Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 12

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.

April 12

Witchcraft

After i read this article. I think this article has a vague description about history of witchcraft. Like when the word "witch" was first mentioned? Since when people started to think bad things about witch? Since when people started to think witch associated with devil? What was the original reasons for that? It wouldn't make any sense that suddenly people started to think "witch" is anti-Christianity. I think the article is missing a major info about witch. Well I posted here for 2 reasons. Part of it is i also curious about the answers i asked above. And part of it is perhaps someone with better knowledge about witch can improve the article to satisfy more readers.65.128.159.236 (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want some good books, start with John Putnam Demos who is a bit of an expert on the topic, I've read his book Entertaining Satan which was about the witchcraft scare in 17th century New England, but he's also written several other books, which cover the topic in other eras and locations. --Jayron32 02:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Current reasoning against wiccan witchcraft from a Christian view point would include that it is in direct opposition to Christianity by surplanting dependence on the Christian God with dependence on Mother Earth. It is equivalent to worshiping the creation over the Creator. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The OED says the Old English form "wicca"/"wicce" has its first use for a man c.890 AD and for a woman c.1000 AD; in other words a very old word in English. "wicche" is used for a man c.1225 "Ich hit am þat spec þurh simunes muð þe wicche" (Juliana) and for a woman "wychche" in 1290 AD "Faste ȝe schulle þe wychche binde,‥And smitez of hire heued a-non" (St Kath). If you look at the article witchcraft and related articles like European witchcraft and Witch trials in the Early Modern period have a lot of information on the persecution of witches: Charlemagne called for witches to be executed in 789 (he obviously wasn't speaking English); the Canon Episcopi of circa 900 AD said witchcraft was heretical; but at the time church authorities were more interested in combatting heresy than witches; but fear of witches began in the 14th century and grew worse in the 15th. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the article, and it's quite well written: perhaps the OED dates given by Colapeninsula could be included. However, it's possible that the language used is at a high level and people without a grasp of English at that level may not find what they are looking for. So maybe Colapeninsula's information could go some way to answering the OP's question. ISTR there's a simple English version of Wikipedia? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, here it is [1]. The witchcraft article is here but it's not very good. --Viennese Waltz 08:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that the term "hag" and its Old English predecessor "hægtesse" also means "witch", and that the concept of a witch or hag, meaning a person with strange powers or a supernatural being, goes way back into prehistory. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the English word "witch" or the concept? The Old Testament speaks about it, and even the keenest bible critic would acknowledge it's a pretty old source. --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is necessary to appreciate that witchcraft and precognition are synonymous in order to understand either, yet original research in this direction is both unwise and unethical... Wnt (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

what generic alternatives are there to the Nikon rear cap type F?

I bought an old vintage Nikkor-S.C. 50 mm f/1.4 (for only 70 dollars!) but it didn't come with a rear lens cap. There are a lot of 52 mm front lens caps, but are rear caps more specialised for a particular type of lens? There's an "original and genuine" rear lens cap for the lens that's selling on Ebay for $16, but I'd prefer to have a cheap Chinese generic. 216.197.66.61 (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the mount is a standard fitting, any rear lens cap for the mount should work. I've used generic lens caps with other cameras and never had a problem. You should be able to find something on EBay very quickly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If the OP can physically visit any camera shop/store that sells second hand equipment (probably the large majority of them), most have a basket or bin of assorted second hand items such as lens caps that are generally very cheap. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.34 (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Graduate unemployment

This article is entirely about China. I would like to know some information about the UK and US. Specifically

1. percentage of unemployed with PhDs
2. which PhD subjects are common among unemployed people?
3. which master's degree holders have highest unemployment rate? I've heard degrees in women's studies, literary criticism, folklore, sociology, popular culture studies, etc. are common among graduate unemployed people. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You might want to specify whether you mean people who can't get a job in their chosen field, or those who can't get any job at all. StuRat (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The first one, people who can't get a job in their chosen field. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of an unfair comparison: how can you say when philosophers are not employed in their field? A philosopher could become many things, and claim that there is a relationship to his academic field. 186.206.247.208 (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by philosopher? A degree in philosophy does not make one philosopher. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, like a degree in woman studies does not make you a woman. Anyway, officially a degree allows you to call yourself what this degree states that you are. MangoNr1 (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any degree that says you "are" something. They generally use language like "has attained ..." or "has met the requirements of ...". All you "are" by virtue of a degree is is a Bachelor/Master/Doctor of whatever. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, what I said is just the way of expression. In Germany, at least, you normally can call yourself whatever you want: philosopher, journalist, you name it (there are some restrictions). Protected are the degrees: Dipl. Philo. and so on. That doesn't mean that if you have a degree in philosophy, you won't be called a philosopher and call yourself a philosopher, even if some people might dispute your level. MangoNr1 (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Doctrines or beliefs unique to the Jehovah's Witnesses

Which beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses are unique to them alone and are not supported/followed by other groups, whether Christian or not? I think their stake hypothesis (where they believe that Jesus was executed on a torture stake) is unique to them, but what about their other beliefs? Are there any other groups, Christian or not, religious or not, who believe that, for example, having blood transfusions is considered eating blood? This would exclude their governing structure, since governing structures of different Christian groups would differ from denomination to denomination. I did read the article on their beliefs and practices, but it was not implied which ones were unique to them or not. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, their insistence that "Jehovah" is the actual name of God is pretty much unique, as it's been debunked by Biblical scholars. Their refusal to serve their country, in any way shape or form, is rather unique by today's standards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's rather unfortunate that the JW's latched on to a form of the Tetragrammaton which was already known by competent scholars to be incorrect at the time they adopted it -- however, the JW's have the excuse that "Jehovah" was very mainstream among Christians from the 16th century to the early 20th century (with a number of uses continuing by inertia even today). Another group, the Sacred Name Movement, has adopted forms of the Tetragrammaton which are neither countenanced by Biblical/Hebrew scholarship, nor have ever prevailed in common usage... AnonMoos (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What, JWs refuse to do anything that would benefit their neighbors? Or by "serving their country" you mean serving their government? I wasn't aware that they refuse to take government jobs, but if so, good on them. —Tamfang (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with your two examples, and I think the belief that some of the 'Kyrios' in the New Testament were really 'YHWH' in some original version of the text, while others were not, is unique to them. I wondered if their belief that Jesus was Michael the Archangel was unique to them, but I see that Seventh Day Adventists do too. Must just be an Adventist thing. 109.155.32.233 (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have many beliefs that are different from mainstream and historical Christianity, however many of these are shared in part by other related groups, such as the Christadelphians, Dawn Bible Students Association, Worldwide Church of God and other movements and splinter groups originating in the Millerite movement and/or influenced by Charles Taze Russell. Only an expert in all these denominations could say which doctrines are absolutely unique. One remarkable historical claim they make is the Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 BC rather than the scholarly date of 586/587 BC, which is to my knowledge generally rejected outside of the Witnesses (this date is important to their interpretation of biblical prophecy). - Lindert (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

But do those other groups believe in the stake hypothesis and blood transfusion beliefs? And do they refuse to vote or serve in the military like the Witnesses? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

About the torture stake, I don't know, although at Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion you can find that historically there has been discussion about this and at least some non-Witness theologians have accepted an upright stake as the instrument of Jesus' capital punishment. The Restored Church of God rejects blood transfusions, i.e. they believe it to be against God's intention, although they do not forcibly prohibit its members to abide by this (see [2]). The Christadelphians reject serving in the military and any involvement in politics (see [3]). There might be other movements that share these, I don't know. - Lindert (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

But we surely are not looking for beliefs that no individual outside the group has ever believed? In that case, nothing could be admitted because every idea has surely been thought before. The Witnesses can indeed dig up a handful of non-Witness writers over the history of Christianity who have argued for an upright stake in place of a cross, but these writers cannot be said to have represented the beliefs of their sect, or indeed any significant group of people until the Jehovah's Witnesses came along. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That is true in the case of the upright stake. I am not aware of any denominations that hold to that belief, but what I meant was that since the idea predated the Witnesses, there might be other groups who have adopted this; in other words, it is not a belief originating in the Witnesses movement, unlike afaik the 607 BC doctrine. - Lindert (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The blood transfusion ban was apparently adopted in 1944 (Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions#History_of_doctrine), so groups which split off before then are unlikely to share it. To other Christians, it sounds like an attempt to be "more Jewish than the Jews", without much real clarity as to why only that one single Pentateuchal prohibition is interpreted in such a manner... AnonMoos (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Witnesses' stance on this is not only based on the Pentateuch, they also frequently use Acts 15:29 to affirm their doctrine. - Lindert (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how they recon that a blood transfusion is equivalent to eating blood. They are experts at taking verses out of context and twisting it to suite their views, instead of twisting their views to fit the verses. Not to mention the tower's tendency to flip-flop on views. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

They don't have a choice; that's the danger of having a human being or organisation as an infallible authority besides scripture. Same with the Catholic doctrines of the bodily assumption and immaculate conception of Mary. Completely unknown in the Bible, but the Church anathematizes anyone who would dare contradict them. - Lindert (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

However, your chosen analogies are purely mystical doctrines without particular earthly implications (other than elevating the Feast of the Assumption to a holy day), and so are rather different from the blood-transfusion ban... AnonMoos (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone sued Amazon for dumping?

Apple and book publishers tried to create a cartel, but two wrong don't make one right. Selling at a loss in order to create a monopoly is illegal and can be challenged, can't it? Obviously it won't be easy to prove, but there aren't many reasons for selling below cost, are there? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Is a 10 dollar book really below cost? You can get a physical paperback cheaper and ebooks don't have the same overhead. I doubt they were selling at a loss and honestly, I don't even know if selling cheap is illegal. 70.90.87.73 (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently $10 is quite a bit below cost. This article on CNET summarizes it well, but really there have been dozens of articles written by people inside and out of the industry who claim that Amazon's practices were, at best, unethical, if not illegal. How much weight you want to give their opinions should probably be influenced by what you figure their own perspectives and prejudices are. Having read a few of those articles and not having any personal stake in the matter, it does seem that the Apple approach is more fair and overall better for the authors and publishers, while Amazon's is best for Amazon. YMMV, of course. Matt Deres (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Loss leaders are very common. What laws are people claiming they violate in this situation? --Tango (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably "dumping" or something similar. RudolfRed (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Dumping" is a foreign-exchange issue. I have never heard of a corporation being charged with dumping, per se.

It might be possible to bring somewhat analogous antitrust actions against a corporation that tries to bankrupt its competitors, with the aim of raising prices once it had a monopoly position. However, from my very vague understanding of American antitrust law, I don't believe the interests of other suppliers are relevant to such an action, only the interests of consumers. --Trovatore (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A loss leader is intended to increases purchases of other, often disparate, items. Amazon is generating losses in hopes of future profits. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

For an operation the size of Amazon, the marginal cost of producing an ebook is effectively equal to the author's per-unit royalty (plus per-unit royalties for anyone else who's managed to negotiate a cut). The actual production costs are so close to zero as makes no difference. Assuming the sale price is higher than the author's royalties, you can't tell if the ebook has been sold below cost until it's no longer for sale, at which point you know how many units you're amortizing the up-front and operational costs over. It's not like a Playstation 3 where you can look at the price of the parts going into the factory, look at the sale price of the product coming out, and say that they're losing money on every unit sold. --Carnildo (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Amazon produces many e-books itself. Publishing companies do that and then charge Amazon a per-unit price. When people say Amazon are selling e-books at a loss, I think they mean they are selling them for less than they are paying the publisher. Amazon's fixed costs don't relate to specific books, so there isn't really anything to amortise. --Tango (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

See Sherman Antitrust Act for the US law regarding monopolies. Robot Mandate (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Two Dardan Gashi's or one?

The Dardan Gashi article states that he wrote Im Dienst des Diktators. The Dardan Gashi in the Wikipedia article is described as a Kosovar politician, yet all of my sources (msnbc.com, csmonitor.com, and Playboy November 2010) describe the Dardan Gashi who coauthored Im Dienst des Diktators as being a "Austrian journalist", and those sources don't mention anything about this about coauthor being involved in Kosovo politics. Are Dardan Gashi the Kosovar politician and Dardan Gashi the Austrian journalist one and the same person as the Wikipedia article currently claims, or are they two separate individuals and the Wikipedia article is mistaken? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Amazon appears to be listing them as two separate individuals: [4], [5]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe Amazon to be mistaken. The co-author of the book on Albania is Ingrid Steiner (an Austrian journalist for the Kurier newspaper), the co-author of the book "Im Dienst ..." is Ms Ingrid Steiner-Gashi (presumable Dardan Gashi´s wife). Both books have been produced by Vienna based publishing houses. An Austrian news periodical decribes D Gashi (now - since middle 2011 - minister for Environment and Town Planning, previously - around mid 2010 - deputy minister for Integration; both data from the Kosovo gvt website) as having been a Viennese journalist. The de:WP has an article on the subject of the book "Im Dienst ...", Kim Jong Ryul, a North Korean politician who seems to have "defected" from NK. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: I just realised that you are the author on the en:WP article on this book. Sorry to point out the obvious. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Church of England history & Dissent

This year is the 350th anniversary of an event which affects the whole English-speaking world, and I want to understand it better. In 1662 was the Great Ejection, when about 2000 English ministers followed their consciences and refused to support the increasing control of the state over religion. They got kicked out of their parishes, and thus we see reified non-Conformism versus the power of the established church. So, how many ministers stayed in what became the Church of England? How many parishes were there in England at that time? Were all of the ejected ministers at the head of a parish? Or maybe there were there a lot of ordained not-quite-ministers? I don't know what they'd be called - curates perhaps. Or half-trained seminarians? How many of the ejected ministers emigrated, and how many went where? (The American colonies, obviously, but where else? Switzerland? Scotland?) Di many of them leave ministry all together? (I know about the Dissenting academies.) What was the population of England in the 1660s, for that matter? For any profession to lose 2000 principled, trained leaders would be quite a blow, no matter how necessary its higher-ups considered the purge. I'm trying to fit the pieces together as to just how significant this was. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to peruse our article History of the Puritans from 1649. It seems that many of those who left the Church became the founders of the non-Conformist denominations we have today. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The preamble to Historic Parishes of England and Wales: an Electronic Map of Boundaries before 1850 gives a number (if I'm reading it correctly) of 18,233. It also says that "the map of these ecclesiastical parishes was essentially complete by the fifteenth century... and that boundaries remained essentially unchanged until a number of reforms from the mid-nineteenth century".

The Parson (a Vicar (Anglicanism) or Rector) of a parish, would, if there were sufficient income, employ a Curate (an assistant minister) to do some or all of the work for him. It would have been the parson that would have decided whether or not to accept directions on the type of services that were said in his church, and it was (I believe) his job that was on the line. The Benefice of a parish (often called a "living") was difficult to come by and often only obtainable by having the right family connections. I strongly suspect that there was a long queue of overworked and impoverished curates only too willing to jump into their shoes. Alansplodge (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"By 1660, the population of England and Wales exceeded five million." Alansplodge (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As to what became of the ejectees, the standard work is by Edmund Calamy, and is called A Continuation of the Account of the Ministers, Lecturers, Masters and Fellows of Colleges, and and Schoolmasters, who were Ejected and Silenced after the Restoration in 1660, by or before the Act for Uniformity, which you may read online. He certainly had an eye for a snappy title. Alansplodge (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to fine-tune BrainyBabe's TammyMoet's contribution; if our Great Ejection article is correct, those ejected became English Presbyterians and Congregationalists (in 1972 merged into the United Reformed Church). Baptists had already left the CofE and the Methodists were still a century in the future. This is why the recent Service of Reconciliation was between the CofE and the URC. As you say, an important event, but one among many in the complicated evolution of Protestantism. Alansplodge (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You might enjoy Vicar of Bray / The Vicar of Bray (song)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Even more complicated than I had imagined....BrainyBabe (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Switzerland of the East

How is Bangladesh the "Switzerland of the east"? -- 15:04, 12 April 2012‎ 65.95.106.79

Perhaps because Bangladesh maintains a policy of neutrality in its foreign relations? The opening paragraph of the article I linked states that "the country has stressed its principle of friendship towards all, malice towards none in dictating its diplomacy. As a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Bangladesh has tended to not take sides with major powers." 24.92.85.35 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You've never had really great Bangladeshi fondue? Doesn't Bangladesh make the greatest pocket knives? --Jayron32 18:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Who made that comparison? It's likely to strike many people as rather inept, since Switzerland has achieved considerable prosperity and control over its own fate partly by steering clear of military entanglements over the last 150 years or more; it's hard to see that Bangladesh is truly analogous in most respects... AnonMoos (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In England, anywhere with nice hills (no matter how modest) gets called "Little Switzerland" [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] and many more... Alansplodge (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is "the Switzerland of America" (Uruguay), "the Switzerland of the Middle East" (Libano, even if nowadays it's out of shape), "the Switzerland of Africa" (Guinea) and even the "the Switzerland of Oceania" (New Zealand). Honestly, I don't know when people started to use this expression, but it makes not much sense to me. 186.206.247.208 (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's part of a broader practice of naming places after other places, such as Saint Petersburg (Russia, not Florida), which was one of a number of "Venices of the ..." (North in this case). Then there are things like "the Paris end of Collins Street, Melbourne" (I've never dared ask what the other end should be likened to). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"And you know how they say Tulsa is the Paris of Oklahoma?" --Chandler Bing

From the article Lebanon, Lebanon was known in its heyday as the "Switzerland of the East". --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Google search does not show such a label for Bangladesh. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Singapure is said to be the Switzerland of Asia. 186.206.247.208 (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the Switzerland of the web-sites. 186.206.247.208 (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

We're said to be the 5th most visited site on the net (no idea how true that still is, but it must have been true at some stage). Going by Tourism#Most-visited countries by international tourist arrivals, Wikipedia would have to be the Italy of the Internet.

But if you don’t like that idea, we could attract more visitors and one day become the Spain of Cyberspace, or the China of the Cosmos, or the USA of the Usersphere, or even one day the France of Freeware. Yes, great things lie ahead.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Handel and Bach

Hello again. I was wasting time on Youtube listening to Baroque music and interestingly it seems that most recordings of Handel's music (on youtube and otherwise) are recorded in original Baroque pitch, whereas nearly all of Bach is recording in modern A440 pitch (I know this because I have perfect pitch). Why is this? Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on Historically informed performance, but it doesn't say why Handel would be favoured above Bach for this sort of treatment. I can only say that as a teenager, I was entranced by a recreation of the first performance of Handel's Music for the Royal Fireworks and played it over and over (most of my friends were listening to Slade or Genesis for some reason). When I heard a recording by a modern orchestra, I was distinctly underwhelmed. Perhaps it's just something about Handel's music. Someone better qualified needs to comment. Alansplodge (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My music teacher would have probably said in answer to this question as simply: The Well-Tempered Clavier. --Aspro (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As all ways, Wikipedia has an article about Well temperament. See!!! When I was always looking out the windows during you're mind numbing music lessons, I “was listening” and “absorbing” what what little useful music history and theory you could squeeze in between your tirades of absolute bunkum. --Aspro (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Any temperament can be based on any pitch. —Tamfang (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The question has to do with concert pitch. I'm not sure how temperament or period instruments relate to it. I mean, temperaments are about the relation of pitches to one another, not the overall reference pitch, right? I can imagine period instruments might influence the concert pitch used for a performance, but I'm not sure they do. Our pages don't seem to say anything about it. Does the use of period instruments influence the choice of concert pitch for a performance? Does "historically informed performance" include adjusting the concert pitch? Finally, there are plenty of Bach recordings done on period instruments and plenty of Handel recordings on modern instruments. I'm not sure if Handel's music is more often played at a lower concert pitch. Could it just be a coincidence of what you've happened to hear? Pfly (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It relates because the new frequency spacing 'between notes' is an important watershed. It enabled Bach to employ techniques that are to day taken for granted but on the old scale was just impossible. Sure, Handel's composition can be played on modern instruments but they don't reproduce the original sound that Handel himself heard. Those, wanting to reproduce Handles music (as he himself expected it to be heard), are naturally inclined to use the old scale when the have the means do do so. Believe-it-or -not there are musicians that go to great length to reproduce what they hope is the original sound for those people that wish to enjoy what the compositions originally sounded like when they were first composed.--Aspro (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What we need here, is an editor that plays jazz and the has tried to play on one of these old styled tuned keyboards. I think it would sound awful.--Aspro (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Bach used well temperament for some solo keyboard music but not otherwise. Most non-keyboard instruments were not so easy to adjust to different temperaments, I thought. Most of Bach's music was intended for various meantone temperaments, just like Handel's, I thought. But in any case, it still isn't clear to me how temperaments influence concert pitch. Also, the original question mentions "original Baroque pitch", but I thought there was no standard concert pitch back then. Pfly (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, thinking a bit more, I'd be interested to know which temperaments were in general use in the late Baroque era and whether composers had much control over how musicians chose them, especially for ensemble and orchestral music. I mean, most music did not indicate what temperament to use, apart from Bach's famous Well tempered clavier. Did Bach and Handel (and others like Vivaldi) actually have much say in what tuning was used? Obviously they were constrained by the built-in tunings of various pipe organs, but what about, say, string ensembles? Is this a topic we know much about, or is it largely guesswork? Our Werckmeister temperament, for example, says it has become a popular tuning for Bach's music "in recent years". Our Quarter-comma meantone page says it was commonly used into the 17th century, before Bach and Handel's time. So what temperaments were commonly used in their time? Anyone know? Pfly (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It is guess work but educated guesswork, the advance in organ technology probably had a lot to do with it. Bach had access the the very latest organs. With several manuals to choose from, the need for better temperament must have became self evident due to the wide ranch of notes that they could sound at the organists command. The organ designers must have therefore strived to achieve this – and stage by stage this appears to have happened. This in itself, probably enabled Bach to conceive the technique of 'counter point'. As Bach had a high profile in his time, he may have well had some influence over those who commissioned the building of new keyboard instruments. Later, one can imagine, this new temperament filtered down into the tuning of other orchestral instruments, enabling everything from drums to fifes to play together. Modern day, boogie-woogie with both hands more than three octaves apart would just sound mushy on the old tunings before Bach's time.--Aspro (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Googling around for some Boogie Woogie found some here : Listen to Harry's Boogie @ [13]. It then goes onto explain that 12-ET did not come into common usage until as late as 1917 [14]. It all happened in stages.--Aspro (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You must be the Boogie Woogie Google boy of Company RD  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak on temperment but when one mentions "Baroque pitch" today it generally refers to A415 (and French pitch to the even more jarring A392). However your point that there was no "standard" concert pitch back then is very valid and is noted, but it still doesn't explain why Handel seems to be tuned more often to what we call "Baroque pitch" than Bach. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me it depends on instruments. I don't listen Handel much, but I don't know any pianists play Bach on piano with A415. In other words, if the keyboard is piano, the performance would be A440. Some conductors/musicians like Ton Koopman, Gustav Leonhardt, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, etc prefer to use period instruments and play A415. Oda Mari (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Forget about A415 or any other reference pitch. This has no bearing on the OP's question.--Aspro (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

? That's exactly what the question is about. Pfly (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's death conspiracy

Was there any conspiracy that Pakistan or India CIA or involved with the Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's death like Pakistan funded the assassins as a revenge for losing East Pakistan; India was in it because they believe he would encourage West Bengalis to separate from India and CIA was in it because he was Russian puppet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.79 (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain the super high capital gains tax on the savings bonds I cashed?

I'm a poor college student. Let me say that I know little to nothing about financial terms but I do know what transactions I made. In 2011 I made about $1,500 from working. I pay for my tuition via financial aid from the state and savings bonds my parents purchased nearly 20 years ago - we're doing it the right way, I have no debt, am taking out no loans, etc. We've been planning this for virtually my entire life. I cashed probably $15,000 worth of EE bonds in 2011 - which cost my parents about $7,000 back in the day, right? Now my tax guy (a CPA who has been doing my family's taxes for decades) tells me I have to pay about $3,000 in taxes. Remember that this is twice as much as I even earned from working in 2011. And he took so long doing it that now I have 3 days to come up with twice as much money as I earned in an entire year. The money from the bonds is all gone on my tuition. So how are savings bonds even a good deal when about half of the value they earn has to be paid back in taxes? Is this guy screwing me over or is this just the nature of cashing big bonds? Wouldn't it make more sense to apply the tax the moment they're cashed, since now I'm being taxed on money I no longer have? NIRVANA2764 (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for your situation, but 1) we can't tell you whether your accountant is right without seeing all of the numbers, 2) even if we could see all of the numbers we couldn't offer an opinion because we are not qualified to give legal or financial advice, 3) what would be more convenient for you (tax withholding at the point of redemption) is no doubt inconvenient for someone with more power, which is why it isn't done. If your tax guy can't come up with a viable way out of this, it may be time to talk to a different tax accountant. I believe that you can arrange to pay off this kind of tax liability in installments, with an added cost of interest and perhaps a penalty or fee, but, as I've said, I am not qualified to offer advice. In any case, it looks as though you are now unfortunately facing some kind of debt, unless your parents can bail you out. If I may offer some advice, I'd suggest finding more paid work if possible. I worked about 20 hours per week when I went through college a quarter of a century ago (and full time during the summer break). At the time, that translated to an income of around $5-6,000 a year. Adjusting for inflation, you should be able to make $10-15,000 or so if you can find some kind of job (even low-paid). I did not have tons of free time, but I did manage to do rather well in school despite my non-academic workload. Marco polo (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Form 4868 can be used to get an automatic extension of the filing deadline until October. The specific rules should be examined closely to be sure it is applicable in any particular situation. --LarryMac | Talk 19:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You can get the automatic extension automatically, but you still owe the taxes on April 17th. If you don't pay them until later, you have the failure-to-pay penalty (unless you pay 90% of them by April 17th, which doesn't sound likely here). It's something like 1% of the total tax owed per month, so for the OP's situation it would be something like $180 for the full six months (1% * 3000 * 6). (I am not a tax lawyer, but I did this exact thing last year.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to stay far away from any specific advice, which is why I said to examine the rules. It seems that part of the reason for filing an extension would be to find a preparer who is able to correctly figure the amount owed (of anything), which is probably much less than $3000. There may even be a refund, not a liability. --LarryMac | Talk 16:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

While Marco Polo is correct that we don't have the full story, I'm sorry, I just don't believe that you could have a $3000 tax liability on $16,500 in total income, even taking the cost basis of the bonds to be zero and considering them as ordinary income. Even counting Minnesota taxes, which I imagine are high. Either there's something you're not telling us, or something is very strange. (It's a little more plausible if you can be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, limiting your access to the standard deduction.) I would look carefully over the return before you file it, and see if you can find the mistake. --Trovatore (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Capital gains are not taxed like regular income. They have a flat tax that you pay regardless of what your AGI was. This is a benefit if you earn a lot (like Obama and Romney) and a curse if you earn little. You might consider seeing a different accountant for a second opinion. I dunno what your tax situation is, but my effective tax rate on my investments is the same as Romney's and every other person in the US: 15%. My salary raises that up a bit. Your effective tax rate is a lot higher, so you might consider a different tax person. Call a local stock broker and ask for a referral to a tax guy so you are certain that you are getting someone with brokerage account tax experience. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have heard at least one other person make this "flat tax" claim, but I believe it is incorrect. Certainly it does not match the information given in the table in our article on capital gains tax in the United States. --Trovatore (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ranking of metropolitan populations of biggest cites as percentage of state/province population?

Is there such data? For example, Montreal's metro population is ~3.5 million out of ~7.9 million, which seems unusually high, at least compared to other provinces or American states. Baring the micro-nations, of course. 96.21.250.92 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about it being unusual. According to the metro numbers compared to state/provincial numbers, Metro Vancouver has a higher percentage of British Columbia, as does: Seattle to Washington, Portland to Oregon, Winnipeg to Manitoba, Boston to Massachusetts, and probably a lot more. Having said that, it would be an interesting list to look at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingmingla (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You can see List of largest cities and second largest cities by country, but you might need to research the figures by yourself.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Australian cities contain large proportions of populations of the states where they're located. I'm in Melbourne (pop. 4 million), in the state of Victoria (pop. 5.5 million). Similar ratios would be found for Sydney in NSW, Adelaide in SA, and Perth in WA. This country has a lot of bush, but we don't live there. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, HiLo. I'm a Maffradite.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of an exhaustive list, but it occurs to me that the Providence metropolitan area includes the entire state of Rhode Island (the map on that page is a bit confusing—why is the town of Westerly not highlighted?). Also, the definition of metropolitan areas in the United States is fairly crude, being done on a full county basis. So the Seattle metropolitan area, for example, includes vast, totally uninhabited mountain areas. The Alpine Lakes Wilderness is technically part of metropolitan Seattle, as is Mount Rainier National Park, which just seems weird. Pfly (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in New England, metropolitan areas are not defined by entire counties but by towns. (See New England town and New England metropolitan area.) That's why Westerly is not included in the Providence MSA even though the rest of its county is. The reason for this difference is that in most of the United States, the lowest-level category of jurisdiction that covers every part of a state is the county. Most states have unincorporated but sometimes densely populated areas within a metropolitan agglomeration that are subject only to a county government. This is not the case in New England. Every part of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut falls within a town. Every part of the northern New England states with a substantial population falls within a town. (There are some areas of the northern New England states that are not part of towns, but they are very thinly populated areas, so nonmetropolitan, and nonetheless are divided into townships that amount to administrative subdivisions for Census purposes.) Marco polo (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah ha! If that is true, about the Providence metropolitan area, our page ought to be edited, as the text claims it covers the entirety of Rhode Island, but the map does not agree. On the other hand, this map [15] shows all of the state as part of Providence metro, so I don't know. Pfly (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)