Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 December 7

= December 7 =

Correct populations of Armenian cities
This question may need the attention of someone who is familiar with administrative divisions in Armenia or who can read Armenian. Several of the English-language Wikipedia articles on Armenian cities use a 2011 Armenian census fact sheet (p. 20) from the National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia for their population figure, citing de jure populations of 1,121,900 for Yerevan, 146,100 for Gyumri, 105,000 for Vanadzor, 57,600 for Vagharshapat, etc. However, the Statistical Service's website also has a 2011 census summary table (English version ) and (Armenian version ) that looks more authoritative to me. It states the following de jure populations from the 2011 census: 1,060,138 for "Yerevan community", 121,976 for "Gyumri city", 86,199 for "Vanadzor city", and 46,540 for "Vagharshapat". These figures are all lower than the figures in the fact sheet. I do not know whether there are some differences in how the administrative districts are defined between the two sources. Can anyone shed some light on which figures best represent the de jure populations of Armenian cities for the purpose of editing Wikipedia articles? Thank you. Ketone16 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Shang Dynasty cowrie shells
Did the Shang Dynasty's use of cowrie shells as currency translate culturally into later unrelated practices or cultural sayings of subsequent dynasties? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The main impact is in the script. The radical bèi (trad 貝, simp 贝), meaning cowrie shell, turns up in characters for all sorts of words relating to currency and trade (買 mǎi buy; 賣 mài sell etc) and on its own can mean currency. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A setting of the Nunc Dimittis
(Sorry if I'm posting this to the wrong sub-page, but this is the one for 'Religion' (and classical music?)).

I've been trying to identify a setting of the Nunc Dimittis that I recall having sung at school. I think we used to sing the settings by Walmisley in D minor, and by Stanford in B flat. But there was also a setting, that I don't think was a variant of either of those, that opened with a very long initial "Lord", on one note, held over four 'pulses' of the organ (four bars? four half-bars? don't know).

Can anyone suggest an identification? Jheald (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A search on IMSLP gives 127 results, so if you can be bothered to plough your way through those you might find it. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We have an article; List of English settings of Magnificats and Nunc dimittis (you don't get one without the other!) and as you can see, there are an awful lot of them, and whoever wrote it only got as far as "E". Another list is here. Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

'All in one article' sought
Hello,

I would like to know if there is an article that provides information such as Polytheism, Monotheism, Monism, Atheism, Deism, Pantheism and so on, all in one information for to learn. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Perhaps our Religion article? Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We have article Conceptions of God. By the way, "monism" is more of a philosophical term... AnonMoos (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Demolished (lol). Three times. I'll be rereading it soon. Currently re-reading Religion article. I must say the Trinity information creates a Pyramid symbol in my head all the time. I don't get it in other words. Or shall I say Christians don't get it. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC))


 * There's the classic Shield of the Trinity diagram (only 800 or so years old, it's true). AnonMoos (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ammm, Firstly thanks for the article, secondly, correct me if I am wrong; "The Father is God" or "God is the 'Father'", only called because He took care of Jesus, therefore Jesus calls Him the father as his caretaker...
 * "The Son is God" - Bogus.
 * "The Holy Spirit is God" - Bogus.
 * "God is the Son" - Bogus.
 * "God is the Holy Spirit" - Bogus.
 * "The Father is not the Son" - Bogus.
 * "The Father is not the Holy Spirit" - Bogus.
 * "The Son is not the Father" - Bogus.
 * "The Son is not the Holy Spirit" - Bogus.
 * "The Holy Spirit is not the Father" - Bogus.
 * "The Holy Spirit is not the Son" - Bogus.
 * There is no Father and Son connection.


 * This truly clarifies why dumb people exist in the world and why most Muslims brain is locked.
 * My version of the "Trinity" is as follows: (1) God is the Father (resembling the genetic characteristic of the father we receive on Earth. God the caretaker with more power and love who can provide more if requested...). (2) The 'Holy Spirit' is not the God/Father or the so called 'son', who [Jesus] called God 'the father' (Point (1), though a God's sent, who possess the capability to do right and wrong under God's commandment, but "no", God is not the "Holy Spirit". (3) Read Point (1) & (2) and come up with Point 3 i.e. why 'God is not the Son' and the 'Son is not the God'.


 * Special note: How's my advice
 * (Russell.mo (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC))


 * Unfortunately, the combination of brash assertiveness and substantive ignorance does not generally yield a useful or interesting result. AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, elaboration is is drawn from general understandings of the whole concept by acquiring the estimated thoughts of most human beings... Therefore some keep their brain locked (with their will) and some, they just don't understand until you spoon feed it to them... My explanation might not be well though I have something that might speak in other words and as follows: "In some earlier historical traditions of Hinduism, followers of an atheistic division of the Samkhya school, do not accept the idea of a human being as a supreme God. According to the Samkya school, a supreme God does not exist but lesser highly evolved beings assist in delivering the fruits of karma; thus, they consider devas or spirits as playing some kind of role. These beings can help to deliver well-being in the temporal world and the after cycles of birth and death, and salvation as well." This does makes sense, what truly clarifies why ancient prophets/messenger who had their free will, how they used and abused. Which raises an upsetting question in my mind (all the time that I'm unhappy about) i.e. "Why Jesus got crucified? Is it a lie?..." Because God is not cruel... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC))


 * You're perfectly free to reject Christianity, should you choose to so. However, that's quite a different matter from being qualified to offer a detailed critique of the history of Christian theology.  Someone who knew no physics yet tried to produce a detailed critique of Einstein's theory of relativity would be extremely unlikely to come up with anything useful or interesting -- and similar conclusions would apply in analogous cases.  Meanwhile, I fail to see on what basis a devotee of Hinduism could criticize Christian doctrines of incarnate divinity without first attacking many Hindu traditions (Ramayana, avatar etc. etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, that embarrassing. I know I'm still learning, and I believe you are not finding the information's useful because you know that I am a novice. I'm Muslim btw, I don't hold anything against any religion in any way. I believe in God and his creations, even the things beyond imaginations. Religions were created for a reason. I am curious why more than one. God does not make mistake, he only improves it. Not to forget to mention, punishes the wrong doers. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC))


 * Before you go declaring that the religious tenets of a billion people is bogus, you should perhaps try to ask them, or at least understand them. You're allowed to try to understand other people without accepting as valid in your own belief system.  -- Jayron  32  17:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's true what I said though, I mean its common sense. What's there to ask. It's like basically saying Muhammad is the last prophet (when the Qur'an stated indirectly that not to disrespect the prophets and messengers that come by); Qu'ran is the 'holy book', its never been changed (when there are proofs). Don't you ever feel like showing people (who are not worth it) the right path? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Do you have any idea of how bigoted and intolerant and hateful you are demonstrating yourself to be? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Amen. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Common sense is hardly a meaningful concept to apply to religion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a saying, "learn before someone teaches you", for some during living, and for some, I guess after death, in Hell. Whoever doesn't wish to learn or understand, surely they possess the quality like 'terrorists' e.g., Bin laden. Some people have learning and understanding difficulties (e.g., myself), some people wish to learn (e.g., myself), understand others point of views (e.g., myself), help fixing what needs to be fixed (e.g., myself), some people are blind and won't understand regardless of whether it is right or wrong (e.g., not myself). I support the truth because I believe 'God' exists. Common sense only comes into action, after acknowledging, realising that people changed the Bible so much but forgot to create the ultimate book where they won't have the 'Trinity' understanding issue; covering the truth that Qur'an never changed... Anyways I'm not trying to change the world here, not willing to argue, though debated only because the people who guided me the right way all the time, its annoying to know that they know the wrong path(s). Whether you love it or hate it, understand it or make it better (not for the World but for Wikipedians who voluntarily help each other) -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC))


 * Religion has value, but only to those who value it. Those who deny God must find their spiritual strength elsewhere. It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm so happy you commented Tongue.png
 * True, I forgot this part (I wouldn't have mentioned what I mentioned if I remembered this)! Also you don't need to be in a religion to believe in God, Religion/Religious education is just a practice which provides the balance for physical and mental equilibrium, for an individual to ensure that they don't loose the path of their life. Some do go astray regardless. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

Mirror Writing - Da Vinci
Is there a theory as to why or how Da Vinci wrote in mirror writing? I am right-handed, and after breaking my arm several years ago and having it in a sling and some sort of wired contraption for physiotherapy for six months, I found out by accident that it was extremely easy to do mirror writing with my left hand (though very difficult to write 'normally'). KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 ) ( Chin Wag )  19:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've seen such a theory but I'm not able to give you at this time any source as unfortunately I can't recall where I read this. The theory was essentially that it was because (1) he was left-handed and (2) he tried to avoid making it too easy for people to casually be able to decipher what he wrote, even though of course this would have been a very easy obstacle to overcome for someone who really wanted to pry into his papers. The two reasons sort of combined together. Contact Basemetal   here  20:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding Leonardo's left-handedness you can take a look at this. If you have the patience to read through that long article you'll find several theories from his near contemporaries as to why he wrote the way he did. And I'm sure if you Google "Leonardo left-handed" etc. you'll get enough hits and theories to last you for a while. Contact Basemetal   here  20:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The following article while not directly relevant to your question deals with Leonardo's handedness and whether he might not have been born right-handed and only become left-handed in his early childhood. Contact Basemetal   here  20:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How would reading/writing mirror kanji/hanzi compare in terms of difficulty? And how hard is it for left hand users to learn to write regular kanji/hanzi? The character stroke order seems to be all wrong for the left hand. Contact Basemetal   here  14:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting of you to ask that, as it was in fact when writing a letter in Chinese, that I found I was suddenly writing in mirror image. I checked in the mirror and found it was exactly the same as if I had done it with my right hand (non-mirror). As for writing normally with the left hand for a left-handed person, I doubt that the stroke order would matter much, as the Latin alphabet, or in fact any alphabet also has a certain stroke order, which may or may not depend on the person (who has been writing for all his/her life and is therefore used to it).  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  14:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why were you writing with your left hand? Did you become a left hand user after that accident? Contact Basemetal   here  15:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was writing with me left hand because I couldn't use my right hand for six months. I can still write with my left hand, but choose not to. I type most of the time now, anyway.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh. So you finding you were suddenly writing Chinese in mirror image with your left hand happened a long time ago!? Not recently!? Contact Basemetal   here  20:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was 18 years ago.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  07:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)