Humanities desk
< March 9	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 11 >

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.

March 10

Thoughts on film genre

My understanding of slasher film is that there will be a single killer, and it is a defining characteristic of the slasher genre. Wikipedia definition of slasher film is: "a type of horror film typically involving a psychopathic killer stalking and killing a sequence of victims in a graphically violent manner, often with a cutting tool." This means the killer does not have materialistic motives; (s)he murders due to his/her mental illness. Films like Psycho, Halloween, Friday the 13th fit well in this genre. But in a second category of films that includes Wrong Turn or The Hills Have Eyes, there are a group of killers, not a single killer, and strictly speaking, these killers are not mentally disturbed. They kill people to eat them, to them their action is just collection of food. So how these films fall under slasher genre? The Wikipedia articles include these films under Category:Slasher films. The Descent is probably another movie that belongs to this second category. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By defining genres narrowly enough, each work will belong in its own unique genre.--Wetman (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would define a "slasher" differently, as any movie where the primary goal is to show people being killed in a brutal manner. This is wider than the definition you used, but doesn't normally include murder mysteries, etc. StuRat (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the mother of all slasher movies Halloween does not show any brutal murder. --Reference Desker (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I wouldn't call it a slasher, just a horror film. It's entirely possible for the sequels to develop into slashers even though based on a non-slasher. StuRat (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that films where the antagonist just wants to eat the victims for food aren't "slasher films". There are lots of horror movies about bears, ants, aliens, and even rabbits that are just trying to get a meal. This being the encyclopedia anyone can edit, you should go ahead and remove the ones you don't like, state your reasoning in the edit comment field, and if someone disagrees you can discuss it at Category talk:Slasher films. --Sean 14:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horror films featuring bears, ants, rabbits as cold-blooded murderers belong to Natural horror genre. We are talking about films with human antagonist. --Reference Desker (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the article section that the original poster linked, various people have various definitions of the genre, so there's no definitive answer for the question. As Wetman implies, it's not an important distinction, though I know that humans love taxonomy and will spend time classifying anything. One other movie I'd offer to defy your definition, by the way, is the first Scream. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found some references that describe Wrong Turn as slasher film. My view is that slasher film should be defined as any film involving one or more killers stalking and killing a sequence of victims. There should be sub-genres of slasher film (probably based on the nature of the killer). --Reference Desker (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your link to the Defining the sub-genre section above also says: "There is substantial critical debate as to how to define the slasher sub-genre and what films are and are not slashers." WikiDao ☯ 02:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My father was a bank robber

This is not asking for legal advice, but just a matter of curiosity. Suppossing my father (or grandfather, or great-grandfather...) robbed a bank or committed some fraud and upon his death left the money to me. I may or may not have been aware of how this money was obtained, but I have spent the inherited money buying my house etc etc.

Now the identity of the robber or fraudster has been discovered, and the path of the money traced to me. Would I have to pay the money back, or not? Thanks 92.28.254.54 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all questions of law, you must specify a jurisdiction. --Sean 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the UK, but I would be interested in how this differs from country to country. In Mafialand they have a three month (I jest, slightly) time limit for criminal prosecutions, so you wouldn't. 92.28.254.54 (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interesting article. --Reference Desker (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's principle of law in Germany that you cannot acquire ownership of stolen property. I think there are several explicit and implicit exception to similar rules under Common law, however. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may not be the same as stolen money. For example a painting stolen by the Nazis, that has been bought and sold by many people. Does just the current owner have to hand it back, or does everyone who sold it have to pay the money back? 92.28.254.54 (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current owner has to return it (although I suspect that in the Nazi plunder situation there are several international agreements in place that modify the situation). The current owner also has a civil claim for the money he paid, all the way down the chain. And unless the buyers acted in good faith, they may also be criminally liable for receiving stolen goods. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did he just love to live that way? DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo dat quod non habet--81.98.97.252 (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the money would be confiscated. If you had purchased a house with the money, the house would be confiscated. See Asset forfeiture. This happens all the time in the US to seize money and property that is allegedly the proceeds of drug crime. The fact that you had been given the money, or inherited the money, doesn't shield the money from these laws. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, in most western legal systems there is a relatively short statute of limitations for crimes like theft (so long as there are no complicating factors like murder). so, unless your grandfather was robbing banks in his 70s, the SoL limitations would likely have passed by the time you inherited (meaning that no crime could be prosecuted, and hence no recovery of funds could happen under criminal law). The bank might open a civil case against you, but that would be a much harder case, since the bank would have to demonstrate that that you had wronged them, and couldn't use your grandfather's criminal nature against you. On the other hand, banks have lots of money, very good lawyers, and endless amounts of greed, so... --Ludwigs2 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs2, do you have citations for any of that? Civil forfeiture happens all the time, and the case is often an in rem case against the money itself, not against the bank robber. There's not even a requirement to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the money was stolen from them, at least in the US. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For America, any non-capital (i.e., no one was killed during the robbery) federal offense would carry with it a five-year limitation, per US Code Title 18, Part II, Chapter 213, Section 3282. I'm not sure how that would affect the handling/possible seizure of the money, however, if it were discovered after 5 years. Disclaimer: IANAL. ^Avic _ennasis @ 19:16, 4 Adar II 5771 / 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The civil concept of property has nothing to do with the statute of limitation for the criminal act. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It very much does actually. More relevant, in the U.S. Code there are 2 main money laundering statutes. 18 U.S.C § 1956 is the primary one, and the "traditional" definition of money laundering. However § 1957 criminalizes the transaction of money over $10,000 that's derived from specified unlawful activity, bank robbery being one of those activities (think the ending scene from The Town... that's a federal felony). There are many more state based statutes, and depending on the case, other federal statutes as well. But at least that's a real cite and a place to start. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of the foreshore in the UK

In the UK, the Queen or the Crown owns all the land between high water and low water. My question is, how did this come about? Was there a law that made this explicit, and did the Crown/historical-royalty gain other land at that time? Thanks 92.28.254.54 (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite all. DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And at the other end of the country, another system again. DuncanHill (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Crown Estate says that approximately 55% of the UK's foreshore is owned by the Crown (note that this does not mean it is the Queen's personal property !). It does not say how this came about. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More information on the website of the Crown Estate which also says "We as The Crown Estate own virtually the entire seabed out to the 12 nautical mile territorial limit". Another page on the same site has downloadable maps showing which bits of coast they own. Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, these kinds of things are legal issues to prevent squabbling over resource and passage rights. Nations usually declare sovereignty over territorial waters, including the seabed underneath; private owners generally have property rights over dry land, so questions arise about dividing lines. This would have impact on things like fishing, the development of wetlands, salvage rights on ships that beached or sank in tidal regions, oil rights for off-shore drilling... --Ludwigs2 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not just be that the crown owns the whole country, other than those parts that have been given or sold to someone else, and not many people would have shown that much intrest in buying or giving away bits of the sea? 148.197.121.205 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me again - this discussion gives lots of case law but the salient point seems to be:

"The Crown's prima facie title: The claim that the Crown is the owner of the foreshore and the sea bed under territorial waters was argued by Thomas Digges in 1568-69, and supported by Robert Callis and Sir Matthew Hale in the seventeenth century. It was resurrected in the nineteenth century, when the land properties of the Sovereign were transferred to the management of the Commissioners of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues (now the Crown Estate Commissioners) by the Crown Lands Acts 1810 and 1829. In A-G v Emerson [1891] Appeal Cases 649, the House of Lords confirmed that the Crown is prima facie the owner of the foreshore. Lord Herschell stated at p 653: 'It is beyond dispute that the Crown is prima facie entitled to every part of the foreshore between high and low-water mark, and that a subject can only establish a title to any part of that foreshore, either by proving an express grant thereof from the Crown, or by giving evidence from which such a grant, though not capable of being produced, will be presumed.'"

Another interesting bit: "The public right of fishery may be excluded by a private fishery, provided that the private right was created by the Crown before 1189; the Crown was seemingly prevented from creating further private fisheries in tidal waters by Magna Carta: Malcomson v O'Dea (1863)"

There you have it! Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a slew of questions lately that assume the Queen personally owns the entire country, and she personally receives all the taxes paid by her subjects. This is a view of the monarchy that can only have been gained by copious reading of The Wizard of Id. It bears NO relation to how things are actually done, in real life. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on allodial title claims the Crown does actually own all the land in England, and the land we think we own is merely an estate in fee simple. I don't know whether it's telling the truth. Marnanel (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is the formal legal position, though the crown would reclaim the land only if normal legal transfer of "ownership" failed. For all practical purposes, the ownership is by those who are named on the "deeds". Dbfirs 10:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the formal legal position was what obtained in practice, the Queen and the Crown are still different things. The Crown may well own all the land, but the human being we call Queen Elizabeth II does not. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the question of Britain's foreshore - effectively (and maybe unintentionally) the Crown has been the guarantor of the right of the ordinary Briton (in most cases) to walk, swim, sunbathe and fish on our beaches without let or hinderance from wealthy property magnates. This isn't always the case in the rest of Europe. Alansplodge (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in Scandinavia you can roam anywhere you like (not sure how this applies to ripe wheat/oat fields or gardens) and not just on footpaths as with us. 2.97.212.204 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, this is true in England also (and has been true for longer in Scotland), though cultivated land and private gardens are excluded. Dbfirs 19:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I though we only had permission to roam over designated areas, suchj as set-aside fierlds, not everywhere. Isnt there such a thing as trespassing any more? 92.15.8.206 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, farmers have to prove that land is cultivated to avoid the public being allowed to roam at will, though just spreading of fertiliser is usually sufficient to establish cultivation. Despite confusing signs in England in the past, trespassers usually could not be prosecuted since no criminal offence was committed (with a few exceptions), but they could be sued for any damage that they caused. See our article Trespass to land. Dbfirs 10:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important elaboration, because without rights of access, public land often becomes effectively private land that is exempt from taxes. In the U.S. it is usual for desirable land to be surrounded by many miles of carefully posted private property, whose owners enjoy the public land as their right, and occasionally treat those found on "their" public property with great suspicion. Often public land is reached by an access road which is gated some miles away from the public land - one must past a very long stretch of dull road surrounded by No Trespassing signs, and the occasional entrance from private land or a private club, to reach the parking area (erected at some considerable public expense) which marks the beginning of the publicly accessible land. Also note that public land is increasingly inaccessible, lest terrorists hike near reservoirs, or the great unwashed tamper with windmills (not that one would want to hike such a noisy area anyway - typically the most remote and pleasant of lands previously, you might as well cross them off your map). Oh, and I should add that I think it is far more likely that every last inch of public land would be leased or sold off and made inaccessible, than that the public would ever see an act gaining them any access to private land. Wnt (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry for you in the US, because even though you have lots of space, the opportunities to go walking in the fresh air through fields and woods etc must be very limited. I imagine the hiking trails and national parks only exiast in a few places. In Britain our dense network of public footpaths and bridalways are a national treasure and as far as I know unique to the UK (except Scandinavia though). Most of the footpaths and bridalways are across private land, where the owners are not at all trigger-happy as I hear they are in the US. 92.15.8.206 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which other countries do have networks of public footpaths and bridleways (for horses, not brides), or an equivalent of the "right to roam" that we enjoy in England & Wales (and that Scotland has informally enjoyed for centuries)? I assume that most deserts have this right. Dbfirs 10:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None, as far as I know. I do not think they have any even in Commonwealth countries. For roaming, see the list at Freedom to roam. 92.24.186.239 (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting link. Do Americans feel deprived of footpaths, or are they happy with their extensive National parks? Dbfirs 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are extensive state parks, state forests and state game lands - there is a lot of public land in the U.S. But as I say, many portions of these are much more accessible to a few people than to everyone else. You can have twenty miles of public land but the only legal way to get into it is to walk in from a major highway, which is not exactly the best way to appreciate the sounds of nature. There are also many "paths" in them, too many I would say, because they are regularly subjected to selective logging with the construction of coarse gravel roads, leaving behind well-lit forests littered with crowns and branches. But finding a spot where you can go quickly to a good natural place? Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. Wnt (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage of the footpath network in the UK is that they join up with towns and cities, so provided you can get to the edge of a town or city you can walk out into the countryside without having to drive anywhere, and have a choice of routes too. There are also footpaths within towns and cities: I imagine as they expanded, the footpaths remained. The private landowners I've ocassionally asked directions from seem happy for townies to go walking in the countryside; they seem willing to share the pleasure of walking in the countryside with others. See also Rights of way in England and Wales. 92.15.11.100 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism sects and social caste

In Hinduism, are there 16 types of Hindus? Meaning there are brahmin, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras Hindus in Shaivism; there are brahmin, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras Hindus in Smartism; there are brahmin, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras Hindus in Vaishnavism and there are brahmin, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras Hindus in Shaktism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.57 (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has only 8 (n.b. not 16) articles on those categories:

Varnas: brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya and shudra
Denominations: Shaivism, Smartism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism

I'm pretty sure none of the denominations prohibit its members from belonging to any of the Varnas, and vice versa, so yes, that would make sixteen different possible combinations of those categories. WikiDao ☯ 20:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

65.92.155.57 -- You should understand that "varna" is a loose overall classification scheme, while the actual collective groups which are most important for most purposes in everyday life have been the jatis (not varnas). "Varna" has very limited usefulness for understanding things in specific detail... AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism ethnic and religious sects

In Judaism, could it be possible that the Mizrahi Jewish population can be divided into Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist and Humanistic sects? Same thing with Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.57 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our Jewish religious movements article may be of interest to you, and also our Judaism article explains: "The Jewish Enlightenment of the late 18th century resulted in the division of Ashkenazi (Western) Jewry into religious movements or denominations, especially in North America and Anglophone countries. The main denominations today outside Israel (where the situation is rather different) are Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform." WikiDao ☯ 20:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most specific definition of the term "Mizrahi" is those Jewish communities outside Europe which were not significantly affected by Spanish Jewish influences (i.e. neither Yiddish nor Ladino). This included communities in the Caucasus, Iran, Yemen etc. -- which during the 19th century and the majority of the 20th were mostly rather remote from and unaffected by modernist controversies occurring in Germany and the English-speaking countries... AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]