously, context matters. I never said that meanings have to be absolute. ;-) 71.79.234.132 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, everything in the Bible is figurative, isn't it? There is no actual evidence that Jesus existed, never mind a woman who didn't bleed to death after 12 minutes, never mind 12 years. There were supposedly 12 apostles. Only FOUR of them wrote anything. What did the other EIGHT do? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 15:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Acts of the Apostles. Off the top of my head, Saint Peter survived a shipwreck in Malta and got a job as the first pope, Saint Andrew went to Greece and Russia and ended up being nailed to a diagonal cross, and Saint Thomas apparently opened a branch of Christianity in India. They didn't retire quietly, except for Judas Iscariot who committed suicide. The only Apostle believed to have written a Gospel is Saint Matthew, but the attribution is later than the text and is debatable. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)][reply]

The Gospel of John is traditionally ascribed to John the Apostle, along with the other Books ascribed to him including three epistles and Revelation, though some scholars consider these works to be not all (or perhaps not at all) by the same person, and possibly not by John the Apostle. But traditionally, both the gospels of Matthew and John were traditionally held to be written by two of the Twelve. The other two to have been traditionally ascribed works in the Bible were Simon Peter (who has 2 epistles ascribed to him), and the Epistle of James, which is occasionally ascribed to James the Lesser who may or may not have been James, son of Alphaeus. If all that is true, then James was also written by an apostle. If, however, as is more commonly believed, that the Epistle of James was written by James the Just or James, Brother of Jesus, then it wasn't written by one of the 12 Apostles. Furthermore, the Authorship of Peter's epistles is in doubt, and it is quite likely they were written by someone more literate than Peter would have been; probably John Mark (author of Mark) or perhaps someone else, and possibly the author of the Epistle of Jude (who was probably Jude, Brother of Jesus and maybe, but not likely, Jude the Apostle, but definitely not Judas Iscariot). What does all this mean? The only book of the New Testament to be reasonably unequivocally attributed to one of the Twelve is the Gospel of Matthew, but even THAT has some doubts, as it appears that Mark was written first, which would raise some questions as to why John Mark, who was not present during Jesus's ministry, would be used as a source for the other synoptic gospels, including that of Matthew, who supposedly was an eye witness. The usual explanation is that John Mark was the scribe for Peter, and that it's Peter's account in most of Mark, as well as the Petrine Epistles. But honestly, there's not a lot of hard evidence for identifying, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the authorship of much of the New Testament. --Jayron 32 01:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Christ myth theory is a minority view in academia. Although most academics would say that Jesus did exist, what he did between birth and death and his resurrection is up for debate. A minority view doesn't necessarily mean a wrong view; it just means that there is not enough convincing evidence for more people to hold it. Also, Paul was not one of the original 12 apostles, but he supposedly wrote much of the New Testament canon. Many of the letters are attributed to him. Thomas was one of the 12 apostles, but the Gospel of Thomas is not canonical. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from its general silliness, the Christ myth theory has precisely nothing to do with the question, which deals with a specific pericope (not parable) the premise of which seems medically questionable. As an side note, only the authors of Matthew and John are traditionally believed to have been apostles; Mark and Luke are identified as companions of Peter and Paul, respectively. In all likelihood, none of those attributions are correct. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to KageTora's comment about Jesus' non-existence. As a side note, I never said the attributions were historically accurate or, as you put it, "correct". 71.79.234.132 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my reply was primarily directed at KageTora. I could have been clearer with the indentation, obviously. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I could have been more explicit. I was trying to demonstrate a pattern. Everything good that Jesus does are all shown with even numbers. Fasting for FORTY days, for example. Bad things tend to be shown with odd numbers - a beast with SEVEN heads, for example. The story of the TWO fishes and FIVE loaves is a story about mathematics, showing that Jesus COULD divide them, even though both five and two are prime numbers (therefore indivisible by anything except 1). But five and two add up to seven - the number of the seven vices, one of which is gluttony. The numbers in the bible all refer to the type of Kabbalah that the Jews at that term believed in. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 08:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably seen this. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an article; Gynecologic hemorrhage. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alan. That's probably the most helpful reply in this thread so far. As a complete non-professional medically, I've always associated the type of bleeding described in this story with a neoplasm of some sort. In On Writing, Stephen King described how his mother had (she thought) begun menstruating again many years after menopause, with a continuous flow of blood until she died of uterine cancer. It was diagnosed in a very advanced stage, since she had been embarrassed to tell anyone about the bleeding. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also abnormal menstruation, where instead of a regular monthly flow, it might be more or less continuous (but presumably at a slower rate). StuRat (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about running discharges at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001188. According to paragraph 2, the woman had "a diseased, extended, and thus abnormal, flow of blood".

—Wavelength (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

she

I think it somewhat tenuous to interpret the word "bleeding" as being a reference to menstruation. Women do bleed for other reasons, after all. The woman in the story could well have been a hemophiliac, with a simple cut on her knee. The point of the story is that her faith healed her... the specific injury is somewhat secondary.

There are many kinds of bleeding. An article Mark 5 includes some guesses. It doesn't mention Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, and there are others (lower gastrointestinal bleeding, etc.) It's hard to know. Wnt (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Science adherents are known for their belief that prayer can heal without medical intervention. I think they are taking an extremely irrational interpretation of the Bible. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the point of their belief. Faith can move mountains, and all that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we don't have any mountains in England :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have to cross the border? Hack (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Room Theory[edit]

Copied from User talk:SFenthusiast Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 09:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reference to Intelligent Room Theory, or a similar phrase (not Chinese Room by John Searle) anywhere in Wikipedia? Please help me with... Confirming, or denying that it exists. If it does exist, please give me a way to go to it / relevant URL.

Abstract: I thought I found a concept wherein code on a piece of paper is slid under a door to a man in a room who does not know the code ahead of time. Based on this theory he decodes it by utilizing what I though was called Intelligent Room Theory? There's nothing in the room except him.

SFenthusiast (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to decipher some simple codes using nothing but your mind. Indeed, many such puzzles are made for entertainment purposes. However, are you talking about fiction, where the room itself guides the person in some way to decipher a more complex code ? StuRat (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pindos (Russian slang)[edit]

Hello. I want to translate from Russian Wikipedia article ru:Пиндос with authoritative sources, but the administrator Spartaz deleted it Pindos (Russian slang) - without any discussion. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are talking about the deletion in 2013, there was a discussions then including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pindos, basically Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At DRV, the result was "we can look at this again when someone is able ti help with the sources"[sic]. If sources are available, the article _may_ be acceptable for re-creation. The basic definition remains at Pindos (disambiguation), incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

horror novels[edit]

What is the longest horor novel? --95.235.210.25 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.235.210.25 (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're never going to get a definitive answer to this question, because opinions differ on what constitutes a horror novel and how it differs from, say, a Gothic novel or a fantasy novel. That said, I would have thought Stephen King's It must, at 1138 pages, be a contender. --Antiquary (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest novels doesn't mention genres, but the winner may be Varney the Vampire at 667,000 words, if it counts as horror. King's The Stand is "only" about 500,000 words according to random Internet sources, and I think It is about the same (but it's harder to search for). -- BenRG (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Stand is in no way a horror story. It is apocalyptic and supernatural, but not horror. I am not a huge fan of King, but It is much closer to horror. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. The Stand is a post-apocalyptic fantasy, but there's no "horror" in it at all. --Jayron 32 03:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned The Stand because it's apparently King's longest novel and I couldn't find a word count for It. -- BenRG (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More geography of early 19th century Egypt...[edit]

I'm having yet another assault on the Battle of Mandora (1801) article and need some more help on two points, trying to connect features described in contemporary accounts with Wikipedia articles.

1) Is the "canal of Alexandria" mentioned in Wilson, 1803 (p. 21) the same as the present day Mahmoudiyah Canal?

2) Is "Lake Maadie" (Wilson, p. 15) or "lake Maadieh" (Alison, p. 566) the same as Lake Mariout?

Any help will be gratefully received. Alansplodge (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Maadie was later called Lake Aboukir (French: Lac Aboukir or Lac d'Aboukir). It was drained beginning in 1887 to make use of the land it covered. Compare these 1818 maps with this 1866 map (zoomable) with this 1941 map.--Cam (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see. Looking at the coordinates in our article (which I should have done earlier) Lake Mariout is to the west of Alex while Lake Aboukir is to the east. Thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]