Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fivult (talk | contribs) at 07:20, 27 April 2015 (→God, the Devil, Opposite and Equal: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

  • Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
  • Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
  • Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.


Ready? Ask a new question!


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:


April 22

Maps

Can anyone please point me to a map that meets the following criteria:

  • Shows the area covered by North-East Egypt (at least including Cairo), Israel, Lebanon and South-West Syria (at least including Damascus);
  • Shows the Dead Sea, Sea of Galilee, Jordan river and Suez canal in reasonable detail;
  • Does not have current borders, or the borders are easily removable; showing the 1914 borders would also be acceptable;
  • Preferably has no place names on it;
  • Is under CC-BY or similar license.

I want it to form the basis of a map illustrating various things about the Palestine campaign of WWI. GoldenRing (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maps now in the public domain would also, of course, be useful. GoldenRing (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Middle_East_topographic_map-blank.svg --Jayron32 13:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaraguan civil war

The article on Wikipedia does not seem complete. I was wondering about how the autonomous eastern Caribbean regions (mostly black vs. national majority Mestizo) played during the war? (as an aside, anyone know the name of the casino hotel near Managua airport?)120.62.4.247 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little bit of information at Mosquito Coast#Miskito Under Nicaragua. --Jayron32 15:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the only information I can find at Wikipedia on a Nicaraguan Casino is Pharaoh's Casino. --Jayron32 15:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that's indeed near the Augusto C. Sandino International Airport. Deor (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good critical history or two of early Islam along the lines of Biblical criticism

I've read various books by writers like Geza Vermes who put Jesus's reported and likely sayings into the context of the Judaism of his era, books that explain John the Baptist's ministry, and the fact that he still has his own followers (or did until recently) that view him as their prophet, not Jesus as their messiah. Also there's the notion that Paul created Chritianity by changing Jesus's role from that of a Jewish teacher to savior god synthesized with John's gnostic ideas and pagan myths like the Isis/Osiris Adonis and Tammuz, and speculation that the destruction of the Temple and the end of James' ministry led to the final schism between Jews and Christians with the destruction of the Jewish community of Jesus's followers still in Jerusalem. (This is prolog, not a set of points I'm looking to have debated)

What I'm interested in is a readable scholarly (not sectarian, pro- or con- !) work, or a few, that address the Pagan, Jewish and Christian millieu of pre-Muslim Arabia, the origins of the Kaaba, Khadija's role in Muhammad's ministry, the nature and recording of his utterances from a critical (as in biblical criticism) standpoint, and those of his immediate followers up to the Sunni-Shia split. I am interested in things like the idea that certain Muslim beliefs in regard to Jesus (such as that Jesus was not himself physically crucified, but that it was an image) may originate in no-longer existing Arabian Christian communities. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Arabian religion" article in Encyclopedia Britannica covers at least some of your questions regarding the pre-Islam Arabian polytheists. Also, this page, although obviously 90 years old, deals with some of the issues regarding Christian influence on Muhammad. I do remember reading, that Muhammad had been in contact with Bahira, who was a monk of some Eastern Christian variety, and that his beliefs regarding Jesus do reflect the views of some of the Eastern Christians. Unfortunately, from what I remember reading, the documentary history about early Arabian religion is sparse in the extreme, at least compared to some other similar religions, and the history of Muhammad's early life independent of Islam ain't much better. The Classical Heritage in Islam by Franz Rosenthal deals with the Classical impact on Islam, which is probably at least to close to being the Christian impact, I hope anyway, and Greek and Arabic: Essays on Islamic Philosophy by Richard Walzer does much the same. I don't know if the Britannica article has a bibliography, but the Hastings Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics has a similar article, although it might have some very outdated material, and it does cite some sources. That's all I can think of quickly though. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I contacted my local library, but the reference librarian (with whom I am very familiar) advised me that the local branch only had encyclopedic reference works which she knew would not satisfy me. I m still looking for specific works which people can recommend from experience. (And the last time I saw the Encyclopaedia Britannica in hardcover was in 1986. What I have read are either very sectarian accounts or Will Durant's The Age of Faith which is close to what I am looking for in style, but is about a century out of date, and nowhere near as deep or technical as I'd like. I'll check with the library about the other sources, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long shot, μηδείς, but The Cartoon History of the Universe series by Larry Gonick features very extensive Reference Lists/Bibliographies, which might well include works relevant to your interest: Volume 3 covers the rise of Islam – I have it (and Vols 1 & 2) at home, but I won't be leaving work for at least 6 hours so I can't check it right now.
(Incidentally, I'll also be interested in any suggestions that other editors can give – I've read extensively (at a popular level) around the origins of Judaism and Christianity, but likewise haven't encountered much about Islam.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis and IP 212.95..., there is a lot less critical scholarship on early Islam than on early Christianity because while western Christianity has largely accommodated itself to humanism and the Enlightenment, mainstream Islam largely has not. Therefore, most Islamic scholars do not question religious dogma. Also, those who might want to take a critical approach run a serious risk of being charged with heresy or blasphemy, which can have fatal consequences. That said, you might take a look at the references at the bottom of our article Disputed issues in early Islamic history. When you get hold of the most recent sources listed there, check their references as well. Because your area of interest is so marginalized, you are unlikely to find an authoritative reference and will probably need to read a selection of scholarly papers. Marco polo (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, marco polo, the article historiography of early Islam linked to at the disputes article has proved helpful. I found it odd there wouldn't at least be 20th century English and 19th Century German scholarship on the topics. I have ordered a few titles. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No God but God by Reza Aslan meets at least some of your requirements. --ColinFine (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ColinFine, I have placed it on order. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also two books that may guide you as to what to read:
Abecedare (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

Louis XV of France and George I of Great Britain

Was there any pretense on Louis XV of France's part on the fact that he was technically more related to the deceased Queen Anne than George I of Great Britain being a great-grandson of Charles I of England, albeit a Catholic? Obviously no diplomatic claims but pretenses similar to the British kings' claims to France from the Middle Ages.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're counting degrees of kinship, it's five steps from Anne to either Louis (father-sister-daughter-daughter-son) or George (father-father-sister-daughter-son). —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I have no life, I made a list of the births and deaths of everyone ahead of Louis. From 1715 Mar 22 (death of the Prince of Piedmont) to 1720 Dec 31 (birth of Bonnie Prince Charlie) there were only three; and during his life there were never more than 18. —Tamfang (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should also be noted that the English claims to the French throne were based in large part on treaty and not purely on succession. Following the Treaty of Troyes, the Plantagenet kings of England were recognized as next in line after the death of Charles VI of France, skipping over his own son. The claim was never formally renounced by treaty, though ultimate victory in the Hundred Years War gave the French throne to the Valois for good. The Plantagenet and their heirs continued to claim the Throne of France until 1801. There never was any treaty or statute which established the Bourbons as legitimate heirs to the Throne of Britain. At no time did Louis XV ever press a claim, nor was he ever considered, even in passing, as far as I know. Following the English Civil War, the Restoration, and the Glorious Revolution, the succession to the British throne was decided purely by Parliamentary statute, and no one pretended otherwise. Parliament did use certain traditional principles, such as primogeniture, in deciding the succession, but it was obvious to all they set the rules, and there was zero chance of them offering the throne to a Catholic French king. --Jayron32 12:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three supreme gods

I've noticed that many religions seem to share a trinity. This includes Christianity, hinduism, and taoism. Is there an underlying reason why many religions have three supreme gods? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 01:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Christianity doesn't have three gods, although some version have 3 manifestations of the same God. And I was under the impression that Hindus have many gods. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu "trinity" is referred to as the Trimurti, but it is just one model among many others. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HHinduism has many but there are three main gods — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.208 (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taoism doesn't have any gods. Taoism is merely ancestor worship. There are spirits, but no gods. Some people might interpret them as gods, and if they did, there would be thousands of them. Not three. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 06:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the Three Pure Ones are not gods in what way? Also, the OP didn't say "only three gods," they said "three supreme gods." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on Triple deity.--Shantavira|feed me 07:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rule of three extends to a lot of things. There's just something naturally better about that number, but I can't quite explain what. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
I think part of it in this particular case is that there seems to be some sort of "triple goddess" such as Hekate and the Morrigan at least from the early days of Indo-European religion. That being the case, the concept was likely carried over to all the groups the Indo-European diaspora contacted, and some of them probably adapted the idea into their own systems. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, all stories since the dawn of time have had a beginning, middle and end. ABC is as easy as 1, 2, 3. Works for non-linear things, too. Wherever there's duality (cold/hot, black/white, up/down), there's a point between. That point between is basically humanity; we all view ourselves by looking to either side. "I may not be as strong/rich/smart as Johnny, but at least I'm not as weak/poor/stupid as Janie." So it seems logical that we'd have always ascribed this tendency to higher powers, too.
Less logically, there once was a man who rode a donkey off to see a man God didn't want him to see. So God sent an angel to kill him. The donkey had better vision than the man, and thrice tried to avoid the angel to save the man. And thrice the man beat that donkey to push it forward, as the walls on either side closed in. On the third strike, God let the donkey voice a complaint, and the man essentially said "If I had a sword right now, I'd kill you, you mockful talking ass!" And the donkey said, "I wouldn't kill you."
Of course, that was just the middle part. The rest is less interesting, I find, but still plenty of threes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, April 24, 2015 (UTC)
Fun Fact: There's a goddess named Trivia. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, April 24, 2015 (UTC)

US Civil War

What are 'videttes'? Does it mean a reconnaisance team or something? KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 06:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, see Vedette and also 1st Tennessee & Alabama Independent Vidette Cavalry. Nanonic (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

an icebox in the Andes

Some maps show a rectangle straddling the border of Chile and Argentina, latitude 49°9′30″ – 49°47′22″ south, longitude 72°58′ – 73°37′ west. What is it? —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First idea that comes to mind, although it may have nothing to do with it: a protected national park area? (Torres del Paine National Park) Akseli9 (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article on the Chilean province of Última Esperanza, a section of that boundary is disputed. The rectangle may show the area that is in dispute. Marco polo (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Southern Patagonian Ice Field#Borderline. The area is officially undefined; both countries have never officially ratified the border in that area. --Jayron32 15:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Odd that it's shown as a box rather than two dashed lines (like, say, the northern borders of India). —Tamfang (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The box probably defines the unambiguous territorial claims of each country. Outside the box is land that no one disputes; inside the box is an open question. Such boxes appear on the map in other places where borders are or have been disputed. See Saudi–Iraqi neutral zone and Saudi–Kuwaiti neutral zone and Hala'ib Triangle which are other disputed lands similarly shown. --Jayron32 14:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is box office revenue for a film before interest, overhead, and taxes?

Is box office revenue for a film before interest, overhead, and taxes? For example, if a film made $100 million on ticket sales at movie theatres, does this mean that overhead and taxes are charged on this revenue? WJetChao (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Hollywood accounting may be of interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been a matter of lawsuits when actors or directors have had contracts guaranteeing them a certain amount of the proceeds and then the studio has claimed they actually "lost" money on films that have had scores of millions in ticket sales. I can't think of a specific case at the moment, but I remember this making headlines in the 80's or 90's. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is indeed one of the cases I had in mind, and I know there are more. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Religions/denominations which do not disclose membership statistics/number of adherents

Apart from Christian Science, Christadelphians, and Iglesia ni Cristo, what are other examples of religions or otherwise denominations (I'm interested mainly in Christian ones) which either do not disclose membership statistics or have an official policy of not disclosing them? And among these (apart from Christian Science, which I've already asked about before), what is their reason or possible reason why they do not disclose membership statistics? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ObPersonal, but in my experience (including that of my own spiritual path, Wicca) many religions are not organised in such a way that they could accurately count the number of their adherents with any comprehensiveness. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scientology is a group which has a very broad internal definition of being a follower. Basically anyone who has ever bought a book or attended a meeting is a Scientologist according to the Church of Scientology, which makes me one for having bought a book 30 years ago. I can also imagine that some Chinese religious groups or groups in the territory of other repressive governments will not keep lists, particularly of names, of their followers, for fear of the list falling in the hands of the government. And, obviously, some of the Mormon polygamist sects, some of whose activities are a violation of law, aren't really interested in having their identities made known to the governments whose laws they are breaking.
And the point above is another very good one. For groups which have no really recognized internal structure, which might include a lot of newer groups (like Falun Gong), there won't be any body with the ability to count or disclose membership. Some of the newer Christian evangelical movements I think also are made up of member groups which have no particular obligation to report membership to, or in some cases specific body to report that information to, and on that basis their numbers are unknown. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
212 is right; there are a lot of independent churches such as my own, Berean Baptist Church in Port Charlotte, Florida, or First Baptist in Englewood, Florida so it would be difficult to get an accurate statistic, for example, of how many Baptists there are in the world, or how many Methodists there are in the world. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 19:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly for groups which have a global body which does not include all possible members. The Lutheran World Federation, for instance, does not include the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod or Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, among other bodies, so even it's official membership list, which probably won't include those other groups, will be off because of their lack of inclusion. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention there are a lot of people in the world who would identify as Catholic or Baptist but may have not been to church in a long time. In contrast, there may be people whom are members of more than one church, such as snowbirds who may have a church in one area part of the year and another area another part of the year. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certain individual Christian denominations, with official denominational bodies and other elements of internal structure, still don't or can't release statistics for various reasons. For example, the Church of God of Anderson has no membership (its concept is that salvation makes you a member), so it obviously can't release precise numbers. The intro to our article on it notes that the denomination is happy to estimate the numbers of adherents, but that's quite different from official membership. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought early Christianity operated like that. Adherents used the Ichthys symbol to identify themselves to each other in private. But they tried to avoid being noticed by the Roman (or wherever) authorities, so I doubt they'd have published any demographic data or membership figures, even if they had any. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major-General Sir Frederick Hallett

Can anybody find any details of this person. He was an officer in the British Indian Army and in 1859, was appointed to the Royal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom. That's all I know, otherwise he seems to have fallen through the gaps in the internet. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think that it might be a typo (or another error) in the source. Frederick Hallett isn't named as a member of the Commission in this list, but there is a Major-General Sir Frederick Abbott, formerly of the Indian Army. And indeed he has an article here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well done and many thanks! Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Comcast/TWC merger bombs, good or bad for CCV?

Just heard on Fox News that the merger between Comcast and TWC is not going to go through. Am I alone in thinking this will not be good for Comcast's stock? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 19:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow it for yourself. No significant change yet, perhaps because the news was not totally unexpected. Abecedare (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I do watch it because I own it, but I was more or less curious of what a second opinion would render on this because I bought it when the merger was first announced. Then again, I know that no one here is (acting as) a stock broker or stock market expert. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the current academic consensus is that mergers may boost the stock at announcement, but on average create a negative long-term stockholder value (see eg. [2], [3]) So in general buying a stock at the announcement of a merger, is a bad propositions. Of course there are exceptions and you'll find tons of advisers, consultants, bankers etc arguing that this particular merger that they have engineered falls in that category. Abecedare (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 20:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you imagine how noncompetitive an internet monopoly would be? EllenCT (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Is a first professional degree in Juris Doctor equivalent to an advanced bachelor’s degree?

Juris Doctor is a first professional degree, which explains why it’s not similar to Master’s degree in other disciplines even when they both require the completion of undergraduate coursework. Is first professional degree equivalent to some kind of an advancedItalic text bachelor’s degree? And if yes, does it mean that your undergraduate degree is merely means to get to law school?Rja2015 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, a JD is probably more like a Master's or perhaps Master's Plus degree (that is, between Master's and Doctorate). It is not strictly a terminal degree, but it is also not an undergraduate degree. Legal education in the United States and Law school in the United States covers this a bit. Remember that there's no rule or law requiring a one-to-one correspondence between the certifications in various academic disciplines, and the "Bachelor's-Master's-Doctorate" progression in most academic disciplines does not align well with the Legal and Medical professions, each of which have their own training systems with their own terminology and their own hierarchy. Strictly speaking, there is no undergraduate law degree in the U.S., you get a bachelor's degree in a field related to your desired legal track (i.e. science for patent law, criminal justice for criminal law, accounting for tax law, etc.) and then enter law school. In law school, there would be two tracks: one for professional lawyers, and one for those who wish to study the law academically. For professional lawyers, the J.D. is it. You get your J.D. as the certification that you completed law school. There are no other steps. If you are entering academia, you would get Master of Laws degree or a Doctor of Juridical Science, which are academic and not professional certification. Professional lawyers who wish to become law school professors or legal academics may follow their J.D. (for Academia sake, it would be considered the equivalent of a Master of Laws) and get their Doctor of Juridical Science. --Jayron32 14:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some universities offer undergraduate law degrees – Bob Jones University, to my knowledge. These however are not recognised by the AB as adequate for attempting the bar exam. The Bologna Process (Bachelor, Masters, PhD) is commonest most countries in most subjects. The UK uses it for law: Bachelor's in Law, LPC (equivalent to a masters) and then a two year apprenticeship. The US system is adopted to a lesser extent elsewhere, like Canada & Australia. It has its advantages but it doesn't quite slot into the Bologna Process. Whilst it has its advantages, it's much more expensive and leaves a Bachelor's degree rather underused. 92.8.190.5 (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Further: yes, you could say a JD is nearly equivalent to an advanced Bachelor's Degree. In the UK, some law schools offer a two year, graduate Bachelor's degree for students who have already a bachelor's degree in a different subject. Queen's University, Belfast is a good example. Most students do the Bologna Process - three year Bachelor's, and then a Master's equivalent course. They are then an apprentice lawyer. However, if a student already has a Bachelor's degree in a different subject they can enroll in the Master of Legal Science - the same as a Bachelor's degree in law, except it only takes two years instead of three. It only covers substantive law, not the 'practising' bit that would be covered on the LPC. Queen's University also do a Juris Doctor: a degree in Northern Ireland law, but in the Amercian format. That's like an MSL, then a LPC in one.92.8.190.5 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

transcribing a musical score from hearing only

I have limited musical training but a lifelong love of classical music. Recently I started listening in my car to music on a USB. The piece which is always played first when the USB initializes is Adagio in G minor. I just love it. It's seven minutes long, but most of the time I let it play, even though with some fiddling I could run down the song list and interrupt it.

After a while I started to understand the piece more deeply than other music Ive heard a lot of times. I've very much enjoyed coming to understand the structure, picking out the parts (even the viola) and anticipating the most dramatic parts (like the sudden loud da DUM in the middle).

Though this is a lovely piece of music, it also seems to be relatively simple as far as those things go, in part because it is played by a small ensemble. The question is: What level of skill would a musician have to have to transcribe the score from hearing it only (any number of times)? Would those be skills an undergraduate student might have? (I would think not.) What about an experienced musicologist? Another composer? --Halcatalyst (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's potentially something innate; see the bits about Mozart in Miserere (Allegri). Don't know how much training you'd need if this weren't innate. Nyttend (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Some people are no doubt better at it than others, but transcribing music by ear is a fairly basic part of a musician's training, starting with the aural tests in practical music examinations, which in the early grades ask candidates to sing back a short phrase, leading on to recognition of cadences and other chord sequences, and picking out the lower or iner notes of a chord, or the lower part of a phrase in two voices. Other exams may involve transcribing a phrase after a fixed number of hearings. So transcribing a piece such as the Adagio (often wrongly described as being by Albinoni) is perhaps not as much of a feat as it might seem to a layman: it might be hard to reproduce the exact notes in all parts (cheat sheet here), but a musician knows the "grammar" of the music, and so can pick out things like "that's the first half of a minor scale", or "that's a perfect cadence", and make plausible guesses about what's being played; this can be refined by multiple hearings. I would have thought that an undergraduate of a reasonably academic music course would be able to produce a reasonable approximation. Of course the difficulty depends on the complexity of the music: the Adagio is lightly scored, slow-moving and fairly predictable, which helps a lot. Consider this transcription of Art Tatum's playing: at first sight it seems almost miraculous that someone could work out all the notes that are being played, but to some familiar with the idiom it's more a case of picking out patterns rather than just a series of individual notes. As a vague analogy, consider the difference between copying a text in English as opposed to one in a foreign language that you hardly know: both use the same basic ingredients - the alphabet - but for the English text you see past letters and take in whole words and phrases, and so do the job much more easily. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a skill musicians pick up passively: that is, without being trained specifically to do it. At Grade 4 violin I could name notes like colours. Play a G, I knew it was a G. When I played the wrong scale in an exam, the examiner repeated which scale he originally requested I play and named the incorrect scale I had actually played. Mind you, a musician's training is critical to doing it properly so that for example you can recognise modulations (key changes) and ignore minor details such as trills.92.8.190.5 (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you all. The answer seems to be that regardless of formal education it certainly takes a lot of experience in music and or genius. Thanks especially for the link to the Tatum performance both that an the transcription are amazing. --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New York and Appleton's

I've just created James McFarlane Mathews, but I need help. (1) How do we normally cite Appleton's when it's just part of a work? Here, I just copied the first and third paragraphs from Appleton's, with changes to make it sound like a Wikipedia article, while the second paragraph is adapted from Scouller's Manual, but written in my own words. In my experience, most stuff taken from these old PD encyclopedias is copied wholesale, without substantial additions from other sources, and simply tagged with {{Appletons}}, but that won't work here because I'm using inline citations. (2) Mathews was involved with New York's "Christian union council" and was the chancellor of the University of New York from 1831 to 1839. Do we have articles on either of these? City University of New York wasn't founded until after Mathews was out of office, and I don't know whether the Christian union council were some informal group or a big-name thing that is or was prominent. Nyttend (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "University of New York" can be linked to New York University (NYU), which was known as the University of the City of New York for its first several decades. McFarlane was its first chancellor. It would make sense to add his name and link to his bio from the history section of the article on NYU. See the footnote beneath letter 274 in this source. There is also a reference in this book, authored by Mathews himself. Marco polo (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


April 25

Art object identification

I have exhausted my web search trying to identify a small art object in my possession. I can't work out how to download the 2 images I have to help with this identification so I will describe it and if you think you can help please email me directly and I will send you the images. Or someone can walk me through the process of downloading my 2 jpegs.

The object is small, approximately 85mm long by 60mm wide. It is shaped in a tear drop and is a shallow dish. It is made from a base metal. The dish side is enameled with gold striations. It predates 1945. I know that because it was gifted to me by a German architect who served in Italy during WW2. That is why I think it is from Italy. There is a makers mark on the bottom. I haven't been able to find that mark to verify its origin. The mark is a 'V' 'N' 'F' astride a bar with 3 branches. I have not been able to find anything that resembles this object in any search I have made. If you think you know what it is and what its purpose was I will send you some images to confirm that.

Thanks Jdb3853 (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Lowercased; Baseball Bugs's joke left as-is -- BenRG (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
COULD YOU UPLOAD A PICTURE OF IT, EITHER TO HERE OR TO AN IMAGE-HOSTING SITE? ←BASEBALL BUGS→ 03:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See this tutorial on how to upload images online. As a side note: writing in all capital letters on wikipedia, or anywhere online, is considered equivalent to shouting in real life and therefore rude. Try using normal syntax in future posts. Abecedare (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the sort of dish that housewives put their rings into before doing the washing up. We have an article on Paolo De Poli who copied the far-eastern method of enamel on copper and since much of his designs was manufactured by VNF that probably nails it. --Aspro (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be a spoon rest: [4] ? Those are used to place a stirring spoon, while cooking, when not in use, so as to not get germs from the counter on the spoon, or food on the counter. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have two thoughts, but both rather depend on size of object. The first is a quaich, used in Scotland to taste whisky from. The second is a tea caddy spoon. The first one should be of the order of 3 - 4 inches across, but the second should only be about 2 inches by 1 inch. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is correct. My apologies for the cap letters. My daughter taught me better! These are the direct image links requested. Do they confirm or deny your ideas?

<http://i.imgur.com/ey4UrIB.jpg> <http://i.imgur.com/vHCUkLT.jpg>Jdb3853 (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great images, I'd say that was far too ornate for any kitchenware. It looks like a trinket dish or a pin dish or a bon-bon dish. More interesting is the maker's mark. You didn't mention that below the mark is MAD NJ which seems to put the maker in New Jersey. My suggestion is that you take it to either an antiques shop or an auction house that deals with antiques and seek their advice, but hopefully somebody here will enlighten you. Richard Avery (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try googling "vnf enamel" and you'll see several enamel bowls, which are made in Italy, that are in a silimar style to yours. --TrogWoolley (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "MAD NJ" I read what I assume to be an incomplete stamp saying "MAD(E) IN J(APAN)". That probably means it's not very valuable. (Yes, ancient Japanese artifacts are quite valuable, but more recent trinkets tend to have "MADE IN JAPAN" stamped in English.) As for what it is, looking at the pics I'd guess it's a candy dish. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the other VNF enamelware that I found online was made in Italy, so I suspect that some random scratches are making it look like a "J". But I agree, nothing I have found so far has had a sale price much above USD20. Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about a Japanese rip-off of an Italian original ? StuRat (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dignity, Glory & Honour

Hi there!
What's the difference between dignity, glory and honour?
Thank you for the discussion!
Calviin 19 (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked dictionaries for possible (multiple) translations into your mother tongues (French + German) and read about how some of the concepts behind the words are used in different fields (philosophy, religion, law, everyday speech, ...)? Or could you give some context? Kavod HaBriyot, for example, can mean all three, in a sense. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. I want it in a general sense and in many specific senses. So a dictionnary isn't enough good for that and I don't want any traduction for those words.--Calviin 19 (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Offering many specific senses of a word is what good dictionaries do; have a look at these: glory, honour, dignity. And if you go to a library with an Oxford English Dictionary it will similarly show many senses, along with sample sentences in English. 184.147.117.34 (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheshire and Flintshire historic placenames

Earl of Chester#Revenues lists various manors that contributed to the income of the earldom in 1714. Two I can't identify are "Medywick" (in Cheshire) and "Vayvol" (in Flintshire). Can anyone fill in these gaps? Thanks. (Incidentally, "Colshil" is now a tiny little place on the A548, which doesn't have its own article - it was obviously much more significant 300 years ago). Tevildo (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Cheshire: containing King's Vale-royal entire, Volume 2 by Daniel King, William Smith etc. has a list which has "Farm of the town of Medwick" although I still haven't been able to find it. The same list also has ""Vayvol" which looks like an English version of a Welsh name. No luck with that so far. Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference - both this book and our article cite Dodderidge (1714), and the figures are in agreement, if not the names. I don't suppose "Medwick" might be Middlewich? Etymologically it's reasonable, but it's a rather greater change than the other names in question, especially considering it was "Mildestvich" in the Domesday Book, closer to "Middlewich" than "Medwick" is. I'm sure our combined resources will produce something. Tevildo (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although the linked work is referring to the reign of King Edward III unless I'm reading it incorrectly. Alansplodge (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true - I've fixed the date in the article. Tevildo (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

Lion in symbolism

How come lions survived in art and symbolism, and especially in heraldry, long after lions went extinct in Europe? 76.66.129.129 (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a fierce, impressive animal. It was gone from Europe, but that doesn't mean it disappeared from their memory or from traveler's tales. Unicorns and dragons are also found in art and symbolism - and Europeans saw even fewer of them. Matt Deres (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same with two-headed eagles. Having a national symbol be impressive has always been more important than it being common. For example, Ben Franklin wanted to make the wild turkey the national symbol of the US, because it was more common and not as much of a predator. Fortunately, we got the bald eagle instead, even though there are more in Canada than the US. StuRat (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The many Biblical references to lions may also be a factor. [5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And from the classics - e.g. the Nemean Lion. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't totally gone just because they weren't in mainland Europe. There was a different species, the Asiatic lion in the Middle East at least as late as the age of the crusades, when Europeans would have seen them fairly often. This is the same period where heraldry really developed. (One European even supposedly had a pet lion while on crusade.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India and Mount Everest

Does India have a current claim on Mount Everest? If so, why? Hack (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest is located right on the border between Nepal and China, and that international border passes over the summit. It is a long way from India, and I am unaware of any such claim. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First ascent. India claims Sherpa Tenzing, who made the first ascent in 1953 with Edmund Hillary, was Indian. Akseli9 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was born in British India, which at the time included Nepal, (along with Bhutan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, etc.) Seems like splitting hairs. He was born in, and lived a large part of his life in, and was ethnically, Nepalese. --Jayron32 23:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fighting a border battle on top of the Himalayas could prove entertaining. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was only 14,000 feet. I'm talking about taking the fight to the top of Everest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Engaging in large scale ground combat operations at a 14,000 foot elevation is very, very difficult. I suspect that more soldiers would be lost to pulmonary edema and frostbite than bullets. At 28,000 feet, it is (though I hestitate to use this word) impossible. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Why did the British transport convicts to Australia but not to Canada?

Why did British make Australia as a prison colony and not Canada? Why didn't they transport the convicts to Newfoundland or other places in Canada instead? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think they sent them to the most distant point of the world so they wouldn't return. It would presumably have been far easier for them to arrange transport back from Canada (perhaps as a stowaway) than from Australia. I believe some prisoners were transported to the "colonies" in America, before they had Australia as an option. StuRat (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Think? Presumably? Believe? References are for wimps, apparently. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Canada was already a full-blown colony, see French Canada and Upper Canada and Lower Canada. Besides, it'd've been like threatening someone with the comfy chair. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Transportation to North America occurred for over 150 years before the colonisation of Australia. The article Penal transportation supposes that transportation to North America stopped after the American Revolution because of a fear that transportees might defect. Hack (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we're taught that in America as well, all sorts of disreputable sorts like criminal transportees, Roman Catholics, orphaned indentured servants, the Irish, the Roundheads, the Quakers and debt prisoners. But the whole point is there was no transportation to Australia during that period, so there's no real point in mentioning Canada as some sort of alternative. The loyalists wouldn't have liked it and it would have scared the aristocracy to think they'd lose the rest of NA. As a threat, transportation to North America might have frightened large land owners, to the rest it was a blessing. There are seven times as many Irish in the US than in Ireland, and more Germans and Irish than English. μηδείς (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are seven times as many Plastic Paddies in the US than in Ireland. There are far fewer actual Irish in the US. Contrary to popular belief, just having a vaguely Irish sounding surname, not having Irish citizenship or generally having ever been anywhere near the place, does not qualify you for being called Irish. I wish you Yanks would give up on that nonsense, it's just plainly insulting. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And they transported political prisoners from Canada to Australia, see Upper Canada Rebellion#Consequences: execution or transportation and this. Nanonic (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland did officially send one ship to Newfoundland.[6] The local government wasn't informed that they were on the way and the town was a bit overwhelmed. Nanonic (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be remembered that when the British decided to create a penal settlement in Australia (and later Tasmania) in 1788, there was no European colonization there; in fact no Europeans had visited the place since Captain James Cook had landed at Botany Bay eighteen years earlier. It was a completely crazy plan and it's a wonder that anyone survived the attempt. In contrast, Canada had been settled for almost 200 years by then. Robert Hughes' book The Fatal Shore is highly recommended to understand the whole concept of Australia as a penal colony. --Xuxl (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

God, the Devil, Good and Evil

God and the Devil are not opposites? God and the Devil symbolize and represent good and evil. God is good. The Devil is evil. God symbolizes and represents good. The Devil symbolizes and represents evil. Aren't God and the Devil opposites just as and in the same way as good and evil are opposites?

Fivult (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

God, the Devil, Opposite and Equal

God and the Devil are opposites? In order for two things to be opposites, they must be equal. If they are not equal, then they are not opposites. God and the Devil are not equal. How can God and the Devil be opposites if they are not equal?

Fivult (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=659426738"