Humanities desk
< January 4	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 6 >

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.

January 5

Really old tallest buildings

This says that Cincinnati was one of the last American cities who's tallest building was built before WWII. Built in 1930, it retained its crown till almost today.

Now what are the majorest cities with older tallest buildings than Cincinnati had? North America only, there are too many non-North American examples like second and first-rate cities of European countries. Are there any non-tiny ones before the meat of the 20s/early 30s building boom?, Like pre-1928? The only one I can think of is Washington, DC, but only for the tallest freestanding structure (an obelisk, 1884), the 160 foot high law was waived for a new cathedral in 1959. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you only asking for cities that currently have a pre-1930 tallest building? Or are you also interested in ones like Cincinnati that only recently built a taller building? Philadelphia fits into the latter, with its 547-foot-tall City Hall constructed circa 1900; see Curse of Billy Penn. I can't immediately provide anything that fits into the former. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal Tower was the tallest building in Cleveland from 1930 till 1991. --Jayron 32 03:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what you're looking for, but I believe after the 9-11 attacks, the Empire State Building was again the tallest building in NYC, until the replacement tower was built. See List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City#Tallest_buildings. StuRat (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. And if the Twin Towers had been built the way the Empire State was, they might still be standing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Twin Towers are beat now, they've just made a square box that's 2% taller and 222% narrower at 432 Park Avenue. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penobscot Building in Detroit was the tallest in Detroit from 1928 until 1977. --Jayron 32 03:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of America Building (Providence) is still the tallest building in Providence, and was built in 1928. As a current "tallest building in the skyline", it beats the OP's building by two years. --Jayron 32 03:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana State Capitol is the tallest building in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (and a genuine Skyscraper) and was completed in 1932. Not quite as old as the Providence one, but close. --Jayron 32 03:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Newark Building is still the tallest in Newark, New Jersey and built in 1931. --Jayron 32 04:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camden City Hall 1931, is the tallest in Camden, New Jersey. --Jayron 32 04:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's Cathedral was the tallest building in London until 1962, in accordance with the London Building Act 1894. I think that stands head and shoulders above all the US examples! Matt's talk 03:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth I and Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester

Would the marriage of Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester and Elizabeth I had been consider suitable in terms of rank (morganatic union did ever exist in England and other monarchs Edward IV, John, Henry IV and Henry VIII had married native English nobility)? His brother Lord Guildford Dudley was the de facto consort of Lady Jane Grey. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morganatic marriage never existed in England; thus the concept of 'suitable in terms of rank' has no rigorous definition in this case. But a comparison with the marriage of Elizabeth's parents suggests there would have been no social obstacle. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's generally pretty well-accepted that the obstacle was diplomatic, ie Elizabeth's use of her potential marriage to various European candidates as a way to fend off the European powers. GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my Indonesian brother Darryl, and this is my other Indonesian brother Darryl.

How do Indonesians avoid mass confusion with single names? Are there other equally depraved societies? (Darryl and Darryl refer to a recurring gag on Newhart - see Newhart#Larry, Darryl, and Darryl.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, would care to reconsider your reference to Indonesian society as 'depraved'? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "deprived", Clarityfiend. And nothing in that article says it's common for siblings to have the same name, so I think you're inventing a source of confusion. (In your everyday life, you probably use first names by themselves most of the time, right?)

===> humor <=== Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the existence of other naming systems with similar potential for confusion, one is Icelandic names. They are usually patronymic, and the result is a set of similar enough names that phone books often list occupation as further distinction. (Which is actually the origin of quite a few Western surnames — John the Fisher and John the Smith can simply be distinguished as John Fisher and John Smith.) ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 12:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The use of surnames wasn't usual among Muslims in Turkey until it was made compulsory in 1934. That's according to our page Surname Law. --Antiquary (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The patronymic system is also used by Mongolians. Since 2000 they've officially had clan names as well, although "In practice, these clan names seem to have had no significant effect," says Mongolian name#Mongolia. I'm not altogether sure what that means. --Antiquary (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the practice of having a small number of common given names and also naming a child after their father or mother can be equally confusing in some circumstances. It can mean some additional differentiator like a different shortened form, a surname, a second given name/middle or "numbering" (e.g. junior) frequently needs to be used instead of just the given name even with a relatively small number of people and given a relatively long polysyllabic name (e.g. Elizabeth).

About patronyms, I don't know much about the situation in Iceland, but Malay names are generally patronymic similarly to some Arabic names, but I'm not sure you have the same level of confusion even with certain names being relatively common (like Muhammad), which is not to say you won't get people with the same name. (In terms of written records, on advantage is that Malay is usually written in the Latin alphabet but transliterations an vary. But there's probably only one correct transliteration for a particular person's name as record in government records and used by the person, although people may not know it.) A fair few Malaysian Indians and some others also use patronyms. Ultimately I'm not sure if a patronym necessarily has much more reason to be confusing than a surname, it depends on the length of the name, the frequency etc.

Meanwhile, a surname is of limited use as a differentiator if it's the same as others. Of course there are various common surnames like Smith and Wáng (王). But what I'm particularly thinking of is Singh and Kaur. While some Sikh do have middles names (and articles say some use these as middle names), for any without who do use these as their surnames out of what they feel is a religious obligation, having this surname is obviously not any more helpful as a differentiator compared to Sikhs who do the same. (Of course some non Sikhs use these names too, particularly Singh.) In fact our article notes some controversy in Canada over this.

Also, although I mentioned middle names or second given name, these may not be necessary or may not help. Again it depends on the frequency, length etc of the entire given name. The primary reason why middle names frequently do help is, I think, because many cultures do have a limited number of common names. Middle names are usually at least partially independent from the first given name even if often from a pool that's similar. So statisticly it tends to mean a far wider pool of common entire given names. However you will have a similar result if your pool of given names is generally wider, e.g. Chinese given name. Of course the later also highlights another issue, the concept of a second given name or middle name doesn't necessarily transfer well to traditions in some cultures anyway.

P.S. I know it was a joke but while some East Asians use Generation names, I don't know if there's anyone who commonly gives the same entire given name to their child. Beyond the fact people tend to just refer to a child by their given name or derivative thereof or sometimes some other term such as a term of endearment, even if you were to include the surname it's not going to help unless the child has a different surname for some reason which is uncommon if the parents are the same.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend -- During the late Roman republic period, women of traditional Roman families didn't really have official individual names as we would think of them. If you take a typical Roman three-part name, such as "Gaius Julius Caesar", then all daughters born into the clan indicated by the second name (usually) would be named identically as "Julia" as far as their officially-recognized name (though they would of course often have informal personal nicknames). This explains why Claudius Marcellus had two daughters named Marcella, why Mark Antony had two daughters named Antonia (nicknamed "Antonia Major" and "Antonia Minor"), etc. AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having taught in Indonesia for going on six years now, let me say one thing: although the Javanese and many other ethnic groups from Indonesia used to only have one name (Suharto, Sukarno, Sudirman, etc.) it's not uncommon now for children to be given five or six names. My ex had four names, and roughly translated it would have meant "A gift – a flower – from God in the month of April". You'd be hard pressed to find urban Indonesians with one name now. Might be more common in rural areas, though.

Also, we've got to remember that such a system developed in a time when communities were fairly small and tight-knit. A single village might have fifty people, so single names wouldn't have been much of a problem, if any. Urbanization's changed that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm looking for. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Good point. But how do they avoid mass confusion today? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I mentioned that in my first sentence. They get more than one name. It's generally not a family name as the West would recognize it, but it's more than one name. See, for instance, the cast lists of many of our articles on recent Indonesian films (?, The Mirror Never Lies, or The Raid: Redemption, for instance). Almost nobody has a single name. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until the 1940s the Inuit were without multiple names. At that point the Government of Canada began using disc numbers to identify Inuit. The numbers were eventually replaced with surnames. Abe Okpik visited every community and camp from 1968-1971 to record surnames. Given the size of the Northwest Territories, which then included Nunavut, and Nunavik that must have been extremely difficult as there would have still been a lot of people who were not living in one of the communities. One thing that happened with that is the people actually recording the names didn't always get the spelling correct. The disc numbers were brought in because bureaucrats were confused by the lack of surnames. After Project Surname there was still some minor confusion for non-Inuit in individual communities. When people picked their surnames they often used the traditional name they had been given at birth. This of course would lead to adult brothers all having different surnames. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be too small to call a society, but Kimbo Slice, AKA just Kimbo, AKA Kevin Ferguson, AKA the only black man to be beaten by a cop in a viral video in a good way, has three sons: Kevin Jr., Kevin II and Kevlar. Also a daughter named Kevina (and two others that only start with K). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaokao questions

What resources are freely available online containing old "gaokao" (National Higher Education Entrance Examination) test questions? There are quite a few articles about the somewhat mysterious humanities questions that cite a few examples each, and a few about the maths, but can you point to a systematic/comprehensive collection? Especially the biology questions would seem useful to set an objective point of reference for a Wikiversity or other curriculum. Wnt (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of Robert Kirk

This has been going on for years now, so I would appreciate some guidance from the refdesk. What religion was Robert Kirk? I suspect that the problem is that there are sources that say he was Presbyterian and others that say he was Episcopalian. When I first started the article, I noted that he was Episcopalian per the sources. However, this keeps getting changed. I would like a way forward, please. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Observe that Kirk became a minister in 1664. Then note that, per our article on the Scottish Episcopal Church, "Following the Restoration of the monarch in 1660, the government of Charles II reimposed episcopancy, and required all clergymen to swear allegiance to the king and bishops and renounce the Covenants, or be prevented from preaching in church. Up to a third, at least 270, of the ministry refused, mostly in the south-west of Scotland, and numerous ministers also took to preaching in the open fields in conventicles across the south of Scotland, often attracting thousands of worshippers. This was forcibly repressed by the government, in actions later dubbed The Killing Time. The conflict continued under King James VII (James II of England) until the Glorious Revolution led to his removal from power." If there is no evidence that Kirk got into trouble with the King at this time (and the article doesn't suggest that he did) it seems reasonable to infer that Kirk was Episcopalian at the time of his ordination, at least. The final triumph of Presbyterianism in Scotland didn't occur until 1689; presumably at this time Kirk would (in common with many others) have had to decide which of the two successor churches to join, though he may have been able to retain his benefice as an Episcopalian following the Comprehension Act of 1690. The definitive answer probably lies in records of which clergy made which choice; these are presumably held in Edinburgh. Perhaps a helpful way forward is to note in the article that Kirk was ordained at a time when the official church was Episcopalian, then note that he may later have remained an Episcopalian or become a Presbyterian, and add a footnote saying that this topic is currently being researched. RomanSpa (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely unsurprised that this subject is a highly contentious one, though as an atheist member of the Church of England it's not really my business. RomanSpa (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to avoid convenient but inaccurate labels where they are inaccurate, even if they are convenient. Call him a Christian clergyman if you must, but there is no need to get more specific, where getting more specific is disputable. Instead, explain what RomanSpa explained above in the article regarding the complex political situation within British Isles Christianity at the time when Kirk served. Where multiple labels are all in dispute, use no labels. Instead, explain the nature of the dispute, and avoid labels altogether. No one can claim he wasn't Christian, and if you explain the complex political situation that existed at the time he served as a clergyman, you can avoid the conflict altogether. --Jayron 32 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Covenanter and The Killing Time for more information. Why don't you just give his religion as "Church of Scotland"? It's more precise than "Protestant" and much more precise than "Christian", and at the same time it doesn't avoid the ambiguity that's causing the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Church of Scotland is the relevant article. Alansplodge (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]