Humanities desk
< October 29	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 30

does everyone hear the days music while going to sleep

as youre going to sleep does the symphony you heard that day play itself to you in your head distinctly - not that i would confuse it with real sounds, i know its in my 'minds ear' - or is it just me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.111 (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to a symphony every day is not normal, and suggests you're deeply involved in music, which makes it less peculiar that you should hear music as you drop off to sleep. A musician I know has composed songs in his sleep, which he says is aggravating because he feels obliged to wake up and write them down. 81.131.63.58 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear music all the time. I place it as a side-effect of being a stage actor at a young age. I quickly learned the skill of being to recall anything that I hear for a rather long period of time. To this day, I can listen to people talk and then repeat everything said just by playing it back in my head. Music is the same - except that it sticks with me. I can play back songs in my head very easily, but I cannot stop it. Right now, the theme to the Late Late Show is playing on repeat. -- kainaw ™ 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not hear music in my head almost ever. Occasionally an odd earworm, but certainly not every night. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... Some people have similar traits and others don't. I wonder if we have a template answer for "Some people are like you and some are not. Some people agree with you and others do not. Some people like you and others do not. etc..." -- kainaw ™ 02:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you wrote a second sentence, Mr.98. Your first one bamboozled the heck out of me. It almost reminded me of Hans Richter's Up with your damned nonsense will I put twice, or perhaps once, but sometimes always, by God, never. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

That's a good question. I had a very similar one actually: whether most people can play at will music they heard before in their head or that only those who have a kind of musical talent can do it. --Gilisa (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can't play the violin, you won't be able to play the piece of music on the violin. I'm not sure I understand your question. 86.139.237.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I've noticed that when I'm awake but dead tired, I can hear complex music (like a symphony) in my mind's ear much more vividly than when I'm wide awake. It's not music that I heard that day and it's not stuck in my head, it's just ordinary song recall but with higher-fidelity instruments. Is that what you're talking about? -- BenRG (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well-and the neurophysiological basis for that was not well studied yet.--Gilisa (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Listening to a symphony every day is not normal" - speak for yourself, Barbarian! ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schulz, do you have any idea what is the specific complexity of the music that BenRG hearing in his head?--Gilisa (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean specified complexity? Sorry, that is complex, but unspecified. Also, I don't know what BenRG is hearing. But according to Leonard Bernstein, Beethoven's symphonies have the property that "the next note is the one you would least expect (but that afterwards seems to be the only possible choice)". So we can give a lower estimate of the Shannon information of a Beethoven symphony. Since there are 12 half tones, the least expected one must have a probability of no more than 1/12, which gives us at least 3.58 bits/note. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may hijack this thread to take it in a somewhat different direction: I've noticed that in the presence of a rather loud and monotonous noise (when riding in a small boat with an outboard motor, for instance), I often start to "hear" music within the noise—yes, sometimes whole symphonies or other complex pieces. This is more inescapable and "real" than an everyday earworm or imagined song in one's head; it approaches being an actual auditory hallucination. Is there a name for the phenomenon? A neurological explanation? Deor (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deor: unless the music is so distracting that you're unable to concentrate, I think the formal name for the phenomenon is "good imagination." But if it is causing you trouble, then you might want to have an ear doctor or a psychiatrist check you out for Musical ear syndrome, which I believe can happen if you have too much exposure to ear-damaging noises like outboard motors. --M @r ē ino 16:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deor: contrary to M@rēino, this is a recognised and normal phenomenon, but I can't for the moment recall where I've read about it or what it's called. Roughly, when you hear broad-spectrum (approaching "white") noise with some slight 'structure' your brain tries to make more sense of it than it contains, and you perceive the result as music - I've experienced it when riding in a noisy coach at speed, and in bed at night when I can just perceive some faint constant noise like distant motorway traffic, a fridge motor downstairs or the like. A similar phenomenon may be experienced visually, especially if driving at night while tired, when a barely-seen roadside object such as a pillar box is momentarily perceived as a person, including detailed features like sex, age, clothing and even demeanor. Such visual 'false positives' are understandable as a legacy of millions of years of evolution during which mistaking a pattern of shadows as a leopard many times cost little, while mistaking a leopard for a pattern of shadows just once would be fatal. The auditory musical equivalent is a little harder to unpack. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a slightly different direction again: I don't usually hear music when I'm going to sleep. But I almost always hear music in my head when I wake up. This has been happening for as long as I can remember. As often as not, it comes from I know not where and has nothing to do with my external life. This morning, it was a recurring passage from Granados's Valses Poeticos, a piece I know and love, but which I haven't heard for months and about which I haven't been having any conscious thoughts lately. Maybe I should start cataloguing my "morning mental music". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I can remember, I've had a constant musical 'jukebox' playing in my head. I never confuse it with 'real' music heard with my ears, but it's there all the time. I can skip to a particular piece of music if I want, or a relevant piece is chosen without conscious thought. One sibling has the same thing, so I know it's not just me, but I'm aware that people who don't experience it think it's a bit weird. Siblings are useful for "it's not just me" moments. 86.139.237.128 (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deor, there's is a bunch of stuff on this general topic in Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain. White noise or the like seems to be a great way for the brain to start imagining, even hallucinating sounds. Count yourself lucky if you hear symphonies. When I am around white noise the sounds of babies and toddlers crying arises, to the point where I am unsure whether it is real or not. Pfly (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to read that. I read Sacks's wife/hat book and liked it a lot but haven't bothered to keep up with his work. Deor (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sweet Trinity

In the ballad The Sweet Trinity why is the body of water referred to as a "lowland sea?" Is this a body of water below sea level? Bus stop (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lowlands is a region of Virginia. Similarly, lowcountry is a region of South Carolina. -- kainaw ™ 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, kainaw. What would be referred to, the Atlantic Ocean off of the coast of these states? I am thinking that perhaps it is a poetic and grim reference to drowning, and not to any particular, actual body of water. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest version (Child 286A; see the first external link in our article) seems to use "Neatherlands" and "Low-lands" as synonymous—as indeed they roughly are—so one might assume that in that version the ship was imagined as sailing in the seas off Holland when it had its distressing encounter. What, if anything, was pictured by the singers or composers of various variants of the song, by no means all of which mention a "lowland sea", is perhaps an unanswerable question. John Jacob Niles's comments may be of interest. Deor (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All very thought provoking. And it got me to this. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Finance Question

In case of shortage in working capital,as an adviser to the company what factors would you consider in advising whether to sell its assets or use them as collateral to acquire loan to solve shortageSolit (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the company will have future need of the assets? Whether they are core to the company's business or represent a side-project (e.g. property which is rented without being directly used in the business)? Whether anyone will lend money, and at what sort of rates, and how much they'll lend against the assets? Whether the company is better off reducing in size (due to falling markets, recession, etc) or continuing as before? This is a vague question and would be different for each business. --Lesleyhood (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would calculate the Net present value of each choice. 92.24.25.252 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also recommend that the advisers do their own homework. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16th century units of length in Venice

Hi - finding it strangely difficult to find what the Italian equivalents of feet and inches were in 1580. Can anyone help? Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] --151.51.28.42 (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I don't read Italian - the google translator's not helping either. Is there an equivalent in English? Adambrowne666 (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says a "Venetian foot" is 12 inches or 0.347735 metres (or 34.7 centimetres), although the Italian Wikipedia says "once" is ounce, not inch, which is "pollice". But assuming it is "inch", then an inch is "12 lines" or 0.028978 metres (or 2.89 centimetres). So they were a little bigger than today; I think a modern foot is about 30 centimetres, and an inch is 2.54 centimetres. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need to read Italian to follow that page -- it gives you the names of the units, and their equivalents in metric. You would only need to know Italian if you wanted to translate the names into English and say things like "Venetian foot". As to "ounce" and "inch", both English words are derived from the Latin "uncia" meaning 1/12, corresponding to 1/12 of a foot or a pound (the pound-size measure in ancient Rome was divided into 12ths, not 16ths, as in troy weight). --Anonymous, 19:26 UTC, October 31, 2009.

Docetism

As a Christian I am having trouble understanding docetism. Can someone explain this term further in simple English and that of John 1:14?--LordGorval (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to mainline Christianity, almost since the very first days, one of the central tenets has been that Jesus Christ was fully human. He had a real body and a real mind and experienced emotion and pain and all the things that a real human does. Docetism states that this is wrong; and that Jesus Christ had no real body, but that interactions people had with him were an illusion. The first chapter of the Gospel of John explains the relationship of Jesus with God and with Man; "The Word" is Jesus Christ, so it says both "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning" (John 1:1-2, NIV) which says that Jesus is God, and has been so since the Beginning (i.e. Genesis and Creation) and John 1:14 establishes the other part of Jesus's character, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." That is, God became human, and that human is Jesus. Docetism was one of the tenets of Gnosticism, and early version of Christianity that had a lot of complex differences from the version that became "mainline Christianity.", and has for a long time considered heretical. --Jayron32 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be relevant here that docetism became a popular variant of Christianity about 30 years before the Gospel of John had been written - and that Biblical inerrancy is a fairly recent concept (heck, the Bible is a recent concept compared to docetism), so early Christians would not perceive the conflict with any of our current books of the Bible much of a problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, Stephan, but I thought I should note that what Stephan is saying may well be accurate, but I think it should be phrased more as an opinion. Whether or not docetism was really "popular" 30 years before the writing of John's gospel (as well as the exact date of John's writing, for that matter) is a matter of scholarly dispute, as the records are not conclusive. And frankly, while Stephan is 100% right about inerrancy's recent emergence, I'd say you're almost 100% wrong to suggest that the inconsistency of docetism and the gospel of John wouldn't have been seen as a problem in early Christianity (although your phrasing there was a little hard for me to follow--perhaps you were making a different point?). After all, much of the writings of early Christian figures denounce "heresies" (including docetism), and the phrasing of the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed are chosen carefully to reject certain ideas about the nature of Jesus. Stephan's larger point (that early Christians would have a very different view of "scripture" and what it means than modern Christians often do) is, I think, indisputably accurate. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. But the Nicene creed dates to 325, nearly 10 generations after docetism became popular, and 150 years after it lost much of its appeal. And some scholars even claim that one of the purposes of the Gospel of John was to counter docetism and related beliefs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair points: John may very well have served that purpose (it strikes me as very reasonable, at least). And your point about the Creed is well taken--I probably shouldn't have used it as an example. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Avatar. Doecitism is the belief that Jesus was (merely?) an avatar of The Almighty. It's the opposite of Arianism, the belief that Jesus was (merely?) a human inspired by God's Spirit. Tevildo (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arianism does/did not claim that Jesus was "merely a human". It only sees Jesus as "begotten" (i.e. created at some time, not forever coexisting with the father), not of the same substance as the father, and subordinate to him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thoughts from each of you all. I am considering what you all said and am looking at a comparison of early English versions. The earliest I see the name "Jesus Christ" (whatever spelling) in John 1 is in verse 17. I see in the Tyndale version (1526), as well as later versions, it refers to "word" as "it", for example: ....we saw the glory of it... It makes me wonder if in fact all that was really meant was that of the spoken word and nothing else. Interesting new word of "avatar" that I have not heard of before. In my Random House Dictionary it says the definition is an enbodiment or personification, as of a principle, attitude, or view of life. Arianism is defined as the doctrine, taught by Arius, that Christ the Son was not consubstantial with God the Father. Not in any of these verses do I see that Jesus is "human" or was made "human." In verse 17 I see but grace and truthe is made by Iesus Christ... and ...but grace and truthe came by Iesus Christ. So I guess what I am saying is that something close to what User:Stephan Schulz said of "begotten" is something created at some point. Also User:Tevildo points out that doecitism is the belief that Jesus was an avatar of the Almighty. Perhaps then Jesus could be an embodiment of the ultimate moral life ("The Almighty") - a principle and view of life, not necessarily an actual human being, but instead an attitude of a view of life. Where does it say Jesus is a "human being" in the Gospel of John? .....or in any Gospel?--LordGorval (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read John 1 in context, it's clear (well, as clear as 1900 year old Greek texts with multiple levels of copying and translations get) that it all refers to Jesus, i.e. Jesus is the word that has become flesh. At least that is the interpretation that mainstream Christianity has given this text. The official line is that Jesus is both fully man and fully god, i.e. that his human body was real, not just an illusion (as docetism claims). See trinity. Note that these details have been the cause of violent riot, anathemas, murder, the major schism of the Church (see Filioque), and general mayhem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear to me. Who's "official line" are we talking about? I have read over the Gospel of John as well as all the other Gospels for several decades - and at this point I am convinced more than ever that the name "Jesus" was not meant to be interpreted as a person in the flesh, however just the spoken word of a concept related to morals. Keep in mind that us "humans" have been given this item called common sense and it tells me that "Jesus is the word that has become flesh" doesn't make sense. I do believe you went around my question, so I'll repeat it: Where does it say Jesus is a "human being" in the Gospel of John? Please give me the exact verses - you know, references like Wikipedia requires - none of this ...interpretation that mainstream Christianity has given... That sounds like this term called original research that I thought we were to stay away from.--LordGorval (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what you are doing (reading and interpreting an ancient primary source) is original research. But that's fine. We're not working on an article. See below for a more concrete answer to your question. I have no personal preference for one interpretation or the other - all I can do is tell you how things have been interpreted historically (or rather, a small part of that - I'm no expert, and not even much of an amateur on early Christianity). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best place on Wikipedia to read about "the Word" is probably the article Logos, which discusses the Greek word the author of John actually used. There you will see some of the connotations the word Logos has/had, which might help you understand what was meant. Outside of this case, Logos is not usually translated as word.

As to the humanity of Jesus, I don't think any of the Gospels straight-out say "Jesus was a man", although it is implied: you can see one person's summary of the relevant parts of the Gospels here. It is made more explicit in other books in the New Testament: for example, you can read the second chapter of the letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 2) here (New International Version). Read from verse 5 and find such as "he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death". Whether you consider other Christian writings from the 1st century AD that found their way into the Bible as meaningful as you find the Gospels is up to you. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional scriptures for reference. Each of us have a different take as to what they mean. I take JESUS to have a meaning of morality, not as a flesh-and-blood person. The parts you mention as to being an implication of a real live person, I take as a form of morality.--LordGorval (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary books

Hi : ) I'm really just curious and anyone can interpret this question however they want, but what books written since the 1980s and up do you feel have importance in the literary world? I mean what novels written do you think would provoke meaningful conversations in an English classroom. I've come up with The Things They Carried and American Psycho, which are just two I've discussed in my own classes. Thanks! ?EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 14:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A brief perusing of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction brings up a lot of great books: The Road, Middlesex, Gilead, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay (one of my personal favorites), Beloved, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Library 100 Best Novels includes Midnight's Children from 1980 and Ironweed from 1983, and, from the readers' list, the following:

Battlefield Earth
Moonheart
The Hunt for Red October
Mythago Wood
Mission Earth
Mulengro: A Romany Tale
Ender's Game
Blood Meridian
The Handmaid's Tale
IT
Yarrow
Beloved
The Satanic Verses
Greenmantle (which, I must confess, I've never heard of)
A Prayer for Owen Meany
The Little Country
Guilty Pleasures
The Cunning Man
Memory and Dream
The Wood Wife
Suttree
Trader
Someplace to be Flying

I noticed a lot of Charles de Lint and L. Ron Hubbard in the readers' selections, as well as quite a lot of science fiction/fantasy/horror, which is not represented in the editors' list. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Pulitzer, you might like to look at winners of the Man Booker Prize. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to get all elitist about it, but 'readers choice' is not likely to yield 'important' books, as most people vote for the books they like, whatever the supposed criteria of the choice is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then they would be important for being popular, and probably influential because of that. —Akrabbim^talk

The difficulty with such selections is that we have no way of knowing how large the sample of 'voters' was (possibly too small to have statistical validity), whether or not they form a truly representative cross-section of the reading public (unlikely, since to begin with they're probably self-selected out of an already unusual group), and whether or not an organised campaign may have skewed the results towards, as a purely hypothetical example [;-)], a particular writer with a cult following. My personal take on that list is that, speaking as an SF/Fantasy fan myself, it seems markedly skewed towards SF/F texts, a couple of which are poorly regarded even by most SF/F fans (ObPersonal, but based on 35 years in the Fannish community). A more truly representative survey would be more likely to have been conducted by a professional survey company on commission from a major periodical or similar institution. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the authors of the books listed above, I would probably say that the list above at least gets some partially right. I would expect that Ender's Game would be counted as the most significant Sci-Fi book of the past 30 years, if I had to choose ONE Sci-Fi book in this time frame, that would be it. Likewise, I see a few Stephen King books up there; the only one of his to have the sort of "literary impact" beyond popular literature may be The Stand, though it may just miss the 1980's. Certainly John Irving should be on any such list, and A Prayer for Owen Meany is a good one, though The Cider House Rules would be equally a good choice. Toni Morrison's Beloved and Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses are also good calls. Other authors one could mine for good books since this time may include Tom Wolfe or another member of the New Journalism school. The Right Stuff and Bonfire of the Vanities could likely be classics. Lots of John Updike's work comes earlier than this, but The Witches of Eastwick fits the timeframe nicely. If one would extend the list beyond novels to playwrights, David Mamet likely will have produced some classics, Glengarry Glen Ross for one. --Jayron32 19:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course it is worth pointing out (as should be somewhat obvious), that "impact" is a hard thing to guess, and authors that are considered "critically important" today may be of little impact in 100 years, whereas authors of "popular" works may have had their critical standing revised once they are no longer seen as "genre" writers (I suspect Stephen King will probably be given higher standing as a "writer" some decades after he has passed away). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Stephen King? That wouldn't have been my suspicion. :-)Bielle (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give it 100 years, people will find him quaint and take him as a seminal writer of our day. Perish the thought, I know... but stranger things have happened. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen King had a big influence simply through his sales/popularity. Carrie (novel) really grabbed attention, and had an impact on the way publishers sell books now. Selling over a million copies in paperback the first year, for a first-time author, was very impressive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English (translated by the author in a couple of cases), and part of the "literary" world - Lanark: A Life in Four Books, Earthly Powers, Monsignor Quixote, Disgrace, Ill Seen Ill Said, Against the Day, Cocaine Nights, Wizard of the Crow, Cloud Atlas (novel), The Wasp Factory, The English Patient, anything by Kazuo Ishiguro, The New York Trilogy, Remembering Babylon, Infinite Jest, Mason & Dixon, The Crimson Petal and the White, The Human Stain, A Suitable Boy, Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit, White Noise (novel), The Book of Evidence, The Corrections, Blood Meridian, Money (novel) and, one would assume, The Original of Laura. I haven't heard of half the novels in that readers' list. Declan Clam (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can never predict these things, though, so who knows. Stephen King, JK Rowling, JRR Tolkien (as a novelist, not a linguist) could be like Trollope is today (that is, mostly unread), or maybe not. How many people read Henry James nowadays - but how many HG Wells or Jules Verne? Here's a sample list, anyhow: Gabriel Garcia Marquez (One Hundred Years of Solitude), Toni Morrison (Beloved)), Phillip Roth (American Pastoral), Cormac McCarthy (Blood Meridian), Thomas Pynchon (The Crying of Lot 49), Don DeLillo (White Noise), David Foster Wallace (Infinite Jest), Tim O'Brien (In the Lake of the Woods), Milan Kundera (The Book of Laughter and Forgetting), Salman Rushdie (Midnight's Children), Jose Saramago (Blindness), Marilynne Robinson (Gilead), John Updike (Rabbit Run), Margaret Atwood (The Blind Assassin), Kazuo Ishiguro (Never Let Me Go). That's pretty heavily weighted toward English language, but still. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

color or non-standard black peoples marry whites

For Asian i notice ther is two types stnadad asian and white marry and US BOrn Asians and whites for US Born Asian man to marry white women actually accounts 40% What about for color not fully standard black to marry white, would it be higher for black women to marry white man? Becasue data show for black man to marry white is 71% for standad blacks then what about for non-standard black women to marry a white man. Could it be up to 40%?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article Interracial marriage in the United States may have the statistics that you're looking for. Two things worth pointing out: (1) Even in the United States, same-race marriages are still more common than mixed-race marriages, but the numbers are changing quickly in recent years. (2) Americans don't refer to any people or racial groupings as "standard" -- I think the word you want might be "common" or "prevalent". The word "standard" is misleading because it suggests some sort of official approval. --M @r ē ino 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art print wanted

Why can't I find a print of That Which I Should Have Done I Did Not Do by Ivan Albright anywhere? Mike R (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want a print, for sale, or just an image? The image is at http://www.tfaoi.com/newsmu/nmus40a.htm. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to buy or receive free of charge a legal poster-sized print of the work to display in my home. I hope that clarifies. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link [[2]] is from the Art Institute of Chicago, which owns the painting. It has the history of ownership and printing, which doesn't list printing as a poster, so it has probably never been produced as a poster. There's nothing listed in the Museum Shop. An email enquiry to the Museum might be able to elicit an answer as to the possibility of it being printed. Steewi (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Marx show high regard for India's past?

Marx's contempt for India is rather famous. "I share not the opinion of those who believe in a golden age of Hindostan...". However, I read in a book a quote attributed to Marx which basically says that "We Europeans owe our language and religion to India". The writer doesn't specify the sourced work. Did Marx anywhere in his works express high regard thus for India's past? --Advaidavaark (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Marx had a dim view of religion, I doubt that he said this, and if he did, it would not necessarily indicate high regard for India's past. Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had the original quote, it would not be hard to trace, if it was from Marx or not. In any case, Marx generally thought that India and the rest of Asia were notable for being the subject of Western imperialism, being fairly backwards, and for their own brand of Oriental despotism that kept it from advancing through the various historical stages he felt were inevitable. Considering he thought that Asia had in general "fell asleep in history", it is hard to hold that he really had a high regard for its past. If he did say that particular quote, it is one thing, out of context. In his general analysis, Asia in general, and India lumped in with it, do not constitute much of what I would consider "high regard". Perhaps there are those better schooled in Marx on here though that can give more information on this. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote seems to be from The Future Results of British Rule in India: "...we may safely expect to see, at a more or less remote period, the regeneration of that great and interesting country [India], whose gentle natives are, to use the expression of Prince Soltykov, even in the most inferior classes, "plus fins et plus adroits que les Italiens" [more subtle and adroit than the Italians], whose submission even is counterbalanced by a certain calm nobility, who, notwithstanding their natural langor, have astonished the British officers by their bravery, whose country has been the source of our languages, our religions, and who represent the type of the ancient German in the Jat, and the type of the ancient Greek in the Brahmin." In the same document, he states "Arabs, Turks, Tartars, Moguls, who had successively overrun India, soon became Hindooized, the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal law of history, conquered themselves by the superior civilization of their subjects". This all looks quite genuine; he had a high regard for India's history in many respects, but did believe that, along with much of Asia, it had failed to progress through the economic stages which he saw in much of Europe and regarded as broadly progressive. Warofdreams talk 14:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did 'fell asleep in history' mean? To mean it would seem to imply he thought Asia had fallen asleep a while ago (i.e. historically) and therefore had not well advanced since then. Therefore it's possible/likely he felt Asia had been advanced before then otherwise they would have been always sleeping as opposed to falling asleep Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's a fair summary. Basically, his claim was that it had become stuck in what he described as the Asiatic mode of production - initially, this represented a major advance on previous modes of production, but most areas of Europe had moved through the Antique and feudal modes, and were reaching the capitalist mode of production. The summary under mode of production might be a more useful introduction than our actual article on the Asiatic mode, although that gives more detail on the ways in which the concept is controversial. Warofdreams talk 14:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sainthood of Edward the Martyr

Why was Edward the Martyr canonized, and is he the patron saint of anything? --99.251.239.89 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Catholic saints were not necessarily canonized "for" anything; it's sort of a posthumous "lifetime achievement award" for good Christians. Among his acts which may have led to canonization was his support of Benedictine monestaries; the Wikipedia article on him notes that he seized land from nobles in order to establish several monestaries; as such he could be seen as a keen supporter of Christianity. Furthermore, in the late 10th century, Christianity was not firmly entrenched in society. I'm pretty certain that his own mother, Ælfthryth, was not herself a Christian, and she has by some accounts been implicated in his death. The article does have several details on his involvement in the Church, so you can likely decide for yourself why he was so honored. --Jayron32 20:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canonisation may be of interest Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the gentleman in question, but knowing his name would be enough to give me a good guess at why he was canonized. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Penguin Book of Saints says of him "He had not in fact died for religion, and he provides a good example of the honour due to a martyr being given to one who simply suffered an unjust death." He doesn't seem to be the patron of anything and he isn't even patron of a City of London church - the place is packed with churches named after Saxon saints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 00:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]