Humanities desk
< October 16	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 18 >

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 17[edit]

Polynesian ethnic group in French Polynesia[edit]

What are the different kind of ethinic groups in French Polynesia? It seems like they are all clump together as Polynesians, but they are as different as Hawaiians are from Samoans or Maoris are from Rapa Nuians. What are some of thing other than Tahitians and Marquesans? Also what are the people of the Society Islands west of Tahiti called?

Also what are the different Polynesians called other than Tahitian?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Tahitians, it would appear that the Society Islands culture is refered to as "Tahitian" in general terms, implying a somewhat homogenous culture. The article Tahitian language lists other dialects and closely related tongues; language and culture being closely tied together this may lead you on some interesting threads. The article Polynesians lists various Polynesian ethnic groups, so that may also help you differentiate between them. --Jayron32 02:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some googling on things like "bora bora" and "denonym", or "what do you call a person from Raiatea", etc, it seems like the general answer is "Tahitian". I wonder though if within the Society Islands there are informal terms for such distinctions. On the other hand, Hawaiians, both native and "newcomers" seem to call themselves just "Hawaiian". I can't recall ever seeing a term like Oahuian. Our Oahu page says "residents of Oʻahu refer to themselves as "locals" (as done throughout Hawaiʻi), no matter their ancestry." Pfly (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oahuans, Mauians, Kauaian, Hawaiians, Niihauan, Lanaian, and Molokaian (notice no such thing as a Kahoolawean) exist and sometimes used back then to referred to different island chiefdoms and sometimes in science to refer to flora and fauna, although very, very rarely. What do the people of the Austral islands or the Tuamotus regard themselves? I only asked about the different Society islands since they existed as seperate island nations until the close of the 19th century.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being effectively independent states doesn't mean that there cannot be a fairly unified culture. Consider the situation in Ancient Greece or Phoenecia. Perhaps the 19th century Society Islands could be thought of like Greek City States; independently governed by unified by culture. Just a thought... --Jayron32 04:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Western buddhist monks and nuns change their names to Eastern names?[edit]

I was flipping through Buddhadharma:_The_Practitioner's_Quarterly at a bookstore and found myself continuously surprised to see Americans with names like John Smith Rinpoche. Or outright foreign names. While I have no problem with people naming themselves whatever they please, I'm curious why they do this. When I pick up a book written by Ven. Sri Buddhadharma Rinpoche and find on the inside flap that this is a Caucasian American it is very mentally jarring! Is this part of the ordination process? The Masked Booby (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a religious name. It is mainly a tradition for religious figures to adopt new names, similar to how the German-born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger adopted the more-Latin name of Pope Benedict XVI. Religious names for Buddhist monks are traditionally Eastern names. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, in many mystical traditions one gives up one's name as a symbol of release from worldly affairs, and adopts a name that reflects the spiritual principles one is aspiring to. Since these spiritual principles are usually expressed in the language of the faith, the odd names follow. Note, also, that words like 'Rinpoche' are actually titles, not names (Rinpoche translates roughly as 'one who is dear to us'). --Ludwigs2 04:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Dharma name. A google search on "Dharma name" and "purpose" turns up lots of pages. There appears to be a number of opinions about why it is done, and they don't always agree. However, many seem to think it is at least partially to remind you about your new direction in life, or something to that effect. Also to serve as a kind of connection to a specific tradition and community. In Zen dharma names tend to be given during jukai or "ordination"--though in many US Zen schools one need not become a monastic, a monk or nun. Also, in the Zen schools I've encountered, you don't pick your own dharma name--your teacher gives it to you. And as Ludwig pointed out, there's a difference between titles like Rinpoche and Rōshi and religious or dharma names. An example, John Daido Loori's dharma name is "Daido". I'm not sure who gave him that name or when. Probably one of his teachers early on; Taizan Maezumi I would guess. He was also "roshi", a title he didn't earn until much later. Pfly (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make this explicit so that you understand, pretty much all Buddhist monks and nuns, western and eastern alike take a Dharma name that follows certain traditions. In some traditions for example, there is basically a set of root words and the name is made by combining them, so all the names in a tradition sort of sound similar (e.g. Mettananda, Dhammananda, Dhammavuddho ,Yutthadhammo,etc... are all compound words). It's not a matter of the westerner adopting an eastern name just to sound eastern. They just follow the practice of taking on an ordination name like everyone else.

If you are asking why monks and nuns take ordination names at all, then all I can say is that the answer isn't exactly certain. Some say that it developed so that the name would match the language of the ordination ritual (taking a name in Pali if the ordination is done in Pali, etc...). Rabuve (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I understand now, and I appreciate all the responses. I'm glad (and somewhat relieved) to know that there is real meaning behind these appellations, and this isn't a case of Westerners just giving themselves new names to sell more books or lend unwarranted/undeserved authority to their meditation center. The Masked Booby (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

free tuition and other benefits[edit]

Debate closed

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

Is the State of California being blackmailed into providing free tuition and other benefits for illegal, undocumented and migrant produce workers so the nation's supply of produce will not stop or become contaminated with diseases like Listeria or bacteria like e-coli? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeperQA (talk • contribs) 06:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions like these are likely to end into a political debate, which are not appropriate for the RD. Do you have any reason to believe that this is happening? Otherwise, this questions should be deleted. Working worker ant (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is forcing you to consider this question much less to answer it. This is not a community with a POV but a source of merely informational questions to be answered. --DeeperQA (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence of blackmail, and it's hard to imagine who would do the blackmailing, since migrant workers are not well organized. There is an argument that the state should provide education and public health services to ALL residents, documented or undocumented, not for the sake of the undocumented but for the sake of the citizenry, since an uneducated and disease-ridden population ends up being a greater financial burden to the state than providing that population with childhood education and medical care. Marco polo (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does not that leave the issue of taking care of one's own first unanswered? Would you like someone to move into your house, apartment or car and take up residence without your permission (other than an attractive member of the opposite sex) and take up space in a college that would otherwise rightfully belong to your own child or get vaccinated ahead your child when you are the one who is documented and therefore obligated to pay taxes? --DeeperQA (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The committees whose approval are required to raise tuition have no concern or interest in the political reality insofar as agriculture is concerned. There is a student fee committee, a board of trustees, and the legislature at least before a tuition can be raised or lowered. It is inconceivable that somehow farm workers are working over each of those committees. That is just for starters as far as characterizing how implausible such a hypothetical is.Greg Bard (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC) The Ref Desk is not a debate soapbox. You are clearly trying to create and participate in a debate. Your latter reply makes that clear. I'm closing this thread. If you have any factual questions you'd like answered, by all means ask them. But there are other, more appropriate places on the Internet if you just want to debate people on political topics. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask for comment but only references to articles which might give some background as to why this is an issue other than the reasons that are obvious to the rest of the nation. Trying to sweep the question under the table only makes the obvious reasons more obvious. --DeeperQA (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lying when installing software[edit]

I suspect most of us do it. Tick the box that says "I have read and agree to the terms and conditions....." when we haven't read the whole thing, and therefore cannot possibly agree to the terms. What is the legal significance of ticking that box when it's not true?

To further complicate the question, I'm in Australia, and most of the software is American. Whose law am I breaking, if anybody's, and does it matter?

And, given that the software companies (and their lawyers) must realise that most people don't read the terms and conditions, what's the point of it all? HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is covered at software license agreement. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article suggests that the OP's premise hasn't really been tested in court. Also, given that it's a legal question being posed, trying to answer further is probably against the rules. But HiLo48 knows that, so he can click through this: My own, completely non-legalistic opinion is that if you click the "agree" and don't bother to read it, you won't get much sympathy in court. It would be like signing a contract without reading it. Somewhat of an analogy: If someone posts something on a user talk page, and the user deletes it, they are presumed to have read it, whether they actually read it or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My theory is that if you have read, or at least quickly skimmed through most of, one then the rest all say near enough the same thing. Not sure that would work in court either, though. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See HumancentiPad for a cautionary tale of not reading the terms and conditions you agree to. Pais (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If one of those agreements compels you to do something outrageous, like turning over all your assets to them or giving them your first-born child, obviously it wouldn't hold up in court. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the first-born child agreement is Unconscionability. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Fine print.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's like signing a contract, since licenses of software are not equivalent to contracts. Working worker ant (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A EULA is a standard contract of adhesion - commonly known as a "take it or leave it" contract. -- kainaw ™ 12:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could find the reference, but there was some talk that some EULAs would be challengeable because there was a general expectation on the part of the company that you wouldn't read it because it stretched to 47 pages or something. A bit like having a physical contract written backwards, in a different language, or indeed blaoted out to 250 pages. Best not assume this, though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's question has to do with a scholarly debate concerning contract theory. The question is whether one can be bound by the terms of a contract for which he has not given consent. This is a question of personal autonomy and contracts and when does a promise become a promise. There is a book called From Promise to Contract: Towards a Liberal Theory of Contract. Another is Economic Analysis of Law. Entire books are written on this subject and the scholars do not agree. The courts are not in agreement either. An EULA may be enforceable as a contract, it may involve the granting of a license, it may impose a limitation of warranty, it may supply a notice. It may do lots of things depending on its language. What it does most is give more legal tools to the software developer than would otherwise be available without one. Gx872op (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point: how can it in all cases be a contract? Sometimes we get the software for free. Are there all contractual elements present? Working worker ant (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Gx872op wrote, EULAs may do lots of things depending on their language. To answer your last question, sure, some poorly written EULAs are probably invalid contracts. Whether they are enforceable depends on the language of the EULA, the jurisdiction, and presumably the judge. See bnetd, in which one US judge granted summary judgment to Blizzard Entertainment based partly on their assertion the EULA had been violated; and the case was affirmed on appeal. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is to indemnify the software company, so you can't claim damages when their program irretrievably deletes you wedding album or master's thesis or so forth. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting responses folks. Thanks. Does anyone want to touch on the international aspect? I'm in Australia, and most of the software is American. Whose law am I breaking, if anybody's, and does it matter? HiLo48 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the contract, it will usually say. I'm guessing that which comes with an American piece of software is probably designated to be governed by a law of some state of the US. If you sue them (or they sue you) in an Australian court, the court will look to its conflict of laws (read that article) as to what rules to apply - e.g. Victorian procedural rules but Californian substantive contract law. Note that even if the contract itself is governed by Californian law, Australian consumer protection statutes might nonetheless apply.

I don't agree with Bugs' assertion that the court does not protect you if you just click through something without reading. In most common law jurisdictions there is some protection, at least for consumers, against the harsh terms of contracts forced on them despite them not having an opportunity to negotiate it. English contract law has some relevant information.

Finally, don't take legal advice from random people on Wikipedia. Ask a lawyer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Side anecdote. Every day of my working life I have my clients sign a new or amended Employment Pathway Plan, which I also sign. This document sets out their goals, what they agree to do to achieve them, maybe mentions some barriers and how they're to be addressed, and how my company can help with all this. Simple. The page where they sign contains about 10 statements starting "I understand ...", "I agree ...", etc. After the signatures come three A4 pages of small-print terms, conditions, and other things they have to be aware of. They are all part of what they're agreeing to. Not one client of mine has ever even shown the slightest interest in knowing what these pages broadly say, let alone read them. At least, not in my presence. They're given a copy to take away, but no client has ever come back and discussed the finer points of this red tape and what it actually means for them. When I was a jobseeker (before I became an employment consultant, how ironic), I exposed these documents to exactly the same degree of scrutiny as my own clients do. We might wonder why humans are prone to agreeing formally to things they have no idea about. It comes down to "I'll sign anything, just get me outta here. I trust that there's nothing unconscionable or even unreasonable in what I'm agreeing to. Signing doesn't necessarily mean I actually intend to abide by these agreements, so it's all a joke anyway. Let's all have a laugh, and have a nice day". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Jack, you must simply have a very honest face ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would I lie to you? You can trust me. Honest. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It's OK PalaceGuard008, I have no intention of taking anything written here as a legal guide for me personally. It's just that I've been thinking about the broader issue for a while. It's in my first sentence at the top, and in Jack's post. Nobody ever reads these documents in their entirety. (Am I wrong? Does anybody here actually read them?) Why does society allow itself to go through this silly process? Who benefits? HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I never read it. It's not like anyone will stop installing the software just because of the terms of the EULA. I think the software companies just throw a bunch of harsh clauses at you in the hope that some of them will stick should your dispute ever go before a court. Who benefits? I guess the software companies and whoever drafts these stupid things for them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue of "lying" while installing software is broader than whether one does or does not read the EULA. For example, one might pay for software, get it home, and find one must install a company name to install it, even though the purchaser/licensee either does not work for a company, or the software is unrelated to the company. So the purchaser/licensee just makes something up. Or the circumstances of the software acquisition makes the purchaser/licensee believe the EULA does not apply at all, but it won't work unless "agree" is clicked, so it gets clicked. Just as one may break open a safe one buys at an estate sale without becoming a safecracker, one may, under some conditions, click "agree" when one does not actually agree. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has signed a number of treaties with the US for the protection of intellectual property. It would take some digging to find them and then additional digging to find the implementing legislation in Australia that enforces American EULAs there. A number of years ago, foreign corporations began to choose New York as the jurisdiction to resolve international disputes. I've been looking, but have not found any information why New York was chosen out of everything else. To facilitate trade, foreign jurisdictions adopted laws and jurisprudence similar to New York. The similarities around the world especially among common law jurisdictions is remarkable. Enforcement of an EULA in Australia is not a difficult thing to do. It was a requirement for increased trade, lower tarriffs, and defense pacts between the two countries. Australia and America are good friends. Gx872op (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to beomce a dictator[edit]

How to become a dictator? --Jigsaqqq (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook? Gabbe (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend where you wanted to become dictator of. You could take over certain countries with a mercenary army, but other places, like the USA, would require different tactics. For another option, see micronation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a history book out there with a title that I always thought sounded like a self-help book: Hitler's Thirty Days to Power ("You too can have a Thousand Year Reich, if you use my five step system!"). Jokes aside, it's not the worst template: 1. exploit weaknesses in an electoral system that allows minority parties to have much more power than their share of the vote; 2. get yourself put forward as a weak "compromise" candidate for a reasonably high office; 3. use a national emergency as a pretext for increasing your emergency powers; 4. purge the army of anyone problematic, establish your own secret police that investigates loyalty issues; 5. declare self dictator, send self flowers.

Other historical routes: be a top general in an army (or even a lesser rank, historically), convince subordinates that civilians are unable to make top decisions, conduct coup. Or, be top general, win important battles, become quite popular with many people (promise security and resources), get one's self appointed leader, decide there can be no more leaders until you die. These are more or less the standard approaches used in the past. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like George W. Bush (path 1, steps 1 to 3) and Dwight D. Eisenhower (path 2b, steps 1 to 4) both started down the path to dictatorship, then, but didn't make it to the end. Pais (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Lloyd George had a go at path 1 as well, rumour has it he even got as far as doing for Kitchener when the commander of his own army proved problematic. (Though that was because he was popular and not very good at his job more than anything else) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.81.179 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These paths are not exclusively those of dictators, mind you. I think you overestimate Eisenhower's abilities in this regard — he was popular, but mostly because he was pragmatic, fairly non-nonsense, and legitimately bi-partisan (he could have gotten the Democratic nomination if he had wanted it). He wasn't wildly charismatic — he was no Napoleon, and far less of a monopolizer than FDR. As an alternative path of the war general, see also Cinncinatus or George Washington (the latter probably could have established himself as "king" of the USA if he had wanted it, but thankfully he didn't want it). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get born as a psycho narcissist with a chip on your shoulder. The Boys from Brazil shows how to do that. Dmcq (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get a sexy uniform overladen with medals, yell a lot, throw tantrums, obtain an arsenal of weapons, and get an army of heavies behind you. In three words you need guns, guts and a gang.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's easy: hire a secretary, sit him/her down at a keyboard, think of some letter you want written, and start dictating.

That reminds me of the lovely scene in Charlie Chaplin's film The Great Dictator, where "Adenoid Hynkel" is giving dictation to his secretary. He rabbits on for over a minute while she listens attentively to what she has to write, then all she writes is a comma or something equally inconsequential. Curious that Chaplin was born only 4 days before Hitler. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but under different zodiac signs; Chaplin having been an Aries, while Hitler was a Taurus.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

seriously though, the process of becoming a dictator (or a tyrant, or king, or any form of near-absolute ruler) is usually not intentional. generally it's the outcome of seeking more-or-less legitimate power in a society with deep cultural divisions, political instability, and significant national problems that leave the population unsettled and worried. Someone seeking legitimate power in that atmosphere will start to worry about the destruction/subversion of the system he seeks power in, and then he will use whatever power he gets to make sure that the system is safe by surveilling, brutalizing, or eliminating political or cultural elements he considers sources of subversion. It's a paranoid mentality in which unseen danger lurks everywhere and violently oppressive tactics take on a heroic air. Hussein went to his grave (and Gaddafi will go to his) believing he was a great leader and an asset to his people. It's a constant threat in any democratic society (since democratic societies tend to be multi-cultural and tend to prize a certain degree of instability), and I can't think of one where it hasn't either happened or nearly happened (except - possibly - Switzerland and Sweden). --Ludwigs2 15:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gini coefficient. Christ, man, here's a macroeconomics textbook. Dualus (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get a copy of Macchiavelli's The Prince. It's the absolute monarch/tyrant/despot/dictator/Marine instructor/school bully's bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make rooky mistakes. For example, when murdering a village always remember to leave one person alive to tell the tale of your cruelty. You need that to make everybody fear you. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Roman Opałka Counting Paintings[edit]

I was looking at one of Roman Opałka's counting paintings, and I found a number listed twice - Is this common? Is there a list of doubles anywhere? Where can I find more information? Tewner (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Longevity risk'[edit]

Hi everyone,

The article on longevity risk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity_risk) says that increasing life expectancy can be a problem for insurance companies by leading to increasing payouts - however, how is this the case? Surely a higher life expectancy means people will be paying for their policies for longer, so the insurer will take in a higher premium for the cost of insuring one life. Do insurers generally pay more for life insurance if you die at a later age, or something along those lines? I can't find much information on longevity risk online, and the article is extremely limited, so I would be very grateful for any help you could offer.

Thanks, 86.26.13.2 (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, when you extend a person's life, they don't get those extra years in their 20s and 30s. They get the extra years in their 80s and 90s, and 80- and 90-year olds take more money out of the medical system than they pay in premiums, given the increased number of medical problems they have compared to 20- and 30-year olds. At some point (probably around retirement age), a policy holder goes from becoming an asset to a liability for insurance companies. It is in their financial interest to keep you alive up till the point when you start to cost them money. --Jayron32 19:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes perfect sense - I was only thinking in terms of life insurance payouts, not medical insurance too. Thanks! 86.26.13.2 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity is a big issue for pensions (obviously - the longer you live, the longer you get paid your pension for). A lot of people get their pensions from insurance companies (if you pay into a defined contribution pension scheme, then you need to buy an annuity when you retire and that often comes from an insurance company). --Tango (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone could clarify the article please? Alansplodge (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art music journal?[edit]

Hello. Recently, I've been trying to find some kind of journal for art music (just like PHYSorg or Universe Today for the physical sciences) and have been unsuccesful. So, I was hoping for someone here to point me to one that I may have missed. It should be free and publish news at least weekly of the contemporary proceedings of art music. Thanks in advance.AtonalPhysicist (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few periodical references in article art music stick out at me: Popular Music 2, Music and Emotion: Theory and Research, and International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music. These are unlikely to be exclusively about your genre however. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I did some more research and found some, as well as an index from where you can access most periodicals about musicology, Its name is "IIMP" (International index of Music Periodicals). Although it is not free, I found that my university had a subsription to it.AtonalPhysicist (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]