Humanities desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 17 >

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 16

North Korea's military tendencies

After all my questions on North Korea throughout the years, and despite reading several Wikipedia articles on the topic, there's still one thing I don't understand. Why is North Korea so aggressive in the first place? They have nuclear ambitions, seriously want to build ICBMs (which by itself isn't a bad thing, but with their behavior lately, that would be worrying), and threaten an attack on South Korea and/or the US because of military drills (although military drills by themselves aren't an indication of an impending invasion; for example, the US and the Philippines have military drills all the time but the Philippines doesn't want to invade a country anytime soon) or sanctions. I know that the US is partly to blame for the Korean War (if it weren't for them, Korea would have been united), but that's another story. But still, in the first place, why is North Korea so aggressive? To get what they want? (but then again, if they weren't so aggressive, they wouldn't have sanctions in the first place) They understand that their behavior is doing more harm than good, both to the world stage and to their own people, but why do they continue to practice such behavior? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They need an enemy to justify repression of their own citizens. If there was no enemy, and no sanctions, then the people would start to ask why they are starving while the ruling class is living in luxury. This is especially true because they have the example of South Korea, with a fully functional economy, just over the border (and the same with China, over the other border). With nobody to blame this on, it would become quite obvious that the discrepancy is due to the policies of their government. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that western democracies also find it convenient at times to paint North Korea as the Devil's spawn. The declaration by Dubya that it was part of the Axis of Evil is a classic example. That announcement was part of him seemingly needing an enemy to blame and condemn. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See false equivalence. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "axis of evil" inclued Iraq, which was an exaggeration, and excluded Pakistan. Otherwise, it was on track, despite that rather silly name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but that doesn't mean you say it out loud. That was counter-productive. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subtlety is way down the list of Dubya's personality traits. At least he didn't pull a Reagan and say "The bombing starts tomorrow". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many complex answers to this kind of question. A few of the factors involved:

A lot of North Korean bellicosity is for a domestic audience, not an international one. We are not terribly privy to the internal politics of North Korea, but keeping their people (and their generals, and their soldiers) in line is certainly part of what these actions help achieve. It is a common tactic in all nations (not just totalitarian ones) to emphasize the threat from abroad as a means of achieving domestic unity.
At the same time, the North also has a pattern of being "bad" to achieve some kind of future deal. They have to have bargaining room. So they will build a reactor, test a bomb or two, and then say, "OK, we'll take apart the reactor, for some more food." Great, but once you've taken apart the reactor, then what? You act "bad" again, get everybody back to the bargaining table, and then you can promise to act "good" again in exchange for something. It's a game, and everyone involved in said bargaining knows it is a game, but the alternative to the game is North Korea acting worse, and possibly actual war, and so most players are willing to play along.
North Korea also has a genuine security concern. They do not have many good friends, and their enemies are quite powerful. Lumping them into the "Axis of Evil" was not a mere rhetorical point, especially when one such country soon had a war declared against it (under false pretenses, at it turned out), and the other is a country where war occasionally seems very likely (and there are assassinations, sabotage, and other issues). They are correct to see their situation as painted into a corner. They are correct to perceive that if the US felt they could topple them tomorrow, with a minimum of "cost", they would probably do so. As it is, making it clear that the cost would be high in such a case is a solid strategy.
There may also be unknown psychological factors at work here amongst the leaders of the North Korean government. North Korea is a state the concentrates a lot of power at the top. That means that whomever is at the top is going to have a disproportionate influence on their domestic and international policies — much more so than any state where power is more diffused. As such, idiosyncrasies, psychological hangups, strange beliefs, and so on, can manifest themselves politically in unpredictable ways. I don't think we know much about the current leader, and that hampers our accurate analysis.

There are no doubt other factors as well. My main point is, there is unlikely one simple answer to this kind of behavior. It serves multiple purposes. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that NK has legitimate security concerns. Their conventional military was quite sufficient to prevent a US attack, and they could also have relied on China to defend them. So, the concept of a US attack there is absurd. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is moot, and the second is questionable. Why would China necessarily defend North Korea? Political constellations change - just see Hitler-Stalin Pact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China feels the need to have a buffer zone between itself and the free world. Hence their continuing occupation of Tibet. StuRat (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case some modern-day Hannibal decides to attack China by leading an army across the Himalayas. That's why they're working feverishly to re-create the Wooly Mammoth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, most of the free world accepts that Tibet is just as much a part of China as Beijing is. So, where's the buffer zone now? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral talks vs. six party talks

I was reading over here that NK only wants bilateral talks with America to strengthen their ties with them, while America will only accept six party talks. It says that the reason why America rejects bilateral talks is because they violated previous bilateral talks, but that sounds like a cop out to me. If they violate bilateral talks, why would America believe they wouldn't violate six party talks? Doesn't make sense, but I'll ask my question anyway. Why does America care (if they are acting in their own best interest which they are) if it's six party talks or bilateral talks? ScienceApe (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to the Six-party talks that have already been going on for a decade, which also involve the other regional interested parties (China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China is the key. They are the only ones who can put pressure on NK to actually fulfill their obligations. That is, they can cut off the supply lifeline they give to NK, which is vital to NK's survival. So, the hope is that, if the agreement includes China, then China will enforce it. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason is that the US doesn't want to appear to be unilaterally bullying North Korea.--Wikimedes (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems rather backwards. It's NK who keeps threatening to attack everyone in sight. StuRat (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is backwards, but a little thing like logic won't stop North Korea from screaming "victim" or people who see Yankee imperialism in all US foreign policy actions from agreeing with them. Along the same lines, if the US dealt directly with North Korea without input from countries and people who are actually in the region, it wouldn't be unreasonable to see the US as sticking its nose into other people's business.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

forz d/c

What is the etymology of this term (it is used in jewellery)?Curb Chain (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of where it is used? --ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2]Curb Chain (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a surprisingly hard one to figure out! I suppose one could ask one of the sellers. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had never heard of the term. Given how uniform the examples are in the ads, are you sure it is not simply a brand name? --ColinFine (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both chains are made of Italian silver and forza (note the a), is Italian for strength, so I've got to think that's related somehow, but searches down that line of inquiry keep circling back to Forza Italia and related topics, which seems a red herring. Consider my curiosity is piqued... Matt Deres (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about "forz", but the "d/c" bit is surely short for "diamond cut", which means the links have flat, polished facets cut into them to make them sparkle, like this.--Rallette (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...got it: "forz" is clearly short for "forzatina", which seems to be the Italian term for a simple chain, in jewellery.--Rallette (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus (Pt), Franklin, Ohio, United States

Resolved

Like in this census here - what does the (Pt) / (Pt.) there stand for? I did not find a reasonable explanation in pt. Thanks for answers! GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 09:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest it means 'part thereof', or words to that effect. Columbus City, although mainly in Franklin County, also extends into Delaware County and Fairfield County (although the table suggests that in 1980 it had not yet grown into the former). The table first gives the total population of Columbus, and then the populations of the parts within Franklin and Fairfield, denoted with (pt). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I found the same but much more complicated explanation (streches over... including ... etc. etc.) of what you suggest. Case closed. Do you think this could be entered (connection: census, geography) in pt ? GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 09:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Personally I'd say that the definition belongs at Wiktionary (in fact, it's already there), but then again lots of things in that list belong at Wiktionary to my mind. If you want to add it, go ahead. I won't stop you. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find me?

What's the number of the film director Manoel de Oliveira on the list of 'oldest man living in Portugal'? 84.110.36.209 (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want us to find for you ? His phone number ? StuRat (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can read. Which place his in the list of the oldest men in Portugal.82.81.208.29 (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being rude to responders here, who are unpaid volunteers, is not your best approach when seeking information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your English isn't clear. "Which position on the list does he occupy ?" would be the way to ask that clearly. Also, it should be "oldest men" not "man", and "Can you find this for me ?". StuRat (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the answer, but is somewhat relevant: List of Portuguese supercentenarians. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This book (describing age 105+ as a semi-supercentenarian) gives 19 such men in Germany in 2002 and maybe the number goes up two or three fold each decade.[3] The population of Germany is about 7.7 times Portugal so perhaps perhaps only a handful of men in Portugal are older than Manoel de Oliveira who is 104. My grandfather was 104 when he died in 1994 and he wasn't even the oldest person in his care home (but he was the oldest man). Warning, these are "validated" cases. Many very elderly people overstate their age and many possibly genuine extreme ages cannot be validated.Thincat (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Natural Geographical Border

My question is which country in Africa has a n atural border or is a geographical entity by itself. For example undivided India and Pakistan used to form a geographical entity before being partitioned. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar ? StuRat (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Kim Jong Un said he would "rain bullets" against the enemy

close trolling by banned user

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

did that include Japan? Hyerotaku (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was said by a 80 year old Korean War veteran, not by Kim Jong Un. [4] --PlanetEditor (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. But anyway, does it include Japan? Hyerotaku (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was a veteran of the Korean War. So by enemy he probably indicates South Korea, North's enemy during Korean War, not Japan. --PlanetEditor (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question is trolling by the banned user Timothyhere/Kotjap. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is North Korea so aggressive toward Japan?

close trolling by banned user

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

If Japan has done nothing to them? Hyerotaku (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Japan–North Korea relations. --PlanetEditor (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question is trolling by the banned user Timothyhere/Kotjap. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Amen

This is probably a stupid question, but I'm hoping for some nice references. In the song Amen_(The_Impressions_song), did Jester write the Amen chorus, or did he just arrange an existing Amen and add verses? I ask because I've heard that particular Amen tune used liturgically and, although not impossible given the people involved*, it seems unlikely that a film and pop tune was chosen. (*The hymn "My God loves me" to the tune Chanson d'amour strikes me as particularly incongruous, in retrospect.) 86.161.209.78 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article used the term "popularized". That implies there was an existing Amen song. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says the Impressions popularized the song written by Jester for the film Lilies of the Field. 86.161.209.78 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the article tells me that Jester first wrote the song for the film Lilies of the Field. Then, an artist for the Impressions heard it and was inspired by it, thereby creating a new version. It is possible that Jester got inspired from the liturgical version, or vice versa. I assume that people "don't live in a vacuum", always influencing or influenced by the environment. Another possibility is that the liturgical version and the film version just happens to sound similar to you or happens either simultaneously or spontaneously, as is the case with Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in a debate on who discovered calculus. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for a non-Jewish person to assimilate into the Jewish culture or become an ethnic Jew?

Is it possible for a non-Jewish person to assimilate into the Jewish culture or become an ethnic Jew? Or do you have to be born into a Jewish family with two Jewish parents? If a child is born into a Jewish family, loses his parents, and becomes adopted by a family of a different faith and cultural background, then would that child lose his Jewish status if he practices the faith of his new adoptive parents and learns the cultural ways of his parents, or does he remain forever an "ethnic Jew" even though he is brought up into totally different culture and religion? If the person's race is Asian, but he is brought up in a Hispanic Catholic culture instead of an indigenous Asian culture, then would that person's ethnicity be Hispanic Catholic? Another question is, if a person grows up in a densely populated Jewish/Christian/Muslim community and practices the religion and culture of those groups but that person has non-Jewish/non-Christian/non-Muslim parents, then would those groups accept that person as a member of the community? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen it yet, I'll point you to the article Who is a Jew?, which the launching point for figuring out what it means to be Jewish. (Answer: it's complicated, and depends on who you ask.) Regarding community acceptance, it highly depends on the community (on a finer level than just generic Jewish/Christian/Muslim). -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is yes, one can assimilate, and, no, one cannot change one's ethnicity. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Race is not the same thing as ethnicity. Race has more to do with physical appearance and ancestry. Ethnicity has more to do with culture. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wiggers show that anybody can assimilate into anything. That said, if you're an uncircumcised male, you need to either get circumcised or "keep it in your pants", if you want to "pass". StuRat (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the most committed Jews I have known were born to other religions. As for the convert to another religion, the quote (I probably misquote) which I have always felt summed it up was "until the day of his death You wait for him".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to Judaism has the answer. Bottom-line: the Jewish people doesn't seem eager to accept anyone, contrary to the Christian and Muslim practice, but it's possible. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christians and Muslims see it is their divine responsibility to expand the flock. Jews figure if you don't want to be Jewish, they won't stop you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but ethnos and natio refer to relationship by birth. So regardless of the starnge idea above that one can become ethnically Jewish, it ain't hapennin. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this logic, you wouldn't be able to become a citizen of a country by naturalization, only by birth. The problem with analyzing words' meanings from a etymological perspective is that their meanings wander, sometimes into something completely different. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This "logic"? Ethnicity and citizenship are totally separate concepts, but feel free to make up whatever meaning for words you like, I don't care. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think OsmanRF34 is referring to the usage of the root words ethnos and natio as justification for the term "ethnicity" to mean "relationship by birth". However, according to this website, it seems that it provides a comparison between race and ethnicity, which supports the notion that ethnicity is more "nurture" whereas race is more "nature". 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

75.185.79.52—you ask "Is it possible for a non-Jewish person to assimilate into the Jewish culture or become an ethnic Jew?" Can you clarify what you mean by the term "ethnic Jew"? Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this may clarify. To be on the safe side, does anybody know a respectful term for a person with a Jewish ethnicity? According to that dictionary definition, the word "Jew" is regarded as offensive. To prevent causing offense to these types of people, maybe it's best to refer to them as "God's chosen people"? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"X is Jewish" is perfectly acceptable to refer to an ethnically Jewish person who is secular, i.e. use an adjective rather than a noun ("a Jew," "a Jewess"). To specify (if known) that the person is religiously observant, perhaps say/write, "an observant Jew" or "a practicing Jew" - and if the level of observance is known, "an Orthodox Jew, a Haredi Jew," etc. For those who aren't converted at the belief-and-practice level, I would maintain that ethnicity can not be adopted. See philosemitism, an uncommon word that's the opposite of antisemitism, and note that both words refer to attitudes toward Jews, not Semites. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the dictionary definition says "Jew lawyer" or "Jew doctor" are offensive. "Jewish lawyer", "Jewish doctor", and "there are 7 Jews on the council" are unobjectionable, at least in the minds of reasonable people. I'm not sure if you're trying to be provocative by saying "God's chosen people", but 62 percent of Jews are non-religious, and much of the remaining 38 percent are likely to be offended by the racist connotations of "God's chosen people". --140.180.249.27 (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't being provocative. I didn't realize that 62% of Jews were nonreligious. Oops. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case the Chosen people are Koreans. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Art Work

Does Wikipedia identify works of art or who the artist is if the signature of the artist is not legible & is there a feature on Wikipedia to upload pics of the artwork? Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.57.47 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no formal mechanism for that, but people at this Reference desk might try to be helpful if we can see a picture of the artwork. Unfortunately, you probably can't upload a picture of it here unless you have permission by the copyright holder. Looie496 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are confident that the image is old enough to be out of copyright you can upload it. If you upload it elsewhere - for example on Flickr - you can link to the website from here. Paul B (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether there is a fair-use clause that would allow uploading a picture, maybe a low-resolution picture, of a painting which is still under copyright. Being the intention clearly to find the artist, it seems acceptable for any one with common sense (although not necessarily under the law). OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need. If the OP wants to find out, he could easily upload the picture to an external file hosting site like Imageshack or Photobucket (or whatever the cool kids are using these days -- Flickr?). Then the WMF would not bear any liability for possible copyright infringement. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the person posting the original question please say where they are encountering the artwork which they would like some information about? If, of course, the image is online, you could just provide a link to an image of the work of art. Bus stop (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One might try a TinEye reverse image search... - Nunh-huh 07:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the art work is uploaded to another site and is under copyright, hard to say when it's not known who the artist is, it can't be linked to as per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. Also any fair use (Wikipedia:Non-free content) images can only be used in articles. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elves and spirits braiding hair: Looking for early mentions in written records

I recently wrote a blog article about how some people believe hair locks from natural matting (a.k.a. elf-locks) were actually braided by Bigfoot creatures. I'm compiling a list of supernatural creatures associated with tying hair into knots and or braiding it. The earliest mention I've found is from the 13th-century; William of Auvergne wrote about female spirits that plait the hair of horses with wax. This belief has to obviously predate his writings. Does anyone know of earlier mentions? What about in other countries besides Europe and America? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]