Humanities desk
< August 8	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 10 >

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.

August 9

time frame between Numbers 21 and 2 Kings 18?

The Bible tells in Numbers 21 of God instructing Moses to make a bronze serpent on a rod so that the children of Israel would live after being bitten by serpents - in 2 Kings 18 the Bible tells of King Hezekiah reigning and destroying the bronze serpent on the rod because the children of Israel had made it into an idol that they burned incense to; how many years are there between these two events? Approximately what year did the event of Numbers 21 take place, and approximately what year did did the event of 2 Kings 18 take place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.137.73 (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My table of chronology in the back of my Bible says Numbers was completed in 1473 BCE and covers 1512-1473. For 2 Kings it says it was completed in 580 BCE and covered 1040-580. To narrow the the dates down I did some fractions for Numbers: 21/36 chapters = x/40 years. So chapter 21, theoretically was written in 1489 BCE. Assuming this particular religious reform occurred during the era of sole reign by King Hezekiah (as opposed to co-rule, because Hezekiah ruled with his father from 729-716 and with Manasseh from 697-687) then it happened sometime between 716 and 697 BCE. So, to answer the question, at the most, it was 825 years, at the least 744 years, but 792 years may very well be a "more approximate" estimate of elapsed time. schyler (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nehushtan has background information.—Wavelength (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chronology of the Bible might be helpful.—Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, all putative dates before "The Kings" subsection of that article are extremely problematic. AnonMoos (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on the plot of the Literature text: Richard iii, Shakepeare.

Hey, im a 17yr old student taking literature and having exams next week. We're only tested on the first 2 Acts. Ive been looking online for many e-resources and notes, but could not find appropriate information to answer these few doubts, and i find it a little difficult to understand the play and interpret the language very well.

We are supposed to look out for instances of Dramatic Significance in act1-2. Could you help me cite a few important examples?

Also, I dont quite understand a few things in act 2 scn 1. Kindly help me out by answering the following doubts asap. Thanks:)

1) It is pretty obvious that all the apologies and declarations of love and forgiveness ordered by Kind Edward are fake and superficial. None of them even sound realistic and sincere. Then what is the significance of this activity? Is the King ignorant of the fact that they may be apologizing just for his sake?

2)"Why, so. Now have I done a good day’s work."- what work has King Edward done? what is he referring to?

3)"RIVERS(taking HASTINGS’s hand) By heaven, my soul is purged from grudging hate, And with my hand I seal my true heart’s love." why are Rivers and Hasting apologizing to each other? what was the hate present between them?

4)QUEEN ELIZABETH "There, Hastings, I will never more remember Our former hatred, so thrive I and mine." Likewise, what initial hatred did Queen Elizabeth bear against Hastings? what did he do to her?

5)KING EDWARD "Dorset, embrace him.—Hastings, love Lord Marquess." Once again, what is the issue between Doeset and Hastings? do they have a problem with each other as well? or are these simply a ritual for the satisfaction and assurance of King Edward?

6)Same question about the exchange between Buckingham and Queen Elizabeth, as requested by King Edward.

Lastly, is there any particular set of themes present in the first half of Act 2 scene 1? where is it evident?

Thank you very much for taking time to answer my questions.Pearl121.6.231.135 (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh no, no one answered my post :( Pearl220.255.127.52 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look at this site [1] might help with some of these points. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can a nation state aquire ownership by way of adverse possession?

Can a nation state aquire ownership over a property, either movable or immovable, by way of adverse possession? Is it correct that a nation state's acquisition of ownership by way of adverse possession can only take place in accordance with international law?

203.131.212.121 (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A state by definition has final control over all people and property in its domain. Many modern states provide guarantees that they will not exercise that control (basically, these are laws or constitutional structures which cause the state to limit its own potential behavior), but even highly democratized states have conditions in which they apply their power as states. the US, for instance, will sequester property related to drug activities - even cars, boats, and homes - and auction it off; it will also sequester individuals, freeze assets, and otherwise deprive people/groups of property and liberty on suspicion of terrorist activities. it is not what you mean by adverse possession, which is a conflict of separate guaranteed rights between different individuals. A state simply abrogates the rights of citizens where and as it feels justified in doing so (within the limits of its own legal self-limitations).

acquiring ownership of property (or people) not under the state's domain is a diplomatic incident, which can have effects ranging from mild rebukes or unilateral sanctions to cessation of diplomatic contact to outright warfare, depending on the relationships between the states and the seriousness of the act. --Ludwigs2 07:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're talking about sounds like eminent domain, which is not arbitrarily done but requires legal steps, as per the U.S. Constitutional amendment which states that you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property "without due process of law". So in addition to eminent domain, you have seizure of property from criminals, which also follows the law, presumably. Contained within that amendment, of course, is the implication that capital punishment can be perfectly legal under the Constitution, despite claims to the contrary by some; but that's another matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this, and eminent domain, is different Bugs. Check out the adverse possession article for one of the more surprising things first year law students learn in property. Shadowjams (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's called uti possidetis, but the re-application of "uti possidetis" to new military lines of control created in new wars is supposed to be banned by the UN Charter... AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If either Egypt or Sudan occupied Bir Tawil, I think it'd be all theirs. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Republic of China seems to have taken Tibet via adverse possession. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the PRC occupied Tibet after Tibet failed to obtain international recognition as a sovereign state. There was no legal issue to be resolved, only an ongoing separatist movement. --Ludwigs2 18:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos's uti possidetis is probably what the OP wants, but if you read the question literally, there's another answer. Adverse possession cannot run against the state so it would follow that another state couldn't use the doctrine to acquire land against another. However, I do think that adverse possession law may be used in favor of the state, so the state could adversely possess land against a private landowner. Shadowjams (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the OP wants is called "acquisition [of ownership] by prescription" in civil law system. "Adverse possession" is concept in common law system. See: usucaption and acquisition by prescription in international law — 203.131.212.36 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perjury in court

This story was in the new recently: Mia Farrow Disputes Model's 'Blood Diamonds' Testimony. The long and short of the story is that the courtroom testimony of Naomi Campbell is diametrically opposed to that of Mia Farrow. So, this got me wondering. In almost all court cases, the witnesses on opposite sides tell diametrically different versions of the "truth". Ultimately, many of these witnesses are lying, I can only assume. And, this lying is not uncommon. Why, then, do we almost never hear about anyone ever being prosecuted for perjury. I mean, people lie left and right in courtrooms every day of the week, every hour of the day. But, we never see any news accounts of anyone ever getting charged with perjury. I am just curious why is this? Is it because prosecutors have bigger fish to fry? Is it because perjury is so hard to prove? I am just curious what the underlying factors are. I am referring to the United States, by the way. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The typical description of such testimony is "He said / She said", except in this case it's "She said / She said." Trying saying that 3 or 4 times quickly. Regarding perjury, you would have to prove the witness was knowingly deceitful. But if it's "He said / She said", it can be hard to prove if there's no corroborating evidence. Juries might decide which one they think is telling the truth, but that's just their opinion, they could be wrong. Check the article, and I would expect there would be some examples. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are really talking about two things here. One is whether perjury is prosecuted, the other is whether it is reported on. There have been prominent media reported cases of perjury — see, e.g. Lewis Libby, Bill Clinton, etc. However according to this article, the difficulty is that it requires proving that the witness was intentionally giving false information. There is nothing wrong with being "wrong" if it is unintentional, or even based on faulty memory, and intentionality is generally a hard thing to prove in court. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two people can honestly believe (or appear to believe) conflicting or even opposite versions of something they witnessed. Now, if you catch them on tape stating their intention to deceive the jury, then you've got them, and anyone doing that should probably wear one of the white hats discussed in the next section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He said/she said would refer to, say, a rape. Man: "Yes, we had sex, but it was consensual." Woman: "Yes, we had sex, but it was not consensual." There is a lot of room for "gray area" / perception there. I am talking more about, say, a murder or bank robbery or whatever. Prosecutor: "You killed Mr. Jones." Defendant: "Oh, no, I never killed anyone. In fact, I was in Hawaii on the day of the murder." People lie through their teeth all the time in courts. I just don't understand why they don't get punished or charged with perjury. I am seeking insights. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Also, I don't know that proving intent is so burdensome. Someone wanting to avoid 100 years in prison has great motivation to lie (perjure). That goes to his intent. No? (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, though, which is a very high burden. Motivation isn't enough. You need to prove they couldn't have been mistaken. --Tango (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Perjury has a list of famous people which were recently found guilty of perjury. Naomi may join them sooner than we think. Flamarande (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about the defendant perjuring themselves, then that's very different to a witness doing so. In some countries (eg. France, if memory serves), the defendant gives testimony without giving an oath, so they are allowed to lie. In others, pretty much anyone pleading not guilty and then being found guilty could be charged with perjury, but the authorities rarely bother. It's taken into account in the sentencing for the original crime instead - you usually get a greater sentence if you plead not guilty than if you plead guilty. It would be very inefficient to hold another trial after pretty much every guilty verdict to consider the crime of perjury. You might get charged with perjury if you committed some kind of elaborate deception, I suppose. You might be charged with perjury if you are found not guilty of the original crime but then new evidence is found that makes it clear you were lying (exactly how this would work will depend on the double jeopardy laws in the jurisdiction in question). --Tango (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we've seen with the O.J. case, there are ways around the double jeopardy issue. But if a jury acquits for murder and then the guy admits to doing it, then criminal action against him is kind of limited to perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. And wrongful-death suits are also possible. O.J., of course, has never admitted it, although he's come close. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's the situation in the US. As I said, the details will depend on the way it works in whatever jurisdiction it is taking place in. Laws about double jeopardy vary very widely. --Tango (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from the San Francisco Chronicle from 2006 with a list of a few notable perjury convictions in the US and a few notes on why it's considered a difficult crime to prosecute: obstacles include the need to demonstrate, for example, that the question was clearly worded, that the answer was unequivocal and that the witness knew it was false. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the possibility of a chilling effect on the willingness of witnesses to testify if they knew they'd be likely to be tried for perjury. Hypothetical - Person A hits Person B. Person C sees it. A is charged, but B refuses to give evidence. C testifies to attack, A denies. Jury believes A, A is acquitted. Imagine now the idea - "A has been acquitted and is innocent in the eyes of the law, therefore C must have been lying - charge him!" - you can see why the burden is so high. Exxolon (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the above input. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Traditional Depictions of Witches and Wizards

Having just seen the new Shrek movie, which features them quite heavily, I got to wondering where the traditional depiction of witches comes from, specifically the brimmed pointed hat they wear. I've never seen it in scenes of everyday life in any period, but was it a customary garment at some point in time and in some particular place? Also the brimless conical hat that is a standard wizardly accessory. Was that a feature of academic wear once? Rojomoke (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My very vague recollection from that awful tourist trap known as the Salem Witch Museum is that the black hat witch is actually directly derived from the Wicked Witch of the West as depicted in the 1939 movie. That article itself shows earlier illustrations of non-black, but pointy hats. Guesses on my part: perhaps they are related to the dunce caps worn by heretics during the Inquisition, or the medieval Jewish caps, or pointed hats worn by scholars in the medieval period. This book seems to imply that the dunce hat is derived from the Jewish cap, but I don't know how good its own sources are. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are some organizations that proudly wear the dunce cap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True but irrelevant. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily irrelevant. I looked through the article for info on just why they wear the white dunce cap, but didn't see anything. But the Birth of a Nation poster shows someone wearing a hat or helmet that looks a lot like that "Jewish cap". So I suspect there's a connection between all of these things. Not that we necessarily have a complete answer to the OP's question, but he probably knows more now than when he asked it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The KKK hood derives (I know not why) from the capirote used in the Holy Week in Seville. There is some (but not much) more info at our inevitable article on "pointy hat". Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article postulates that Quakers wore pointed hats, "and the negative image of witches wearing conical hats in America became common about the same time anti-Quaker sentiment was at a peak. Quakers were thought by some to consort with demons and practice black magic, things also associated with the early American view of witches." Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That pointy hat is Welsh, whose very name signifies "foreign outsider".--Wetman (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article doesn't support that view - the Welsh hat had a flat top, and in any case didn't exist until the 1830s or so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the stereotype for the people in the North, East, West & South?

I was wondering what do people typically think when they hear of people from the South, West, North & East. Like what are they stereotyped as?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.72.93 (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you talking about? The United States? Great Britain? China? All countries have their own regional stereotypes. It's a bit odd that we don't have an article on regional stereotypes. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is from Minnesota, US so I expect the OP is talking about the US. --Tango (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, people with a southern accent are considered inherently dumb - which is heavily reinforced in movies. Need a dumb character? Just give him a southern accent. People with a northeast accent are considered dumb by choice - more ignorant than possessing a complete inability to learn. So, you want a stubborn idiot, just give him a Brooklyn or Boston accent. People from the north-Midwest are considered dumb by necessity. They are farmers and don't need to know a lot about trivial things. There are few examples of this in film - the most popular being Fargo. There is no heavily discernible western accent. If there was, it would likely be considered dumb by peer pressure, similar to the "Valley Girl" lingo of the 80's. -- kainaw ™ 16:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kainaw has correctly nailed all of the "dumb" regional stereotypes. Another popular one will be "haughty" — the haughty Southerner is the racist plantation owner who is wealthy because his great-great-grandfather exploited lots and lots of slaves; the haughty Northeasterner is the Ivy League snobby WASP who works on Wall Street (see The Bonfire of the Vanities); the haughty Californian is an obscenely wealthy, clueless Hollywood movie studio executive (see The Player); and the haughty Midwesterner ... well, Midwesterners are supposed to have solid moral values, so none of them are haughty. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say how many films highlight this stereotype or trait, but I can assure you there is no shortage of moralistic self-righteousness among midwesterners. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...just smug and provincial. Northern Californians and Southern Californians stereotype each other, and stereotypes of the Pacific Northwest (the Green Liberal Hiker) and the Southwest (the Gun-totin' Racist) have little in common. Many states have an "upstate/downstate" stereotyped contrast: the hidebound farmer is Upstate New York and Downstate Illinois. So North, East, South, West aren't the best cubbyholes for confining American stereotypes, which invariably say more of the stereotyper than the stereotyped subject, of course.--Wetman (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I think of "Westerners" it is not "people from California," but cowboys. Imagine the movie personnas of John Wayne, Gary Cooper, or the cowboy quartet in Gershwin's Girl Crazy who sang "Bidin' My Time." Laconic, slow spoken men of action, not of words. Yup. Now Ah'll jest be moseyin' on. Edison (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are only so many types of people in general. No matter where they are geographically, change their skin color and accent and they can live anywhere and find somebody like them. There are dumb people everywhere, as Kainaw pointed out. There are smart and smug and smooth and solitary and stand-outs in every society. If you are in high school, college, or in the buisness world, take a random sample of hundred people and you will be able to group them up, just as if you took a random sample o, say, 100,000 Americans from across the country, you could put them in groups. schyler (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are military versions as well, for fictional purposes - generals are usually Southerners (particularly Texan), but lower ranking southerners are in the military to escape poverty. West-coast fictional military personnel are usually laidback and bend the rules wherever possible (if they're officers, they're likely incompetent). Mid-west fictional milfolk are grunts and cannon fodder who are there out of duty to Uncle Sam or to escape the farm. New Englanders are there out of duty and family tradition. Steewi (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The East Coast girls are hip (I really dig the styles they wear) and the Northern girls . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, or the Beach Boys will sue you. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

geneology of king david

Was king david, son of Jessee a Levite? If not, how come that he was not killed when he entered the tabernacle in II samuel 7:18? 216.41.248.61 (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, David nominally was of the tribe of Judah. However, the bible and the old testament in general and the Books of Samuel in particular are heavily reworked collections of different sources. Neither the genealogy of David nor the definition of Levite are particularly certain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the detailed rules in the Torah about the design of the Holy of Holies, and about who can approach it and under what circumstances, are generally believed to be material created by the priests in the days of the First Temple. In adding that material to the Torah, the priests projected many of the rules from the Temple era back into the days of the Tabernacle, so it's possible that the rule about Levites didn't exist in David's time. (Source: My old Oxford Annotated Bible.) A. Parrot (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David was from Judah, with his genealogy listed at the end of Ruth:

Moreover, it does not say that David entered the Tabernacle -- only that he went לפני השם (lifnei HaShem, "before God"). Such a phrase could also refer to the Temple (or in this case, Tabernacle) grounds, much like the biblical obligation to bring the Four Species on all the days of Sukkot only on the Temple grounds (לפני השם) -- otherwise, the biblical obligation is merely on day 1 of the festival. I will check the commentators on that verse tomorrow, though, to see what they say. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Il duce, Silvio

From "The Mussolini of Ass". GQ. June 2010.:

This winter, during a campaign rally in Milan, a mentally unstable man threw a plaster replica of the Duomo at the Presidente. It broke his nose and two teeth and lacerated his face. (It was when he was getting his teeth fixed that he met the leggy hygienist/soon-to-be regional councillor.) Immediately after he was hit by the statue, Berlusconi's bodyguards hustled him into his little blue Audi. Before they sped away, though, the Presidente reemerged and climbed on top of the car. He stood there, in the cold streets of Milan, for a long, melodramatic moment, his head tilted upward and a beautiful expression of pride on his face, bleeding from the mouth, among a crush of people and television cameras. After that, his numbers skyrocketed. Because he instinctively knows how to appeal to the soap-operatic sensibilities of the Italian public, like a character on one of his own shows.

I've searched and failed to find this image. Can anyone locate it? High-res obv preferred. Skomorokh 18:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This video should qualify: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GpymFZAMVE Also, there's this picture: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BWL0gMTWy1A/SyozXO9nv9I/AAAAAAAAAcY/E37P2hs6AK4/s400/berlusconi+ferito+tartaglia.jpg --151.51.156.20 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, since you use the name Berlusconi and the title Duce in the same sentence, did you know that Mussolini had at one point suffered a similar injury? [3] TomorrowTime (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, but they don't seem to show Silvio atop the car or, in the case of the video, a "long, melodramatic moment". Is it likely the journalist was exaggerating? That is interesting about Mussolini, TomorrowTime. Skomorokh 12:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he is lifted and briefly sits on top of the car, but one can't be sure as clip doesn't show his lower half. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown territory

Between Lithuania and Poland, there is a segment of land that seems to belong to Russia or Belarus or somewhere. What is that area called? 87.112.158.100 (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliningrad Oblast. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's Kaliningrad, formerly Königsberg, and it is part of Russia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Kaliningrad, formerly Königsberg, is the city and administrative center of the entire Oblast which belongs to Russia, lies between Lithuania and Poland, and covers about 70 times the area of Kaliningrad itself. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]