Humanities desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 22

Hinduism question

Before European colonization, were the people of India aware that most of them shared a single religion–specifically Hinduism? Or is the idea of Hinduism as a single religion itself a Western creation? Futurist110 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO,the answer is complex as much Hinduism is complex to for non Hindu understanding. Partially question in it self is western construct. Any introduction to lesser known culture can generate feeling of 'not like us' and it's natural corollary bound to be identity uniqueness of own culture and identity.

The question probably assumes Indians were totally unaware of concepts of non Indic religions and cultures before western colonization in modern times. But that was not the first time west was visiting India. Greeks came with Alexander, even ruled part of south Asia, they had their different polytheism. If not entire art of sculpture making some important related skills Indians learned from Greeks, meaning there by cultural interaction took place but Indians did not adopt Greek polytheistic religion.

And even before Alexander's invasion Indians had fairly good trade relations across and traders would have been aware of differences between religion and cultures and those must have been shared with Indians.

If not far away Persians were following a different religion than that of Indians. Persians and Indians both were aware of differences in their own respective religions but did not adopt.

Indians interacted with far east till Vietnam Japan and China Indians exported their culture and religion but did not do much cultural or religious import despite long cultural interactions.

If not in big numbers Jews came and settled in India in very early times. Even Christianity and Islam too reached Indian shores in their respective very early times. So to say Indians did not come across concepts of foreign religion would be too presumptuous. But why such impression gets created ? Because the scale of 'religion' Jews/ Christianity / Islam use is different than that of scale of Darsana (traditional schools of Indian philosophies) used by Indians.

In simple terms 'Darsana' means 'views', this scale is different than Jews/ Christianity / Islam scale of religions in the sense that 1) In principle 'Darsana' accepted existence of multiple philosophical and Soteriology views and deliberated and debated at scholarly level 2) Other than scholarly discourse Indic traditions and preachers had strong tradition of not to speak or discuss about other views/'Darsana'/ or religions or philosophical competition other than their own. Because concept of Arishadvargas did not allow speak bad of opponent. But same time did not accept 'others' easily. So even while Indics came across different religions and philosophies they did not discuss of the 'other' much in their day to day discourse and literature rather what one finds overcoming completion by ignoring competitor and stoic silence about 'the other' as much as possible. 3) One more important difference in approach of 'Darsana' philosophies vis a vis Jews/ Christianity / Islam method of spread of doctrines was too indirect. Philosophical deliberations used to happen at top scholarly level and most times did not reach end commoners directly, but through family Gurus (family religious teacher) and through religious story telling. So one does not find much direct doctrinal conversions at ordinary level in India no doubt Jain and Buddhist did that to some extent but Vaidics largely overcame them over a period of time with their own persistent methodology of incorporating good part of Jains and Buddhists and same time not speaking about them to the masses and offering more pragmatic solutions and indirect preaching.

Since Hindu philosophical reach out was indirect and allowed family religious teachers and disciples to adopt individual styles and way of philosophy and individual way of life, So Hinduism is a collectively evolved thing with involvement of multiple philosophies and interaction over the centuries.

Unlike Zoroastrianism Jew / Christianity / Islam which superimpose singular identity, Hinduism did not superimpose singular identity but it is an evolved identity with huge scope for pluralism. Since the scale of Religion is different than that of 'Darshana' some tend to make claims that Hinduism was not a singular identity and attempt to stretch argument to level that Hinduism does not exist.

Despite difficulties in nomenclature and defining, the fact is an ever evolving Hinduism and Hindu identity existed and exists encompasses all that which is ready to evolve with them and same time remains 'the other' to those who do not evolve with them. Even if one treats Hindusim as religion or not, challenge of understanding their philosophies and way of life and identity remains ever open.

That is what is my perception of 'them' the Hinduism of south Asia as student of South Asian studies. And one will find as many perceptions as many people experience or come across Hinduism and Hindus.

Bookku (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- some philosophers and Brahmins definitely contrasted the traditional pieties of the Vedas etc. with Buddhism and Jainism even before the Islamic invasions of India, and the Islamic invasions contributed to distinctiveness of other religions. Whether ordinary people in villages would have been aware of belonging to the Vedic etc. tradition is a complicated question. Many villages had localistic religious rituals which were slowly assimilated to Hinduism under the influence of local Brahmins. "Hindu" itself is a Persian-language word (the "h" consonant is a dead giveaway), and likely would have been known to very few in India before roughly a thousand years ago... AnonMoos (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-colonial times, most people living in what we call India would not have thought of it as India. Many parts of the modern country, especially the Tamils and Dravidian peoples of southern India are only part of India because of European colonization; for most of history India (Bharat, see Names for India#Bhārata) only included people and land north of the Deccan. --Jayron 32 16:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of moments of death of British monarchs

In British law, the maxim "The Crown never dies" means that there is an instantaneous transition between one monarch and the next. The precise moment of death (or the moment when an abdication comes into legal effect) is also, by definition, the precise moment of accession of the new monarch.

Given this, I'd have thought that the details of those precise moments of death/accession would be of interest to legal types, and others. I suppose some details would be available in the individual biographies of the monarchs, but a handy list would be very nice. I've searched for such a list, without success. Can anyone help? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The precise moment is probably more relevant to physicians filling out death certificates than to the practical work of government... AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but royal watchers usually delight in such stuff. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The tradition dates to 1272 in England when Edward I of England succeeded the throne following the death of Henry III of England. The details of which are covered in The king is dead, long live the king!. It likely took weeks or more for Edward to even learn that he had been king, given that he was away in the Levant fighting the crusades at the time. Counting the time it would have taken him to return (or even to communicate bilaterally with the administration while he was gone) the actual day-to-day running of England was managed by the curia regis until Edward returned. It was like this for centuries; even though in a legal sense the new King became king upon the moment of the expiration of the prior king, this was due not to the need to have a continuity of management (i.e. a lack of meaningful administration between kings) but rather to avoid a succession crisis. Since succession was assured before the prior king died, there was no drama as there could have been when there was some doubt as to who the next king would be (even primogeniture was a fairly new concept in the 13th century, confusion over rightful succession was actually the norm rather than the exception, and led to such issues as the Norman Conquest and The Anarchy. Even afterwards, there were still times when the rightful succession was contested (Henry IV of England seizing the throne, the whole Wars of the Roses thing, Jane Grey, etc.) Even accurately knowing the exact moment of death of a monarch is likely not a thing prior to the 20th century, when accurate world-wide timekeeping became a thing. There's likely only a small handful of monarchs for which the moment in question is actually known. --Jayron 32 13:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know even the day when the present Queen acceded - 6 February was chosen because it was felt at the time that it was more likely that her father (George VI) died before midnight than after. 95.150.97.145 (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a case in point. I know I've read that Elizabeth was the first monarch at least of the past few centuries whose precise moment of accession is not known, due to the king's death at some unknown time during the night. That must mean that all the previous monarchs' details are known. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Legal death. The precise definition of death is awkward, and while exceptions exist (e.g. Charles I), unless they were hooked up to good monitoring machines, it would be really hard to tell when most monarchs reached specific points, and you'd still have to define the point at which "death" occurs. And since the possibility of precise legal definitions didn't exist before today's medical technology, you'd have to rely on old definitions, which potentially could have changed from century to century. (I assume there's a common law definition, but it might well be rather vague.) So even aside from issues of timekeeping, it would be extremely tricky to define the moment of death for many or most British monarchs, even aside from timekeeping, and aside from the mysterious deaths of kings like Edward II and V. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're all making this far more difficult than it needs to be. Here, I've created the start of a list by consulting the relevant articles:

George III: 8:38 pm, 29 January 1820
George IV: 3:15 am, 26 June 1830
William IV: "early hours", 20 June 1837
Victoria: 6:30 pm, 22 January 1901
Edward VII: 11:45 pm, 6 May 1910
George V: 11:55 pm, 20 January 1936
Edward VIII: abdicated 1:52 pm, 11 December 1936.

Is there such a list going back as far as records may exist? That's all I want. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward VIII's death occurred decades later. Also, I interpreted "precise moment of death" as, and I expect most others would likewise interpret it as, being on the order of seconds; aside from George III, all of them died at five-minute intervals, so potentially these aren't correct to the minute, either. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re Edward VIII's death occurred decades later - in my original question I talked about the transition between one monarchy and the next, and I explicitly said "The precise moment of death (or the moment when an abdication comes into legal effect)". It was I myself who researched the moment when he signed his own Act of Abdication, bringing his reign to an immediate end, and added the information to His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they are not all known, when you think of the battle death(s) and the secret prison deaths that will never be known. But of those that could be, Wiki articles actually give quite a few. I’ve only gone back to the death of Edward I since Jayron32 covered the death before that, when the tradition started. Couldn't find you an existing list either.70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exact time given:

George V 11:55 pm 20 Jan 1936.
Edward VII 11:45 pm 6 May 1910.
Victoria 6:30 pm 22 January 1901.
George IV 3:15 am 26 June 1830.
George III 8:38 pm 29 January 1820.
Charles II 11:45 am 6 February 1685.
Edward VI 8 pm 6 July 1553.

Approximate time given:

William IV, “died in the early hours of the morning of 20 June 1837”.
George II, not long after 6 am, after leaving time for drinking a cup of hot chocolate, going to the bathroom, collapsing, lifted into bed, daughter sent for. 25 October 1760.
George I “in the early hours before dawn on 11 June 1727” (Julian calendar date).
Anne “around 7:30 a.m.” 1 August 1714.
Mary II “shortly after midnight on the morning of” 28 December 1694.
Charles I “At about 2:00 p.m” 30 January 1649.
Elizabeth I “between two and three in the morning” 24 March 1603.
(Lady Jane Grey “morning” 12 February 1554.)
Henry VI “the night of” 21 May 1471.
Edward I “morning” (when woken for breakfast) 7 July 1307.

Wiki articles are silent on: William II 8 March 1702. James II/VII 16 September 1701. James VI and I 27 March 1625. Mary I 17 November 1558. Henry VIII 28 January 1547. Henry VII 21 April 1509. Edward IV 9 April 1483. Henry V 31 August 1422. Henry IV 20 March 1413. Edward III 21 June 1377.

Plus the ones you will never get precise times for:

Richard III in thick of battle 22 August 1485.
Edward V in prison but even the day is unknown.
Richard II in prison at an uncertain date around 14 February 1400.
Edward II in prison and people are dubious about the official declaration of “the night of” 21 September 1327. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.193.176 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would all be a lot easier in any cases of them having their heads chopped off at dawn. Hayttom (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort you've put in, although I really would have preferred an existing list, preferably from some official source or at least from a reputable publisher. But maybe it doesn't exist. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nat King Cole classification

Hi! I'm Dswitz10734, an editor here. I'm researching Nat King Cole, and could not find his musical designation (tenor, alto, soprano, etc.). Can anyone help? Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His voice type is baritone. You can see it in the categories at the bottom of the article, and see also here. It should be noted that voice types are generally used in European Classical tradition, where voice types are used to write parts for choir or for opera. See, for example, SATB. Singers in other traditions, such as pop or jazz (either category could be used to describe Nat King Cole's music) are sometimes so classified, but it is not always a helpful distinction. Some pop, jazz, or rock singers may have voice types that lie between traditional definitions, cross several of them, or may defy categorization in those terms (since the classifications were developed to fit into a different musical tradition). But that's probably too much of an aside, Cole is clearly a baritone, if you listen to him he fits squarely in that voice type, and most sources (see above for one I found, also see [1], [2], etc.) describe him as such. --Jayron 32 15:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The King is listed in List of baritones in non-classical music, with references. --Lambiam 15:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32, Shantavira, Lambiam: Thank you for your assistance. Have a great day! Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thai provincial nationality, religion, language, and/or ethnicity data for other years?

I recently created this Wikipedia article: Nationality, religion, and language data for the provinces of Thailand. I was wondering, however, whether there is any similar data–as in nationality, religion, language, and/or ethnicity data–available for Thai provinces for other years–as in, for years other than the ones that are mentioned in this article? Futurist110 (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woolworth retro activism

Did a group of retro activists create an online store with the F.W. Woolworth Company name? If yes, why isn't it mentioned in the article about the company?2603:7000:8100:BD38:34D9:4635:394F:8EBC (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does your own research indicate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It indicates this [3].2603:7000:8100:BD38:B8AB:9532:FC94:14E1 (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, for something to be recorded in our encyclopedia requires two things. First, it has to be something that is notable (of encyclopedic interest) and can be referenced to reliable (independent) sources – what we call "original research" is not allowed. Second, some volunteer must undertake the effort to add the information in an appropriate way. This does not appear to have been picked up by news media, and we are not in the news business ourselves. --Lambiam 08:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a hoax on Twitter in the UK last year, that Woolworths was coming back. This was reported in the press and later rebuffed by the owners of the Woolworths brand [4]. --TrogWoolley (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]