Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 December 18

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.

December 18

Who recorded the song "Kiss My Irish Ass"?

Frank Mackey of the Keltic Cowboys wrote Kiss My Irish ass in the late 1990s. They sold a few thousand CD's at gigs and continue to play it at thier shows to this day. Kiss my Irish Ass leaked on to the Internet via file sharing programs and became a very popular song. Credit for the song was mistakenly given to Great Big Sea, Flogging Molly and others. Frank was unaware that the song had become so popular until a friend "Glen Benson" of Fire Ant Records offered to publish the CD. The CD was released January 1st 2007 and can now be purchased. The publishers website is [1] .

I've seen the song credited to both Flogging Molly and Great Big Sea, though I'm pretty certain it isn't by either one of them.

It is not by either one.

"Kiss My Irish Ass" Written and Recorded by none other than Frank Mackey and The Keltic Cowboys from Arizona, USA.

Islamic law against depiction of the human form

Is there a word for this law? ta Adambrowne666 02:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Aniconism, Aniconism in Islam -- AnonMoos 05:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Adambrowne666 07:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In this context it might also be worth noting that the movement within early medieval Christianity, known as Iconoclasm, was in part based upon Muslim teachings on the subject. It was first given political sanction in Byzantium by the Emperor Leo III in the eighth century, a point made by John Julius Norwich in his study, Byzantium The Early Centuries. Although Leo had given no support to the early iconoclasts, by the year 725 he was beginning to pay serious attention to the bishops who took their part: It seems, therefore, that Leo's change of heart was far from spontaneous; rather it was the result of a combination of Muslim and Jewish influences... (Norwich, London, 1988, p.726) Clio the Muse 08:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

At the base of it all, though, I'd say it originated from the Ten Commandments, adopted by the Koran, in particular the Commandment against the making of "graven images". With regards to Iconoclasm in Christianity, I see no evidence of it being based on Muslim teachings in any way. Rather, it too appears to have been based upon a more literal interpretation of the Ten Commandments.Loomis 14:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My Lords, may it please Wikipedia. I respetfully submit the following: Theophanes attributes Leo's iconoclastic policy to influence from Jews and Arabs: most scholars today doubt this. [2] My Lords, Theophanes and Norwich may indeed be right, yet most scholars of today apparenty tend to doubt their assertions. With the utmost of respect for my learned colleague, I'd say that at the very most, a proper historian would put it this way: "While most scholars of today doubt this, there are some who speculate that Leo III's Iconoclasm was based on Muslim teachings". That's perfectly fine. Let the students theselves decide which interpretation is to them the most convincing.

Yet again, with the utmost of respect for my learned colleague, I would submit, My Lords, that to pronounce with authority, without qualifiers, that "the movement within early medieval Christianity, known as Iconoclasm was in part based upon Muslim teachings on the subject" is, as I would imagine from the perspective of the great and noble profession of historians, with complete respect for my learned colleague, quite unprofessional, to say the least. I now humbly submit myself before Your Lordships, awaiting what will be no doubt be the wisest of conclusions. Loomis 23:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks again. Adambrowne666 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

trying to find info on my father, dale hodson, who served in vietnam

trying to change his discharge to honorable but need info on where, when and what happened in vietnam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.134.48.6 (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Vietnam War. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. --Shantavira 12:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that article – or any other article on Wikipedia – has information on events in Vietnam specifically involving Dale Hodson. I assume the question is how to obtain such information, in particular about events leading to the discharge. There must be army records, which presumably show who his teammates were.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One expects that you have some evidence or new take on the case to apply for an upgrade of an OTH discharge. What do you know, other than just a name? Do you know anything of the events leading to the discharge? Do you know any other names, number, units, dates? Do you still have to find the offense? Do you want help just for finding the records of the hearing? Let us know what you know at the moment, and we may be able to suggest an approach. --Seejyb 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to contact the War Department or the Veterans Department. I suspect they get ALOT of questions like this and would know who to refer you to to get the answers. 68.39.174.238 07:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to respond to Seejyb but not sure how. is this how? i dont know.

extra-territorial organizations

What does 'extra-territorial organization' refer to and how is it defined? (Thanks in advance) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.94.62.67 (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Extraterritoriality will give you some general indications. It refers to embassies and the like, not subject to local law. Clio the Muse 07:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Literature

What was Charles Dickens' initial choice for Scrooge's statement "Bah Humbug"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.23.123.137 (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

What makes you think humbug was not his first choice? The word has meant a joke, a fraud or nonsense for some time before Dickens used it. In fact it was only around the time of Scrooge that it began to be used for sweets maybe it was used to show Scrooge was miserable and out of touch with current slang (what a rotter). meltBanana 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Few details regarding 'Metro' - the free daily newspaper

How many days a week is metro published? Is it published regularly or irregularly (ie. they publish today if they have ads and dont publish if they dont get ads-like that). How many pages do they give in your town?

I would also like to know its circulation worldwide! I found that it has 17 milion readers worldwide but website does not mention circulation

Meanwhile, we are interested in this info because we publish a free daily in our town. If you know any other fact about Metro, please tell.

I know a little about Metro. It is a single brand name used for separate publications in each city. For example, I know that there is a Metro in Stockholm. It is published in Swedish and carries news and advertisements focused on Sweden and the Stockholm area. There is also a Metro in Boston, USA, where I live. This newspaper is published in English and carries news and advertisements focused on the United States and the Boston area. Many of the ads are for local businesses in the Boston area. I don't know, but I suspect that Metro papers in other US cities publish some of the same stories as the Boston Metro. However, quite often, the main story on the front page is local news specific to the Boston area.

In the Boston area, Metro publishes every day, or at least every weekday (Monday to Friday). They publish regularly, regardless of their advertising volume. I don't read it myself, but I see it every day at the bus stop when I travel to work in the morning. In many cities, they are primarily distributed at places where people enter the public transportation system (buses, trains, subways/metros, etc.). This is part of their marketing strategy. I believe that they choose to publish mainly in metropolitan areas where enough readers travel by public transportation to justify advertising rates that will support their editorial, production, and distribution costs. So they do not publish worldwide, but only in selected, mainly larger cities. Marco polo 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to say that the Boston edition is quite small: probably typically 24 pages (6 sheets). Marco polo 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My local edition (in North America) is about 12-15 pages, and is published every weekday. I find that the editorial slant is far less offensive than mainstream, 'respectable' newspapers. It's probably my favorite newspaper overall, aside from its competitor, the orange-themed '24'. Vranak 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See Metro International. I think the editorials aren't meant to be offensive, since they aren't aimed at a direct demographic. Excapt for one point, I think the magazine is published in connection with Stockholm Public Transport, so unlike most other major newspapers in Stockholm, they have a strong anti-graffiti stance. ;) (At least, that was my impression of it.) 惑乱 分からん 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean the other newspapers in Stockholm don't care about graffiti? I don't know about Sweden, but the amount of graffiti found in the Continental cities I have visited is shocking. -- Mwalcoff 23:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ehhh, newspapers generally have more interesting matters to write about than graffiti. If anything, many would consider the art angle of the matter more interesting... 惑乱 分からん 03:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Must be a cultural thing. I saw a community newspaper in Canada in which this woman was all upset because she counted 18 tags in the downtown area and was demanding the city council take action against this horror. In Prague, there are at least 18 graffiti tags per square meter. -- Mwalcoff 04:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is "this woman"? A journalist? An editor? A private letterwriter? 惑乱 分からん 09:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember, but I think she was one of those community activists who hangs out at city council meetings. She might have been with the neighborhood business committee. Anyway, the little newspaper considered the issue a big enough deal to put it on the front page. -- Mwalcoff 23:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone here is assuming that they are all talking about the same newspaper, but in fact there are different companies using the name Metro in different places. Metro International is the largest, but see Metro (newspaper) for others. In Toronto, when Metro (International) arrived, the Toronto Star started a rival publication called GTA Today; later the two free papers were merged so that we have a paper called Metro that uses some material supplied by the Star. It runs to about 32 pages each weekday. --Anonymous, December 18, 18:51 (UTC)

There's a Metro paper in Philadelphia. It's free, which I suspect is one of the major reasons for its popularity. It's the most dumbed-down, inoffensive newspaper I've ever seen, which probably also accounts for its popularity. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In Merseyside, UK, the Metro is free on public transport. Published daily. It carries many of the same stories as other Metros throughout the country but has North-West specific articles as well. It is not quite as low-brow as some tabloids but has some pretty inane interviews/features. --81.111.18.84 21:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But the UK Metro (published in various cities and distributed free on public transport) is published by Associated Metro Limited, a quite separate company from Metro International. According to the latter article, however, the two companies jointly publish the Dublin Metro. --ColinFine 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Eucharist: How do Catholics receive on the tongue?

Someone deleted this question when I last posted it, so I'll post -again-:

OK. Confusing question, but I've never seen the answer anywhere.

I'm a cradle Catholic...I just haven't been to Mass in an eternity, and when I was a kid, I received in the hand. It's been a long long time since my First Communion.

I realize that that is new-fangled, so am pressed to ask: How -does- one recieve on the tongue? Like, a how-to would be nice. --Penta 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm Jewish, but having gone to an Episcopal school I can say that it would appear you're supposed to let the wafer sit on your tongue and dissolve without chewing, at least until you sit down. Also, I think it's called "communion" in catholic tradition and "eucharist" in anglican. Sashafklein 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I was raised Episcopalian (Anglican), and, though it has been more than 20 years since I regularly attended communion, I think that I remember the following. (In my church, "communion" and "eucharist" were used interchangeably. Actually, I think "communion" specifically referred to the part of the service where everyone went up to the altar for the bread (wafer) and wine, whereas "eucharist" referred to the service as a whole, which could also be called "communion".) The way it is done in an Anglican-type church is that you wait in line to kneel in front of the altar. Then you wait, kneeling on a cushion, in front of the altar, while the celebrants come around with the bread wafers and wine. (I think that they skip the wine in many Catholic churches.) When the celebrant approaches with the wafers, you open your mouth, with the tip of your tongue against the inside of your lower lip, but with the top of your tongue exposed. I think that you should not stick your tongue out. The celebrant will place a wafer on your tongue. Sashafklein is correct that you close your mouth and let the wafer dissolve. When you can do so inconspicuously, you swallow. If they come around with wine, you take a little sip (no more), and you can wash the wafer down with that. Marco polo 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm an American Catholic who about two years ago started receiving communion on the tongue. There is a dispensation (I believe that is the term) from the Pope which allows Catholics in the U.S. to receive in the hands, but Eucharist-on-the-tongue appears to be the global Church rule. I just keep my hands clasped and lowered in front of me when I'm in the communion line and in front of the priest or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion before receiving. That's usually enough to let them know. Because of the above rule, U.S. priests are supposed to allow their parishioners to receive either way, I'm told, and usually they are prepared for both. EMHCs, who are typically laypeople, are often surprised by lowered hands, in my experience. But they recover, (and apologize, as one did to me just yesterday). --Fsotrain⁰⁹ 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just open your mouth and stick your tongue out as far as you feel comfortable with - it makes it easier if you do - the priest doesn't have to reach inside your mouth.

Don't worry about a right way - just don't bite the priest 83.100.250.252 19:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I attend Catholic masses quite regularly, in Italy, and I have a few points to make:

• the "wafer" can be received both in the hand and on the tongue;
• kneeling is practised only in some churches, but in most churches people stand;
• I can confirm what is said above about swallowing (not chewing) and not sticking out your tongue; I don't think there is a formal rule, but that's how generally it's done;
• I've noticed that young people tend to receive in the hand, while older people receive on the tongue; both are accepted, even in Rome.
• wine is not commonly used; a couple of times I've been at churches where they used wine, and what the priest did was quickly dipping the "wafer" in the cup of wine and then placing it on your tongue (in this case I guess it would be awkward to receive in the hand). Also, in these instances the priest did not say "the body of Christ", but rather "the body and the blood of Christ". It should be noted that it was real wine, not grape juice as I've seen it done in some Protestant churches (and I was a kid!)SFinamore 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Jew, and so if I was offered a tasty looking wafer from a Catholic Priest, I'd dip it in a "bissel chren" and enjoy. Seriously though, the question asked concerned Roman Catholism. While comments about communion/eucharist in Anglican and other non-Catholic denominations may be fascinating, I think we should focus on the particular question asked. Loomis 19:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. JackofOz 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The short answer is "with reverence," but a little googling will show you that there is some disagreement among Catholics on which precise rituals are appropriate for the laity. Pope John Paul II addressed the hand/tongue issue somewhat in his letter Dominicae Cenae, but mostly just said that the Vatican had granted dispensation to those conferences who had requested them (such as the US), but whether Catholics accept communion by the hand or tongue, they should do so with reverence. TheronJ 19:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I had been doing it on the tongue for years, but a priest asked everyone to please recieve the Eucharist on the hand. Just place your non-dominanat hand on top of your dominant one, recieve the Eucharist on the top one, then pick it up with the dominant one (the bottom hand). Once in the mouth, don't chew; even though I've never heard anyone say otherwise, it looks really bad. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually my Sunday School teacher once talked about treating it with reverance and mentioned the don't chew. From memory when I used to go to church in Malaysia (only about 4 years ago or so that I last went ironically and I used to go nearly every Sunday but seeming a bit hazy already), both on the tongue and on the hand were acceptable. I think when you first started you received it on the tongue but it was generally the norm that adults would receive it on the hand. I guess they didn't want kids receiving it on the hand in case they dropped it (and the priest or whoever would also have to bend over more to give it). I believe some people including me would look at the cross on the wall before putting it in their mouths Nil Einne 13:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about citing a person's ethnic identity on Wiki

I just finished reading about Barack Obama. You say "According to the U.S. Senate Historical Office, he is the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history and the only African American presently serving in the U.S. Senate.[1]" I then read that his mother is Caucasian American. Shouldn't this say he's African-Caucasian-American, citing his white mother as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.120.60 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I suggest you raise that topic on the article talk page. In the United States, people of mixed African and European ancestry are usually referred to as African-American because because biased individuals tend to discriminate against anyone whose physical appearance shows any sub-Saharan African ancestry. Durova^Charge! 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See also One-drop theory.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, read up on Who is African American?. Since the article refers to a US politician, using the US definition seems prudent.--Cody.Pope 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The key here is the assertion of his ethnicity is sourced -- he's considered African-American by the Senate Historical Office. Personally, I'm of the belief (and, as of 2000, so is the U.S. Census Bureau) that races are not mutually exclusive. A person can be white and black and Asian and American Indian at the same time (like Tiger Woods). -- Mwalcoff 23:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Racial categories are always inexact and arbitrary to a degree, at least in the United States. --24.147.86.187 00:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The film "Barfly"

What is the real name of the bar in L.A. where the film "Barfly" was shot? And does this bar still exist today? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.172.240.175 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

• It's the Golden Horn Bar, per [3]. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this the real name of the bar, or only fictional?

Where did "18" as the age of adulthood come from?

Hi all. I was wondering the origin of the eighteenth year as the coming of age. Your article explains comings of age in various cultures, but not how they came about. I am curious why 18 was chosen over other numbers. Much help appreciated ! Xhin 23:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For starters, people tend to hit their maximum height at around age 16-20. 18 being the median. Vranak 23:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See Age of majority and Age of consent --Light current 23:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

From a cultural standpoint there are many reasons why certain ages became associated with manhood. 18 is not, historically, particularly special, except that it has become standard primarily in the United States as a catch-all voting/draft/cigarettes/consent age. At some point it becomes necessarily to select a legal age for adulthood; 18 is rather arbitrary on the scale of things. For the age of majority it seems that most countries use between 18 and 21; for age of consent most countries are lower than 18; for age of entering the army it varies a lot; for age of drinking/smoking it varies a lot. --24.147.86.187 00:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read 21 was the original age of majority because that was the age at which men in the Middle Ages were usually big enough to wield the weaponry and armor of a knight. But that doesn't explain why 18 was chosen as the "other" age of majority. Even though the age of majority remained 21 until the 70s in most Western countries (as far as I know), 18 was used for some stuff, such as for the age of full criminal responsibility, as early as the late 19th century. I suppose it just seemed about right at the time for something somewhere and was later adopted by other jurisdictions. -- Mwalcoff 01:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My total guess is that you start getting legal obsessions with ages in the mid-19th century, which is when the bureaucratic state really takes off. I would be not be surprised if there were antecedents in the 18th century, but I would expect the biggest legal standardizations to happen in the 19th. --24.147.86.187 02:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Coming of age is important not just to bureaucracy but in private legal matters such as inheriting property. For instance, when Britain and her colonies changed to the Gregorian calendar, parliament decreed, among other things, that persons who were under age at the moment of the change would become legally of age on what would have been their 21st birthday had the calendar not been changed. Thus George Washington's birthday is officially February 22, when in fact he was born on February 11 (old style).--Rallette 09:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your first point (21st birthday) was new to me, but I don't doubt it. However, that had nothing to do with why Washington's birthday is celebrated on 22 Feb rather than 11 Feb. The USA has a long tradition of converting dates that occurred before 2 September 1752 (Julian), to their Gregorian equivalents. John Adams was also born before 1752, and his 19 October birthday (Julian) is now celebrated on 30 October. The UK for some odd reason generally doesn't do this. For example, James Cook is always shown with a birthday of 27 October 1728 (Julian), but if he had been born in the American colonies rather than in England, his birthday would be celebrated on 7 November, not 27 October (Gregorian). JackofOz 01:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So when does the US celebrate Christmas then? :-P (& yes, I know Christmas isn't actually the DOB of Jesus Christ) Nil Einne 13:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that people normally finish schooling, in the US, around the age of 18. I'm not sure, however, if that's a coincidence, or if that is why 18 is considered adulthood, or if 18 being considered adulthood is why school goes to that age. StuRat 01:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The way I learned it in school was that during the Vietnam Draft, men could be drafted at eighteen, but had no power to vote until they were 21. People lobbied to get it so that you could vote against the candidate who could send you to 'Nam (aka-candidate for the draft). I dunno why eighteen was ever involved, though. FruitMart 03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Side comment: I've been somewhat bemused to see the drinking age and the voting age swap places in the US in my lifetime. I remember when you had to be 21 to vote, but only 18 to buy alcohol; now, vice versa. In Canada the voting age also went from 21 to 18, but the drinking age went from 18 to 19. (Or so I hear, not that it matters to me. Of course I'm talking about typical states and provinces in each case.) --Anonymous, December 19, 06:34 (UTC).

Of course, there are those who would argue that preparing to vote in an election (listening to the "logic" of each candidate) requires at least 3 years of heavy drinking. :-) StuRat 14:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir's Boundaries

Hello: When India and Pakistan were declared independent by Great Britain, under whose borders did Kashmir technically belong to (India or Pakistan)? --Thanks Vikramkr 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Vikramkr. According to the article

"Following the achievement of independence from British rule in 1947 and the partition of India and Pakistan, individual princely states in the subcontinent were given the choice of joining either of the two countries. The strategic value of Kashmir meant it was important for both countries to have it join their side."

From that we know that the Kashmir region was not assigned to either country by the British. The article goes on to say

"Pathan tribals covertly supported by the Pakistani army invaded Kashmir and overran the Kashmiri army. The Maharaja appealed to India for help, and India refused to send its army as long as Kashmir was not a part of the Indian Union. The Maharaja then signed the Instrument of accession to the Indian Union. Regular Indian forces then entered Kashmir and pushed back the invading forces."

So to sum it up, the Kashmir region was given a choice, but never got to exercise that right. However, it later joined the Indian Union when its hand was forced. I am not very knowledgeable about this subject, so you might want someone else to verify what I stated.--The Dark Side 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir was under a Hindu princely ruler but had a Muslim majority population, and was somewhat geographically detached from the core areas of what was to become Pakistan, so it was a natural trouble spot at the time of partition. There was another case of a Muslim princely ruler of a landlocked Hindu-majority area in the far south of India who was similarly hesitant, but whose domain was ultimately forced into India. AnonMoos 07:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That state you mentioned was Hyderabad, which wanted to remain independent, but was invaded and annexed by India in Operation Polo. Also, another Hindu-majority state ruled by a Muslim, Junagadh, actually acceded to Pakistan and was accepted; but was eventually annexed by India (see Indian Integration of Junagadh). --Spoon! 09:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)