Humanities desk
< October 3	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 5 >

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.

October 4[edit]

Balloon boy hoax influenced by Pixar?[edit]

I was just reading our piece on the Balloon boy hoax and noticed that the incident happened four months after the release of the popular Up (2009 film). <cue humans seeing patterns where they don't exist> Neither of the two articles mention each other. Is it possible Heene got his idea from the film or that it influenced him? Should a footnote or a see also or a hat be added? Thanks, z'crazy L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hat note no since there's little chance anyone looking for Up is going accidentally end up on the balloon boy hoax article, nor is there any chance anyone looking for the Balloon boy hoax article is going to accidentally end up on the Up article. If there really is a redirect which is a reasonably likely target for both articles, this probably should be retarged at something else since these film plot and the hoax are different enough it makes little sense that these are the only two possible targets. Footnote not likely, these are intended for things which can resonably be incorporated into the article sometime in the future. So unless you can find reliable sources making the connection then no. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A closer connection would be the stories we hear occasionally (possibly urban legends) about people tying a bunch of helium balloons to their lawn chairs and floating away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carr#ots→ 05:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Larry Walters for the first such incident. It really happened. I loved the charge they tried to stick on him: "Operating a Civilian Aircraft for which there is not Currently in Effect an Airworthiness Certificate". Per our article, that's not applicable to this "class of aircraft", so they had to drop the charge. --Trovatore (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walters used weather balloons, not regular helium balloons. MythBusters tested this in season 2 episode 13. It took 3,500 balloons to lift a 40-pound, three-year-old child. (video) → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 08:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By I meant see also not footnote, sorry. For footnote itself, this would have be tied to some sentence in the article so again would need to have sources somehow justifying it. Practically it's more likely this would work as a sentence in the article with a ref than a footnote anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: although there are contemporary non-reliable sources speculating a connection (forums, etc.), implying such on WP would probably fall under WP:Synthesis or WP:Original research.

I know nothing of the movie, and have no opinion on a causal connection, but we add See also links all the time where the only link is a vague similarity. Why not add one? μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because as I said that's not the intention. See WP:See also. Notably

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.

and

The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

If you see see alsos that shouldn't be there, the solution is to remove them from these articles, not add random junk to other articles. Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain singing[edit]

In music, how is it called when backing vocalists or a choir repeats the main vocalist's refrain in response, like this? I see it's probably different from antiphon and call and response. Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canon (music)?--Jayron 32 11:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it an echo, but I haven't found a mainstream dictionary which lists this sense. this clearly includes it, however. --ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imitation (music) says (uncited, and rather ungrammatically): 'In pop music a much clichéd form of imitation consists of a background choir repeating — usually the last notes — of the lead singer's last line'. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"One son" from Hindu families brought up as a Sikh[edit]

Do some Hindu families still bring up one of their sons as a Sikh, or is this just historical? I would be interested in any more information on this practice. Was it the eldest son? What age did they become Sikhs? Were they sent away or brought up as a Sikh within the Hindu family? Would they also expect one of their daughters to marry a Sikh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Chris (talk • contribs) 11:45, 4 October 2017 (UC) (UTC)

I highly doubt that this has ever been a practice or tradition. According our article Hinduism_and_Sikhism#Culture and intermarriage Marriages between Sikhs and Hindus, were frequent in some areas but again i highly doubt there was an traditional or historic "exchange" of children between both groups. It was a historic practice tho in the Roman and Byzantine Empire, to take children hostage, to secure colonial states. --Kharon (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some answers given here for a similar question over at Quora seem to indicate it could have been fairly common in some places and times. The top commentor claims that to be Sikh does not preclude one from being Hindu, but I do not know if that is theologically or sociologically sound. Anyway, hopefully interesting reading for OP. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know that on Who Do You Think You Are? (UK TV series) one of the Sikh's featured mentioned that this happened in her family tree and was quite common in Punjab at the time. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Why Was The First Son Made A Sikh by Sanjeev Nayyar, which atributes the custom to the British martial races policy, which after the Indian Mutiny, made it difficult for Hindus to join the Indian Army.

However, Genesis of the Hindu-Sikh Divide by Khushwant Singh says, discussing the early 18th century: "The relationship between the Hindus and the Khalsa remained extremely close as long as they were confronting the Mughals, Persian and Afghan invaders. Hindu youths coming to join the Khalsa simply let their hair and beards grow, accepted pahul (baptism) without breaking their family ties, it was during this period that the custom of bringing up one son as a Sikh grew amongst many Punjabi Hindu families". Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the Sikhs featured" on the UK TV series was probably Anita Rani. Neither our article on Hinduism and Sikhism nor our List of converts to Sikhism mentions this purported custom. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Hinduism and Sikhism does mention this custom "This status as protectors of Hindus was strong enough that Punjabi Hindus would often raise their eldest son as a Sikh" with a reference to a book by Ved Mehta. I have heard of this custom too, long before Who Do You Think You Are, but can't at this moment recall which book it was in. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I unaccountably overloooked that. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nontrinitarian churches that practice infant baptism[edit]

Infant baptism is common among most Christian denominations, while adult baptism is the norm for groups like the Baptists, Anabaptists, and Pentecostals. Our articles regarding baptism mention that Nontrinitarian churches tend to practice adult baptism. I have two questions about this:

1. Why do Nontrinitarian churches (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo, Oneness churches, Churches of God, etc.) tend to practice adult baptism as opposed to infant baptism?

2. Are there any nontrinitarian churches that either practice or allow infant baptism?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in child dedication ceremony. It is just the equivalent of a baptism, but the event is interpreted differently. They don't see it like a baptism, even though an outsider sees no difference between that and an infant baptism. In both instances, it's just a kid getting dunked in water. And the kid gets wet in some way. When I say "dunk", it may mean anything from a gentle sprinkling on the head to pouring water on the head to complete submersion or just partial submersion. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Child dedication. Rojomoke (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense - churches which practise adult baptism often do have an infant dedication ceremony as well, but it does not involve the use of water in any way. Normal practice would be for the parents (and perhaps the congregation as w hole) to make a promise to raise the child in the knowledge of the faith, followed by a prayer seeking God's blessing on the child and the family. The child dedication article is quite clear on that, and a a former Baptist minister I can confirm its accuracy. Wymspen (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nontrinitarian churches and credobaptist churches (note that all churches practice adult baptism, aside from the few that reject the sacraments entirely) typically teach that trinitarianism and paedobaptism, respectively, were the results of doctrinal degeneracy that began in Late Antiquity. Theology proper being such a basic concept (more basic than the nature of the sacraments and the identity of their proper recipients) in Catholic Christianity, there's not surprisingly a link between rejecting Catholic theology proper and rejecting other elements of Catholic theology — it's much "easier" to reject Catholic theology proper and go on to reject Catholic sacramental theology than it is to go the other way around. From the nontrinitarian church's perspective, if the Church gets its theology proper wrong, it's likely to have gotten a bunch of other less-foundational stuff wrong too; from the Catholic perpective, once you reject a foundational part of the faith, you're cutting yourself loose from the basis, and you have nothing tying you to anything else. Of course, many of us Protestants are members of trinitarian, paedobaptist churches as well; I say "Catholic" because of course arguments could be held over whether or not "mainstream" or "historic" Protestantism includes credobaptism. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of England practises infant baptism, but also provides a thanksgiving ceremony as an alternative (with no water involved). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]