Humanities desk
< March 30	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	April 1 >

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.

March 31

Bardi in Hawaii

What were Prince Henry, Count of Bardi and Infanta Adelgundes, Duchess of Guimarães doing in Hawaii in 1889? re there anything written about this visit even if it was a private excursion like in books, diaries or newspapers?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They visited Hawaii while returning home after a two-year trip to Indonesia, according to this. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom troupes

While I was hiking with my friends at Mt. Manalmon here at the Philippines, our guide told us about the bandang gala (literally wandering band). This band will play musical instruments in one part of the dense mountain jungle. When a curious soul attempts to follow where the sound comes from, they would not see the band. Instead, the band will resume playing on another side of the jungle.

Are there any similar mythological creatures in your countries? --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no music involved, but the apparently evasive "behaviour" is somewhat similar to the will-o'-the-wisp. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the leprechaun with the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, which, of course, you can never reach. StuRat (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems that these creatures belongs to the subgroup that wants you to get lost in the forest :)--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allegory of Goodness?

In the article at Dresden one of the photos includes a statue referred to as the "allegory of goodness". I tried a Wikipedia search and it didn't return an article. Who or what is the allegory of goodness? Is it like a Saint? RudolfRed (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, a saint is a real person, who has been elevated to the rank of saint after death (there are other definitions, but I think that's the one you're using here). The Allegory of Goodness sounds like a personification of an intangible quality, not unlike the Statue of Liberty. In other words, not a real person. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some info on the artist, Peter Pöppelmann, and some of his other works: [1]. German Wikipedia has a brief article on him, too: [2]. StuRat (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks. RudolfRed (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have commons:Category:Allegories of virtues... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apartment building called colony in South Asia

Why in South Asia, especially in Bangladesh, they call some apartment buildings "colony"?--Donmust90 (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Well, a colony is a group of organisms working together. This sounds like an optimistic view of the dwellers of an apartment building. StuRat (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, in India the term is used for various levels of administrative districts or geographical subdivisions although usually smaller neighbourhood level and sometimes unofficial ones, often with some degree of shared purpose (e.g. there is at least Air India colony, see for example Santacruz, Mumbai). There is some discussion of the term here [3]. I'm less sure in Bangladesh but even in that case from what I can tell the term isn't generally used for apartment buildings per se, but for a subdivision, such as a group of apartment buildings. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We also have our colonies in Edinburgh. Dalliance (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colonia [something] is also a fairly common name for a housing development or neighborhood in Mexico. -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

different gun control campaign

Shortly after the Columbine High School shooting, there was this gun control campaign. It was called "Butterflies Not Bullets". Many celebrities, including Sting, called for more stricter gun laws. The campaign even sold T-shirts to raise more money for the cause. Is the campaign still in existance? If yes, does it have a website?142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there was such a thing, it didn't have much impact -- a Google search for that phrase shows nothing whatsoever. Looie496 (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where the money raised went. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soapboxing followed by discussion irrelevant to the question

All that gun control money from Bloomberg could save thousands of lives in Africa with polio vaccines and eliminating malaria (way more than the thousands of non suicide homicides from guns in the U.S.), but I guess they don't vote in New York Mayorial Elections. Shadowjams (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although you could make the same argument (that more lives could be saved if the money was spent in Africa) about any domestic charity. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you describe Bloomberg's anti-gun campaign as a charity? μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did. Alansplodge (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most infamous was the Beryl H. Buck will case, where $400 million in 1980s dollars was left to charities in Marin County, California (hardly a high-needs area). We don't seem to have anything about it on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of proper life skills education on women

Have there been any studies measuring the impact of giving proper life skills education to women. I am particularly interested in knowing which (if any) life skills are more important for women then men, and how much is the school education system in India able to impart such skills. Has any study attempted to measure this? Thanks--Shahab (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to list which "life skills" you mean. If you mean education for traditional women's rolls, the most obvious would be child-rearing skills, since almost every society gives that roll primarily to women. So, if women are taught those skills, the next generation should benefit (unfortunately, if child-rearing skills are just passed on from generation to generation, many wont do as well). Or do you mean life skills like handling money and budgets ? StuRat (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the core life skills as per WHO: Decision-making and problem-solving (skills); Creative thinking and critical thinking (skills); communication and interpersonal skills; self-awareness and empathy; and coping with emotions and coping with stress (skills). Now there is no way that these skills can be quantified absolutely, but if they can be measured in some way then the question arises as to what is that way, which of these should be emphasized in women, and whether it is done so. I am searching for studies which answer this question.--Shahab (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean basic education? Well, want a short hypothetical? Let's say you have two identical populations of 1 million people, one population educates and governs everyone equally, the other educates only the men, allows the legal system only for men. The population that educates all million of their population is going to do better than the one that doesn't. At least I think. 2,000+ years of civilization have tended to favor civilizations that let everyone participate... Wikipedia is a brilliant small example of this in practice. Shadowjams (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I mean. I am not even sure whether what you mean by basic education is the same as life skills as defined above as per WHO. I am not talking of reading, writing, arithmetic etc here. And just to clarify even more my question is about what studies have shown that certain (which?) life skills are beneficial for women (individually) in comparison to men.--Shahab (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is not a bad place to search for studies, if you can find the right keywords. Some findings from there - Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India, The Differential Effect of Mothers' Education on Mortality of Boys and Girls in India, Education and Women's Labour Market Outcomes in India, Death Clustering, Mothers' Education and the Determinants of Child Mortality in Rural Punjab, Post-elementary education, poverty and development in India, and Maternal education and the utilization of maternal and child health services in India.

However, it might be better to search the WHO site to find studies that directly address life skills by their definition. I plugged in core life skills women india and got hits like these - Life Skills Education for Children and Adolescents in Schools and Skills for Health. You can also try emailing WHO, though they don't promise to answer :( 184.147.116.201 (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Variations upon variations

I’m not sure whether this question should be posted to the “Entertainment” or “Humanities” desk, but as the question is more about music theory rather than the music itself, I have decided to post here.

I have a few questions about “variations on a theme” in classical music that I hope you can help me with. I have read Variation (music) but am, I’m afraid, non-the-wiser.

1) Is each variation a different variation on the original theme, or a variation on the preceding variation? In practice, would there be any difference? I could imagine that the second scenario, variation on variation, would lead to the Nth variation having little or no resemblance to the original. Is this right?

2) Are both valid scenarios?

3) Could you point me to well-known examples of these two scenarios?

4) Is there different terminology to identify these scenarios?

Many thanks for your help. CoeurDeHamster (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says: ... material is repeated in an altered form. The changes may involve harmony, melody, counterpoint, rhythm, timbre, orchestration or any combination of these. That is, it's possible to vary a theme in many different ways, but it's not possible to utilise all these ways simultaneously, hence a number of different variations are possible, limited only by the imaginations of the composers involved. Each variation takes the original as its starting point and applies some change(s) to it. For two examples of how different composers have varied the same theme, see Caprice No. 24 (Paganini) and Vaterländischer Künstlerverein. I think that might forestall your later questions, but others might have a different view. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it's the first scenario, but to an extent variations are related: they will tend to build towards the climax of the piece. This article seems to suggest something like your second scenario in one example from Schumannn, though without reading the whole paper, I'm unsure how far the progression goes. Henry ^Flower 09:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If my recollection is correct, some of the Goldberg Variations could be seen as modifications of the previous ones, but that's not the usual case. Of course it is always desired to have a nice musical relationship between consecutive variations, but they are commonly more strongly related to the original simple theme than to each other. My favorite sets of variations are movement 2 of Schubert's Death and the Maiden Quartet, and the largo from Beethoven's 7th Symphony. Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to think if any of the Goldberg Variations did that (were modifications of previous ones), but I couldn't see that any really did. There's an overarching pattern that can seem like the variations are "building on each other" (the increasing interval width of the canons, for example). And some of the variations lead one right into the next. And var. 16 is in the style of a two part overture-fugue kind of thing. And there are definitely larger dramatic patterns, such as the increasing virtuosostic (sp?) rush toward the end. But I can't think of any examples where one variation is clearly a modification of a previous one without also fitting into one of the larger overarching structural patterns. I could be wrong through. I'd be curious to learn if such things did exist in the Goldbergs, as I'm quite a fan of them. Pfly (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuosic. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th movement of Beethoven's String Quartet No. 14 is a long theme and variations work. And if I remember right at least some of the variations evolve very smoothly one into the next, with "modifications" such as adding more and more trills and the like. Pfly (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a musical analogy of the mathematical axiom "Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other". Variation B might seem to have grown out of, and therefore related to, Variation A, but it could equally seem to have come directly from the original theme. It's all in the perception. The logical extreme of your 2nd question is that a set of variations each of which is applied to the preceding variation rather than to the original theme (apart from the first variation) will eventually result in a "variation" that has no relationship whatever to the original theme. In which case, it has ceased to be a variation on that theme. I suppose one could take the Moonlight Sonata and, by progressively varying it, turn it into Fur Elise. But that would be in the realm of the musical equivalent of word play, rather than variation per se. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

scenario pertaining to law

Sorry, we don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Say my friend gave me a package allegedly containing "herbs" – which were actually drugs. I didn't know; I wasn't aware about the contents. Does that make me innocent or still guilty? I have heard of such similar cases – they all got executed. Isn't that unfair? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent posts put you firmly in the assumed to be troll category. There's a legal doctrine related to your question though. Shadowjams (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Bonkers wrote Watermelon stereotype around the time (s)he posted another question considered "trolling", I'd reconsider. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, Bonkers... this isn't the place for legal discussions. I'd read up on the laws in your jurisdiction, mens rea, and perhaps Strict liability (not sure if it applies). Our article on Drug possession is useless. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Singaporean laws really regard mens rea when it comes to drug trafficking. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I, considering how they treat spitting. Strict liability would be something to look into... although I hope they still hold to reasonable doubt as a standard of evidence. Any further and you'd have to do your own research... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@shadowjams: How am I a troll? I don't get it dude. I apologise if I actually sound like one; just so to note Im not. Trolls are trolls; clowns are clowns. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I remembere:::d you don't give legal advice. This is a hypothetical question, though. Not that I ever will pedal drugs illegally. Thanks anyway. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pedalling drugs may have a comeback if fuel prices increase, but at the moment you probably not only don't pedal drugs, you also don't peddle them ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bit too close, I think. Especially for Singaporean law, which 99% of editors know little about. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How may a page describing a new philosophy of Arts be submitted, with only a website for reference?

I have developed a new philosophy of art, and wish to prepare a Wikipedia information page.There is a website, but at current time, this is the only outside verifying source...Is this sufficient for an acceptable Wikipage ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.75.225.139 (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. See our guidelines on notability for websites and notability in general. Wikipedia is not a place to talk about brand new things that have received zero independent coverage. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someguy is correct... your new philosophy may be excellent, but you are probably going to have to wait a while before Wikipedia can have an article about it... to qualify for coverage in Wikipedia the subject or topic must first be discussed in reliable sources that are independent of the subject or topic. Also... please note that as the originator of this new philosophy, you do have a conflict of interest. Assuming your philosophy does become notable enough for an article, it would be better to let someone else start the article on your creation. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, along with the page, would be to develop an article and submit it to a journal. Take a look at the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism and the British Journal of Aesthetics, among others. Look at recent papers and see on what people are writing. You can enter the debate by responding to the current topics from your own perspective. For example, in the most recent issue of the Br. J. Aesthetics there is reproduced a symposium on the topic of Catherine Wilson's "Grief and the Poet". The problem being posed is explaining why there is a desire for works of art which raise negative emotions like grief and fear. How does your philosophy answer to these issues, and, more importantly, why is your answer better than others'? That's something you can write on and, if reviewers find it sufficiently interesting, have published. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foreigner baptism in Church of England?

Out of curiosity, may a person travel to England from the U.S. and be baptized in the Church of England? Will the person's new faith cause a perception of a shift of loyalty from the United States to England even though the person is really loyal to Jesus Christ? Is that person still allowed to keep his/her American citizenship, or will that citizenship be revoked because that person is considered an Anglican? Or would the First Amendment of the Constitution grant permission for the person to remain a U.S. citizen, allowing the person to practice his/her faith? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of Anglicans in the US - see Episcopal Church (United States). If you become an Anglican in England, there is no requirement to take any oath of loyalty to the Queen, although you might hear prayers for her continued well being.[4][5] I'm certain that there are no issues that affect US citizenship. The Church of England also accepts those who have been Baptised in other Trinitarian or "mainstream" churches, without the need to be Baptised again.[6] Alansplodge (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you capitalize the 'b' in 'Baptised'? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My only excuse is that the almost obsolete Book of Common Prayer uses capitals for the names of the sacraments in some cases[7] and it feels rather odd to me not to do so. You'll just have to humour me I'm afraid, because I'm not changing now. Alansplodge (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you come up with these rather odd and very complicated ideas yourself, or did some source suggest them to you? Is there some reason why you would think a person could not travel to England, or be baptized while he was there? In whose eyes would there be a "perception of a shift of loyalty"? Is there a church of the United States? By loyalty to Jesus Christ, do you mean Jesus is English? Or a military ally of Great Britain? Or owes fealty to Elizabeth? Are you aware of some procedure by which Americans have their citizenship stripped due to religious affiliation? Does the First Amendment say anything about citizenship? Could you advise us of where these ideas came from so we can examine the source and criticize it directly? μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the OP, if you read that the CofE was the state religion, it might imply that membership of it involved some loyalty to the state, which might not be your own. It wasn't that long ago in the UK and the US that Catholics were suspected of having greater loyalty to the Pope than to their own government; I believe that this issue was raised about JFK.[8] If one wished to become a priest in the Church of England, one would indeed have to swear "the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign and the oath of canonical obedience to the Bishop."[9] Anyway; question asked - question answered - politely and I hope correctly. That's what we're here for, isn't it? Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What type of church would a new Christian choose?

Out of all the Christian denominations, in all places of the world, a Christian is presumably limited to the number of Christian churches in his or her geographical location, politics of the area, and family heritage. So, which church would a Christian newbie choose, provided that each church is allowed to be practiced in a certain area and that the newbie has no Christian ancestors? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question that anyone except the "newbie Christian" could answer. The choice could be predicated on something as simple as "How far do I have to walk to attend a service?" to something as complex as "What are the beliefs and practices of the current Pastor/Reverend/Priest?", and all the places in between. Bielle (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He would choose the one that feels like the right one. That feeling could be based on any number of things, not the least of which is how well he is treated by the congregation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. The decision would probably be 95% based on the attitude of the congregation towards the new Christian and 5% based on the beliefs of the denomination. That being said, at least in America, I'm finding sources that say Mormonism [10] and Seventh-Day Adventism [11] [12] which is interesting since they are both closer to the fringe of Christianity. Ryan Vesey 22:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. The only atheist I know that decided to find a religion settled on Mormonism for some reason. I never really talked to her much about why. It would be interesting to know why it draws more new people. 38.111.64.107 (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there reason to think it's anything other than Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses having aggressive proselytising tactics which target people who aren't actively looking for faith? 86.161.209.128 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your question means in that form. Surely in most cases someone would be attracted towards Christianity by having friends who were Christian or reading books or articles written by Christians, and therefore one would be likely to give first consideration to the denominations which the friends belong to, or which the authors belong to. Don't think it's too common for someone to self-convert to Christianity by pure cogitation in isolation from any surrounding social ties or intellectual context... AnonMoos (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, people who convert to Christianity as adults do so after talking/meeting/etc. with someone who already was a Christian, and it's natural for someone in that position to go to the same church as the "established" person. Think of it this way — your religious beliefs have changed to those of the "established" person; you're not very likely to say immediately "Your church has the basics right, but you misunderstand A and B and C, unlike that church over there". You may do that later, but you're not a new convert then. Sometimes people do convert after reading the Bible on their own or after doing something else without direct input from someone else, but that's much rarer; for those people, Bielle's answer is spot on. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Van Asten

GVA wrote three Arthurian type fantasy novels which I very much enjoyed in my teenage years.

The Blind Knight (1988)

Charlemagne's Champion (1990)

The Dark Sword's Lover (1990)

These appear to be her only books. Having recently rediscovered them, I've been searching for information on the author without success. I'd be interested in any scraps out there. Dalliance (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]