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.
How do I find out which religions use crosses and or crucifixes? I sell wholesale fashion jewelry and would like to approch churches and such organizations to offer crucifix jewelry as fundraisers etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.207.83 (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the only ones that would count for commercial purposes in most areas would be Christianity and the various subdivisions, spin-offs, and significant direct influences of Christianity. The only completely non-Christian religion which currently makes prominent public symbolic use of a cross symbol is Scientology, as far as I'm aware -- though of course, if you tried to sell jewelry of Scientology symbols, you might find yourself being sued for copyright or trademark infringement... AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would count that among the "spin-offs and significant direct influences of Christianity"... In any case, a plain inverted Latin Cross is also a perfectly legitimate traditional Christian symbol in some contexts (as seen in the linked article).AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Anglican/Protestant sects of Christianity use crosses, whereas Roman Catholics and Orthodox sects use crucifixes (ie. a cross with a body on it). I may be wrong, however! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most Anglican churches use crucifixes, although they don't have the same level of iconographic focus that they do in the Roman Catholic tradition. Additionally, Eastern Orthodox churches use double-armed Patriarchal crosses, and strongly prefer flat painting and bas reliefs to fully three-dimensional statues of people, including Jesus. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My college professor explained that the Reformation abandoned crucifxes and substituted crosses as an indication of God's utter triumph.
That article has problems, since the only sources it cites seem to be connected with the Da Vinci Code / Holy Grail bloodline / mystic secrets of the Knights Templar fringe junk (cleaned up the article a little). The groups you mention are as likely to use a sun wheel as a cross, I think... AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago it was popular to wear crosses merely as a fashion statement. Cher and Madonna are examples. I even purchased some. They were available for sale in fashion jewelry in the better department stores.75Janice (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)75Janice[reply]
I started out looking for information about Champroux as a locale in France or other francophone country in Europe. This led me to Stade Robert Champroux in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, but nothing about any individual with that surname, or even an eponymous "Robert Champroux" (though I realize the stadium might be named after two individuals with surnames Robert and Champroux.) Any ideas? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only relevant link I could find is here: it states that Robert Champroux was a French expatriate in Côte d'Ivoire in the 1950s and helped to establish the first boxing club in Abidjan. He was likely active in promoting other sports, hence his name given to one of the city's larger stadiums. There is no information as to what he was doing in the (future) country at the time. --Xuxl (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deborahjay. I've found two Champroux named places in France, what we called in french lieux-dits (a isolated named place too small to be a village or a commune, often only one or few houses), first one on the commune of Pouligny-Notre-Dame in the departement of Indre (center of France) and the second one, more interesting, in the commune of Pouzy-Mésangy, in the departement of Allier, 60 km to the East. In this place, there was in the middle-age a castle, chateau de Champroux, (now only few ruins) and lands around owned by the Seigneur de Champroux, a local lord. The castle seems to have been important for the Bourbonnais defense at this time. It was linked to the near parish of Couleuvre. The named stayed for the lieu-dit and the near forest and pond. This place gave a title of nobility, "baron de Champroux" (there is also a manor in the last century, named bombastically château de Champroux). Champroux is named after french words champ (field) and roux (fox red or rusty red). So you can find this placed name otherwhere in France but too small to be referenced. You may also find it spelled Chamroux. 660 people in France are last named Champroux, lots of them in the departement of Nievre and Puy de Dome (not far away from the two named places). I've nothing about Roger Champroux. TCY (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I just cant see why this site is allowed to exist. To me it just seems to be a place that glorifies, encourages and promotes malicious, cheap, slanderous and anti-social behaviour. The site very much presents itself as a site where if you have discovered that someone has slandered you on there, your apparently just suppose to accept it, deal with it and not cry about it like a butt-hurt baby (that’s the automated message I got from them when I tried to delete such a biography about me). This just speaks very large volumes about their mentality level in my opinion. Don’t they realise that they are promoting both a playground and den for slanderers to do their worst?, is there a line that gets drawn on there?, wheres it gonna end?, is it acceptable on their to make a biography about somebody where you can accuse them of being a paedophile ect with no substantiated proof?.
How do they know that the persons relatives, friends and work colleagues wont get to see such profiles? (especially if they appear as a search result on google), because shock horror!!!!, people from the real world do in actual fact use the internet world. We know full well that damaging slander like that can get you up before a judge in court in real life, so why is the internet being allowed to grant a loophole for this?. And for those that just say “oh its all just humour”, or “its meant to be a satirical site, don’t take it so seriously”, sorry, but I don’t call malicious, cheap and slanderous cyber bullying as humour. And whats funny is, neither do they, when they are the ones that are the ones actually on the receiving end of it. Why is this site not outlawed???. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bokken12345 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For every liberty we are afforded there are some downsides. Freedom of Speech is an important liberty and if we start drawing lines then where do we stop? E.D is all about satire and parody as well as being shocking. You also have to remember that your opinion, although you may share it with others, is simply that, your opinion. I guess you will have to either broaden your shoulders or check if you have any actual legal recourse. Or, two wrongs don't make a right, but they often make you feel a lot better, go be bold on U.D. Lanfear's Bane | t12:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never looked at that before. It's a little bit funny, I'm afraid, however jejune it is. "Obama", for instance, redirects to the article "Black Jesus". I guess if there was an article about a non-celebrity living person that was obviously maliciously libellous, that person could win a suit against them, but here in the Good Ole U Ess of A we don't muzzle the bigmouth jerks, we let them expose themselves for what they are and laugh at them in our turn. That's better than the alternative, which starts to look pretty distopian real quick. Those Founding Fathers didn't do too bad, considering. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the theory that people have to "blow off steam" occasionally, as the writers of such stuff do, to prevent them from doing real damage, say by vandalizing Wikipedia in force. Since it's obvious to everyone that that site isn't about truth, nobody takes it very seriously and thus no harm is done. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, putting aside the sarcasm, i did state in my OP that my concern in it was, what if relatives friends or loved ones get to see it? (which believe it or not are part of our real lives). If i was the only person (other than them) who got to see it, i wouldent give a monkeys uncle about it then. I can make myself not read such things on the internet, but i cant make other people not read it Bokken12345 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully your loved ones understand the satirical content of the site and can shouldn't hold the content of a humor website against you. If they do, maybe you need new loved ones Livewireo (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Note to RefDesk regs: feel free to remove this if you think that I've crossed the 'No Legal Advice' line) I'm not particularly familiar with ED (and I am certainly not a lawyer!) but AFAIK, under US law (see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act), only the user(s) who first posted the offending content to the site would be legally culpable for it. If real-world identifying personal details were posted along with allegations of being a paedo (or whatever they've said about you), then as Sean alludes, you might have a cause to at least consider taking things further. I've never heard of anyone successfully suing for libel over comments made about an online pseudonym, however (TBH, I'd imagine that it would be laughed out of court). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Haneke: does anyone know the case on which The Seventh Continent/Die Siebente Kontinent is based?
Haneke has suggested several times in interview that he based this film on the case of a family discovered dead in their home on 17.1.1989. He refers to reading about the case in the magazine, 'Stern', and carries a reference to the case at the end of the film. Does anyone know anything about this case? It may have happened in Linz, Austria (where Haneke says the film is set, but not shot), but google searches have so proved fruitless. I don't have access to 'Stern' at present. Haneke also says that what was unusual about the case was the family's destruction of their home and belongings, rather than the act of collective suicide. Can anyone comment on how accurate a description of Austrian suicide rates this is? Many thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vleb (talk • contribs) 14:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your German source seems to be somewhat muddled. First of all, it's Der siebente Kontinent. German does not only assign gender to things, the article also changes following certain grammatical rules: der Kontinent, die Kontinente, auf dem Kontinent, den Kontinent betreffend, das Kontinentalgefuege. (One of my bugaboos with the German language.) For googling also try "Der 7. Kontinent". According to these source the film was released in 1989 [1], [2] It's rather unlikely the film was published in the same year the incident was reported. The "Stern" archive is unfortunately "pay per view" for older issues. The incident predates proliferation of the internet in Austria, so no promising ghits came up. It was also Haneke's first movie for cinema, so information on it is rather scant. Although we also have Austrian refdeskers here you might have better luck finding someone who remembers that news item at the German ref desk [3] Good luck. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WhooPS: The OÖ Nachrichten (OÖ = Upper Austria, the province of which Linz is the capital) has an archive from 1986. I checked the years 1986 to 1989 without finding a suitable report. If nothing else, this nauseating research indicates that collective murder / suicide is not infrequent. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Palin's husband was referred to as the "First Dude" and he is not alone. Since it's not an official title, it's really a question of what people choose to use. "First Gentleman" is the common sobriquet, but it's by no means formal. SDY (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to that: since there hasn't been any female presidents, we can't be 100% of what we would call the husband (it's not like it's written into the constitution or anything), but there has been a number of female governors, and their husbands are almost always called the First Gentleman (of the state). Todd Palin being the exception, but you know... that's Alaska :) Belisarius (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer.
Also, why is the time between the President being elected and being inaugurated over 2 months, whereas in Britain usually when the results of the General Election are announced the new PM moves in to No. 10 the day after the election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.127.189 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly because elections are a fixed term of four years in the US, and having the inauguration somewhat later is easier and ensures the period is always 4 years exactly, whereas in the UK, a general election can be called anywhere from about six months to 5 years and a month, and so you'd be far closer to having no effective government for the period - there isn't any need for the extra time. In the UK, shadow cabinet members take a more active role with their ruling counterparts in the run up to the general election, particularly if they think they're going to win it, and I'd imagine that's what the two or so months are used for in the US. - Jarry1250(t, c)16:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC with below, answering the second question). The U.S. is a big country, and was even at its founding. The presidential election process is actually quite convoluted and confusing, especially compared to the relatively simply Westminster system at work in the UK. In the U.S., what really happens is that each state must select a group of electors, who then go and convocate in Wahington D.C. and THEY elect the President (not the people directly). So what has to happen is a) The people in the states vote for their choice of President (actually, they vote for electors who are themselves committed to a presidential candidate, though in most states the electors names do not appear on the ballot itself). Thene, the state government must certify the results of the popular vote and appoint the slate of electors who will go to Washington to make the actual vote. Then, the Electoral College Vote must be certified before Congress. In the 21st century, all these steps are a trivial process; we could probably back the innauguration up to before Chirstmas and still have time to get it all done; it probably doesn't take a month. However, back in the day, when people had to get around on horseback, every step took weeks to complete. Also note that the current January 20th deadline is 6 weeks EARLIER than it was originally. Until the 1930's, the innauguration date was March 4th; which is FOUR full months after election day. --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - I don't believe the electors have ever been required to actually travel to the capital, it would just require a messenger to be sent. --Tango (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Westminster has a minimum term for Parliament? I didn't know that. —Tamfang (talk)
I don't think it's written down anywhere, but usually if a government fails so soon after getting elected the Queen would give the opposition a chance to put together a minority government. Technically, it's at the Queen's discretion, but I'm not sure how she would decide that (being advised by her ministers, as is usual, wouldn't work too well when they are the failed government). --Tango (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it "First Lady" doesn't actually mean "Wife of the President", it means "Hostess of the White House". Those two usually go together, but there have been unmarried presidents before and someone else served as First Lady. If Hillary Clinton had become president, I doubt Bill would have served as host, so "First Gentleman" might not have been strictly accurate. I would expect the press to use a term like that ("First Husband" is the other option I've heard mentioned). --Tango (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a former president, isn't he is still entitled to be called "Mr. President"? Seems to me that would be the higher and preferred title. - Jmabel | Talk00:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a common instrument at the time of those paintings, is light enough for one person (or angel) to carry, and has an "uplifting" sound. StuRat (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it was a clever case of commodity placement. Harps don't look so light to me, but it has a wing-themed appearance, so maybe there's something in that (until a keen researcher comes by). Julia Rossi (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read our main article Inuit, and some of its internal links and external references? One thing to bear in mind is when and where. If you are talking about the time before the Inuit were absorbed into modern nation states, that is rather a different matter than now. Likewise, be specific about place: in subsistence times, the ecosystem very much affected the livelihood (i.e. hunting), and now, the country of which they are citizens (e.g. Canada or Denmark) has a similar over-arching impact on people's lives. Good luck!
Depends how young you are and how bad the depression is. What do you think a million dollars will but in 20 years time? 40 years? 60 years? Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The probability of your winning a million dollars in a lottery is likely several orders of magnitude greater. Even if you do create a masterpiece, as long as you are alive you can create more thereby increasing the supply and pushing down the price. Hence, your paintings will tend to command the greatest prices after you are dead. Wikiant (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a way of gaming that. What if he created a masterpiece and then broke his hands?
Here's a question : Who is the paying the million dollars to who? Is the money being paid to the artist? Or is the painting being re-sold on secondary market? APL (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a lot of paintings by up-and-coming artists are bought up, since if your paintings are only selling for £2000, you'll need to make a lot of them. You want to be famous first, then start painting (and be very good!). You could of course fake your own death, but a) that would be difficult and b) it would be illegal on grounds of fraud. - Jarry1250(t, c)17:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
