Humanities desk
< June 11	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 13 >

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.

June 12

Kamehameha III's Funeral

Who is the author of this account of Kamehameha III's funeral? Here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S.C. Damon - the signature is at the end of the letter on page 253. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I seriously need to read more into these. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It was a reaaaallly long letter :) 184.147.118.213 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rt Rev Paul Williams, Bishop of Kensington

How and where do I write to him please? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here: http://www.london.anglican.org/about/bishop-of-kensington 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're asking for the form of address under 'how', but here it is anyway: Forms of address in the United Kingdom#Church of England - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman isolation from European economy

In this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans it says about the above. I want to ask why. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.178.250 (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it was religious and cultural. European Christians and Turkish Muslims did not share much in the way of cultural similarities, and so may have not tended to trade as much. Secondly, at roughly the exact same time (late 15th-early 16th centuries) when the Ottoman Empire was reaching its peak, Europeans stopped trading through the Middle East, and instead developed trade routes either across the Atlantic (with their new colonies there, and from then across the Pacific to Asia) or around Africa to India. The fact that Europe found ways to get goods without going through the Ottoman Empire meant that trade shifted away from the Ottomans. A good part of this was the hot economic theory of the day, Mercantilism, which focused on economic isolationism and protectionism: a country saw the path to wealth as controlling the entire supply chain from raw materials to finished goods, and only export finished goods; the "value added" between the raw materials (produced in the colonies) and the finished goods (produced in the home country) was seen as the best way for a country to produce wealth. This new way of thinking about trade probably also hurt the Ottomans economically, as countries wanted to trade less with foreign powers for raw materials, and more with their own colonies. In simplest terms, it was a shift away from the overland Silk Road and towards oceanic trade. --Jayron32 17:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another consideration is that the Ottoman empire had little to offer in the way of trade goods that was not available to western Europeans more conveniently either from other Mediterranean or Northern European lands (grain and timber from the Baltic countries; olive oil and other Mediterranean products from Italy or Spain). As Jayron points out, Constantinople's historical role as entrepot between Europe and Asia was short-circuited by the possibility of direct maritime trade between western Europe and any coastal point in Asia. Finally, after 1800, when the Industrial Revolution spread across western Europe, cultural and linguistic ties facilitated the transfer of knowledge from one country to the next. For example, William Cockerill chose to take the knowledge he had acquired in England during its early Industrial Revolution to what later became Belgium. Like England, Belgium had a Christian heritage, its culture is similar to England's in many ways, and French is similar enough to English that it isn't terribly hard for an English speaker to learn. Like England, Belgium (then part of the United Netherlands) observed the rule of law, which facilitates investment by limiting risk (for example of extortion or expropriation). Skilled entrepreneurs frequently traveled among western European countries and spread technical innovations and capital. By contrast, the Ottoman empire was culturally alien and therefore not attractive to most western Europeans as a place to live and work, and autocracy and rampant corruption deterred European investment. Marco polo (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, however, by the 1800s, when the Ottoman Empire was popularly considered the Sick man of Europe was the time when they had their strongest diplomatic ties to other European countries. They were allied with France and Britain during the Crimean War and they figured prominently in the Metternichian concept of "Balance of Power" during the Concert of Europe. The Ottomans were considered vital enough to Germany and Austria's aims during World War I that they were included among the Central Powers, which is somewhat ironic given that Austria and the Ottoman Empire had been natural enemies fighting over the Balkans for some 500 years. Perhaps, because the Ottomans no longer posed an economic threat, the other powers recognized the importance of their geographic position, which is why they became more open to diplomatic relations with them by the 19th century whereas they were pretty much universally disliked or disregarded in prior ages. --Jayron32 19:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the lack of economic interest by Western business in the Ottoman Empire, which offered neither essential products nor essential markets, had completely changed by 1914, when it began to be realised that the Turks sat on what were probably the world’s biggest oil reserves, all of which were detached by the victorious Entente powers after 1918. The rump state of modern Turkey has to import its energy needs. --Hors-la-loi 10:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.178.250 (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airplane question.

Blocked troll.

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

In what year were black people allowed to sit in aeroplanes? Winyviv (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define "allowed". Bessie Coleman was the first African-American pilot, though I don't know if either she was a) the first African-American to ride on an airplane at all, nor b) if black people from other countries flew or piloted planes earlier. --Jayron32 17:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would have to first ask a more basic question... was there ever a time when black people were not allowed to sit in aeroplanes? Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Segregation on commercial flights apparently never existed in the United States, though only the affluent could afford to travel by air before the late 1960s and probably very few African Americans did. So they were allowed to sit on planes, but few could afford to do so. While planes were not segregated, airports sometimes were. See this source. Marco polo (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does "sit in aeroplanes" mean? Has there ever been a flight where people were allowed to board, and travel from A to B, but not to sit down? That would be a breach of every known flight regulation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the OP has been blocked: DNFTT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has the OP been informed they've been blocked? There's nothing on their talk page. How would we be aware an OP is blocked if there's no obvious evidence of that? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His/her contribs page, as per usual. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked the same question as Jack at the Help Desk. Seems unusual. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the checkuser, his comment is here. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shintō funeral

According to our article (Japanese funeral), 91% of funerals in Japan are conducted with Buddhist ceremonies as Buddhism has historical monopoly on death rites. I can't find any substantial data about Shintō funerals, like how are they done. Or, for example, are Japanese Emperors always given Shintō ceremonies? Quoting from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito#Death_and_state_funeral: On February 24, Emperor Hirohito's state funeral was held, and unlike that of his predecessor, it was formal but not conducted in a strictly Shinto manner. Also do Emperors partake in any Buddhist ceremonies whatsoever? Or are they supposed to by strictly Shintoists? --151.41.142.162 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC says "Death is seen as impure and conflicting with the essential purity of Shinto shrines....The result of this is that most Japanese have Buddhist or secular funerals....Shinto funerals, when they occur, are called Sosai, and are largely developed from Buddhist funeral rites.". A fairly detailed description of how a Shinto funeral might be done can be found at the Encyclopedia of Shinto. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To your final questions, the Emperor's official website lists the various rituals ceremonies performed by the Emperor throughout the year. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which school exams did Michael Gove sit?

In the last few days, there has been much in the UK Press about the changes to the GCSE qualification in England.

I've been trying to find out whether Michael Gove, the current Secretary of State for Education sat Scottish qualifications (at the time he was at school the equivalent qualification at this level would've been the O-grade) or English qualifications (which would've been O levels).

I know he was educated in Scotland, but it is common for Scottish private school pupils (he attended Robert Gordon's College) to sit English qualifications.

Many thanks, davidprior ^t/_c 21:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of digging confirms that Robert Gordon used the Scottish system then (and still does), but looking at the dates he would have been in the transitional period between the O-grade and Standard grade, which makes it harder to give an exact answer as to which he sat. He would then have presumably taken Highers (and perhaps CSYS, but I'm not completely sure if those were introduced by the mid-eighties). Andrew Gray (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, had managed to find that pupils there now sit Scottish qualifications, but couldn't find what they sat back then.

He was born on 26 August 1967 so would've been 16years + 8 months in May 1984 (when Standard Grades started to be introduced). When I sat Standard Grades in May 1996, I did so in an age group ranging from 15 years + 3 months to 16 years + 3 months (the cutoff for school years then being 1st February). So I'm guessing Michael Gove therefore sat O-grades in May 1983, unless the cutoff had changed in the interim? davidprior ^t/_c 23:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be different for Scottish pupils, but in England the year intake cutoff is 1st September, so he could have been one of the last intake of the previous academic year, rather than one of the earliest intake of the next academic year. Can anyone confirm what was the case at the time? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These days it is indeed different in Scotland (and more flexible) but a child born in August is in the middle of the age range so they have no flexibility. I have no idea what the rules were when young Michael first put on his blazer and cap. See Education in Scotland#School years. Thincat (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a serious projection of demographical development of the US by state?

I'm searching for this for quite a time in the web but all I can manage to find are projections for the US as a whole. But I'm interested for the development by state in comparison. Much like this Article in the German Wiki.

I'm thankful for any help. Kerl Fieser (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I entered "projection of demographical development of the US by state" into Google, and on the first page of results I found this document from the Census Bureau, which seems to be what you are looking for (although it only goes to 2025). Looie496 (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I of course checked census.gov but it seems I didn't do it properly. Kerl Fieser (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian apologetics

Are there any liberal Christian apologists? What about female Christian apologists? Sneazy (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define "Christian apologist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A apologist is someone who defends a religious faith. A Christian apologist is someone who defends the Christian faith. I was typing "Bible Gateway" into Google, which then led me to "Lee Strobel", which then led me to read an Wikipedia article about him, which then led me to wonder if there are women or liberal Christians who are professional apologists. I suppose these types of people make money by selling books. Sneazy (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please show you've put some effort into this before asking here. Google "liberal/female christian theologian" and get back to us. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer number of apologists would mean that there are liberal Christian apologists and female Christian apologists, the real question is "are there any who are noteworthy?" For this, I went outside of apologetics and into more broad theology (though sticking to individuals who wrote some works that were either apologetic, nearly apologetic, or easily repurposed for apologetics). Some important liberal and/or female Christian theologians, or theologians important to liberal and/or femenist Christians, who come to my mind are Joy Carroll, Teilhard de Chardin, Dorothy Day, Matthew Fox, Søren Kierkegaard, Martin Luther King, Jr., Hans Küng, John Shelby Spong, Paul Tillich, Leo Tolstoy, Jim Wallis, and Simone Weil. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation theology would also be a good place to look for such people. Gustavo Gutiérrez springs to mind. Again, whether his work is apologetics or not I'm not sure, but he's definitely a leftist Christian. --Jayron32 01:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Forgot liberation theology. Honestly, the only real distinction between theology and apologetics is the target audience. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say that theology's target audience is Christians and apologetics' target audience is non-Christians? If that is the case, are there liberal Christians who speak in defense of the Christian faith against non-Christians? Sneazy (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean against? How the question is answered depends on what you mean. Could you elaborate? --Jayron32 02:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It seems there are more conservative Christians than liberal Christians. It also seems that "Christian apologetics" refers to a series of arguments made by conservative mainstream Trinitarian male Caucasian middle-class American Protestants, while Catholics and Mormons have their own apologetics. Sneazy (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not necessarily that theology's target audience is Christians, but that apologetics repackages a religion's theology to try and convince non-members to accept it. Many liberals also tend to take a less antagonistic attitude toward differences in religion. It's been my experience that the liberal Christians have to defend themselves from more conservative ones before they can defend the religion from those outside it. That said, of the individuals I mentioned, some of Spong's works, some of Tolstoy's works, Willis's The Call to Conversion, could be read as apologetics; while Kierkegaard would probably approve of his Practice in Christianity being called an apologetic work to defend Christianity against Christendom. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.S. Lewis, who was one of the most noted Christian apologists of the 20th century, was broadly liberal in his views, although I don't know if he would be considered specifically a liberal Christian. John M Baker (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis is not usually considered one - he was Anglo-Catholic. Read his essay Fern-seeds and Elephants for a critique of the liberal theologians of his time. To return to the OP, British liberal Christians who have written books for a general audience defending their faith or appear regularly on Thought for the Day include Keith Ward, Jonathan Bartley and Richard Harries (e.g. here).

That my Southern Baptist grandfather reads Lewis is a good indication he's not a liberal. Nigh universal perhaps, but not liberal. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what officer shot people dead on the Titanic??

Was it Harold Lowe as shown in the film? thanks from philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.223.143 (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, it seems that "Tommy is killed when he is accidentally pushed forward and shot by a panicked First Officer Murdoch." Sneazy (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are asking about the real sinking, rather than the film, see our article Sinking of the RMS Titanic: "The first signs of panic were seen when a group of passengers attempted to rush port-side lifeboat No. 14 as it was being lowered with 40 people aboard. Fifth Officer Lowe in charge of the boat fired three warning shots in the air to control the crowd, without causing injuries". I can't find anything in the article about anyone being shot dead, though Lowe is reported to have threatened some of the crew with his revolver. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm Andy's impression that there is no evidence that anyone traveling on the Titanic died of gunshot wounds. Films, though, seem to find the notion irresistible. From our William McMaster Murdoch article: "no credible evidence has ever surfaced to indicate that any crew member of Titanic, let alone Murdoch specifically, ever shot passengers". - Nunh-huh 00:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For further information, you may want to read Gunshots on the Titanic at the Encyclopedia Titanica. In short, there were three incidents of warning shots being fired, and no actual shootings, though some alleged shootings may have occurred but remained undocumented. - Nunh-huh 00:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also have a look at The Apology To William Murdoch 15th April 1998 - Scott Neeson and the Cheque about the film producers having to eat humble pie in Murdoch's home town after falsely accusing him of murder and corruption. Alansplodge (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]