Humanities desk
< May 21	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 23 >

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.

May 22

Earliest genocide or massacre in human history with solid archaeological evidences?

Is it Battle of Changping?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are the skulls found in Walbrook, but they're later than what you mentioned... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall of Assur utterly destroyed the city in 614 BC, but I don't know if there were significant massacre of civilians, or if the deaths were primarily military. --Jayron32 02:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC) resulted in large scale deportation of people from the city, though they were not massacred. --Jayron32 03:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Opis seems to be the earliest, thou several of these weren't purely genocides or massacres in a defenseless non-combative victim sense.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized Jayron32 pointed out that the seige was in fact earlier.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery 117 beats the Battle of Changping by 11,000 years. "59 bodies were recovered at Cemetery 117, as well as numerous other fragmented remains. There were twenty-four females and nineteen males over nineteen years of age, as well as thirteen children ranging in age from infancy to fifteen years old [...] Pointed stone projectiles were found in their bodies at places that suggest the bodies had been attacked by spears or arrows." --Bowlhover (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is old! Also, technically pre-historic. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide, a concept developed in a political context late in WWII, has no stable sociological or legal meaning, and historians engaged in genocide have retreated from large scale incidents to the single incident massacre as the unit of inquiry. I'd expect to wait at least three or four decades for their to be anything like scholarly consensus on the terms. Therefore this question is currently unanswerable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then restrict any answer you might give to the 'massacre' part of the question. That's a well-defined term. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, I think you meant historians engaged in genocide studies, who are worthy people, rather than historins engaged in genocide, who aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Historians engaged in genocide ... well, as long as they keep their genocide to "cleansing" those idiots over in the Education Dept. it should be OK :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks, Itsmejudith. Blueboar, while I can't think of one off the top of my head, and the Einsatzgruppen commanders with Doctorates seem to have Jurisprudence and Political Economy, and the doctorally qualified Cambodian leadership I'm finding hold sociology degrees, to paraphrase Billy Idol I'm sure there's nothing pure in this world. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human massacres predate history, and given evidence from chimpanzees engaged in intergroup hostility, the massacre probably came into being with humanity. If you want to remove the word 'history' from this, you'll probably get better results; just like if you choose to remove 'genocide' from it. And then you're left with, "What's the earliest archaeological record of a lot of humans killing a lot of humans." Sure, there might be a debate as to whether "displacement" in human societies has been primarily by massacre of by economic-out-competition resulting in disease and starvation on dislocation, but that's an entirely different question and one under debate like the meaning of genocide. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK Gay Marriage Bill

So the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill survived the Third Reading last night (yay!). I was just hoping you lovely people could help me out with a quick question about it, as I can't seem to find the answer anywhere.

So at what point after this becomes law does same-sex marriage actually become possible in England and Wales? Is it immediately on Royal Assent, some standard period of time after that, or a specific date written down somewhere? Also incidentally, I know it still has to pass the House of Lords, which could derail things, but is it possible yet to come up with a vague ballpark date for when it will actually become law?

I suppose this information is probably out there, but not in a place I can find it. I figure as it might be a precedent or convention thing that law people know but Muggles don't, the easiest thing would just be to ask here. Thanks much! Dan Hartas (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clause 18 of the Bill deals with commencement and states "this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes." [1]. Clause 14 also allows for transitional measures to be put in place. So, the answer is at some currently indefinite point after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Valiantis (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did hear the UK just got their own Supreme Court, so perhaps 10-15 years after it passes then works its way up through the judiciary until the Supremes take the case--that or duck it on a technicality and leave it for some future court to decide . . . yes I am suffering from D.C. orbital pull, sorry.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you already know this, but others might not: Because of parliamentary sovereignty the Supreme Court won't annul an Act of Parliament. Gabbe (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Gabbe! Makes me wish there was a way we can rejoin as a colony lol PM Boehner lol

Decolonisation has been the order of the day for the past century or so. But if you like, you could always apply to join the Commonwealth of Nations. You could even apply to become a Commonwealth realm. This would of course entail a couple of trifling constitutional changes (the Queen would become your head of state, and your president would be replaced by a non-partisan governor-general), but I'm sure you'd all cope. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Decolonization? Ask the Argentines that about "their" Falklands ;-) . . . then again there has been jokes of reversing it and getting a 51st state ;-) . . . but yeah I have always admired some of the Parliamentary system, "forming" a government out of coalitions, and instead of Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton etc. we'd have had O'Neil-Foley-Gingrich-Hastert-Pelosi etc., and now I learn the Supreme Court would be subordinate, then the White House could sell out as a Ritz Carlton! ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gingrich essentially did try to make himself prime minister in about 1995 or so. It didn't work, but there was no real constitutional bar to it. We effectively had parliamentary rule when Andrew Johnson was president. --Trovatore (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its been over a decade since I studied the UK parliamentary system but I remember that the House of Lords was the de facto highest court so I had assumed those powers along with the theory of blocking something the commons passed was simply transferred to the new S.C., a bit off topic from OP's original focus but still important in understanding the nature of the law that is being discussed.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our 'highest court' has only ever been a court of appeal, I think, and the House of Lords, when acting in this role, was just the last place in which you could appeal a judicial decision. It could never overturn a law, as we don't have a constitution for the law to break. Our constitution is literally just "whatever Parliament says, goes". The ECHR changes this a little, but even with that the UK has basically just agreed in a treaty to change its laws whenever we are found to breach the Convention: it isn't automatic and we are not, strictly speaking, compelled to do so. (Btw thanks for the answer, didn't know the commencement thing) Dan Hartas (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The legislation allowing trials in the House of Lords was replaced by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which established the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in its place. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To try to answer the OP's question and make a realistic estimate, it's a relatively short Bill (19 clauses, 7 schedules) but controversial, and the Lords does not have any arrangements to cut short debate. Likely full day debate on second reading, could be up to five days in Committee (a Committee of the Whole House), and then three days on Report, followed by another full day of Third Reading. Possibly followed by a ping-pong session with the Lords and Commons agreeing amendments. I think that length of debate could be fitted in before the summer recess, which is due to start on 18 July in the Commons. If not, then definitely during the September session. Assuming that all happens, then the government will have to arrange for the Act to come into force. By comparison, the Civil Partnerships Act received Royal Assent on 18 November 2004, and was brought into force on 5 December 2005. This was a more complicated Act, so it's more likely that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act will be brought into force some time in summer 2014. Or thereabouts. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

19th century Awards with a significant History

Can anyone give me examples of Awards dating back to 19th century, which have a significant impact given in "Academic fields". I am partly inspired to ask this question by the wikipedia article Adams Prize and Guy Medal though the Guy does not stretch to 19th century. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not looking for answers such as Nobel Prize

I thought the Prix Goncourt dated back to the 19th century, but not quite! How about the Prix de Rome, which actually dates back to the 17th century? Following links from the Adams Prize article, you could search through Category:Awards by year of establishment to find more from the 19th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The awards, lectures and medals of the Royal Society include a few old trinkets, e.g. the Copley Medal (1731), Darwin Medal (1890), Davy Medal (1877), Royal Medal (1826) and Rumford Medal (1800). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Gold Medal for architecture is often given for practical work, but also for academic work. Warofdreams talk 01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War as a cause of death

Hi,

I often see news articles/ wiki artcles (such as Causes of death), which list the most "dangerous" occupations by death rate, with fishermen often topping the list. However soldiers seem strangely abscent from the lists. Is this because the rates of death are offset by a the large number of non frontline soldiers who are rarely killed? Or because the rate of death of soldiers isn't actually that high, comparitively speaking? For clarification; I am asking about people who would list the army/navy etc as an employer, not people who take up arms in a war in their country, or civilians who are killed as a result of war. Sorry about the morbid question. Thanks! 80.254.147.164 (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize for morbidity, this Forbes article on the matter here cites the Bureau of Labor Statistics as their source, this would exclude American citizens outside U.S. borders. Another issue with finding military members in any of these lists is that although they are doing this as their "job" by many economic measures it is excluded on the grounds of national service or duty, i.e. there is no "at will" employment (you can't decide to quit) and no ability to form a union, and with the UCMJ you have no OSHA, EEOC, DOL etc. protections. Also depending on the mission it is at times unclear to public information if the death was combat or exercise or accident related, which although all the same profession would be desirable when producing lists of "jobs" since a dry dock crew in the Navy in San Diego is much different than a SEAL in Afghanistan and a air wing in Alaska.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for derailing the thread, but those words "you can't decide to quit" made me think of another question. What are the rules regarding voluntary departure from the US Army? Is resignation allowed, and if so under what circumstances? United States Army doesn't seem to say anything. --Viennese Waltz 14:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First link I found to help answer. (US specific, but you said US Army). http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/getout.htm --Onorem (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a list of military separation codes. Rmhermen (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a great deal of information on the U.S. military death rates. Overall death rate was 75 per 100,000 person-years. But being a young male combat-specialty Marine in 2004 was far more dangerous than a thirty-year-old female Air Force nurse (all lowest categories). Highest categories were over 200 per 100,000 p/y (combat, Marines in 2004 and Army in 2007) while the lowest was under 40. Rmhermen (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buyers remorse

How long does a person have, under the law, to return a car they just bought without consequences? Johanne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.139.102 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

inb4 "which country?", it's the USA. Do you mean a new or a used car? --Viennese Waltz 14:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot "Which state?" Dismas|^(talk) 14:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the IP address geolocates to Chicago. Looie496 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing we say here constitutes legal advice, and you would do better contacting a legal clinic if your question is more than casual interest in the subject. According to a website, http://blog.laborlawtalk.com/2006/12/05/illinois-buyers-remorse-laws/ , in Illinois there is no "buyer's remorse" period for returning a new car and getting your money back. There is, according to the site, a 3 day buyer's remorse period for certain other consumer purchases. If you buy a new car and drive it off the lot, it becomes a used car, with a retail value far less. The dealer has little interest in giving up his profit, and he can get a new car from the dealer for way less than the price you paid. There is also the possibility that a car which comes back might be in less than original condition for various reasons. It might be a legal or ethical problem for the dealer to try and sell a previously sold and titled car as a new car, and a subsequent purchaser might be able to track down that it had been sold once, from the VIN.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081227200917AA2GyM4 brings up the issue of fraud or misrepresentation by the seller (a car with thousands of miles on the odometer was sold as a new car, the VIN on the paperwork doesn't match that on the car, the car has a smaller engine than the paperwork says, for example), and again you would have to discuss your rights with a lawyer. Edison (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some U.S. states have lemon laws that allow cars to be returned for their full purchase price if the car is faulty in some way, perhaps in ways that do not show up for a short while. Many of these laws are based on the concept of the Implied warranty, which is to say that if someone sells you an item, it is supposed to work as expected. If it does not, it may (under some jurisdictions) invalidate the terms of the sale and you may be able to legally get your money back. IANAL, caveat emptor, WP:LD, and all that jazz. If you have concerns, contact someone who can legally advise you on how to proceed. --Jayron32 17:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since buying a car is a private arrangement, the laws are not necessarily binding. You can make a deal with the seller about the conditions for giving the car back. Cecil Huber (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very basic question, but what are some complex answers, please?

The simple question is: Why are people interested in unusual things? LevianitA (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the usual things are boring. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by "complex answer[s]"[2]? Complex in what way? Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may read a 14-page discussion of the phenomenon in this article. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It depends." Is that complex enough for ya? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Was just trying to ask a fucking question. Sorry. I'll go away now.114.75.53.69 (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you phrase a question vaguely, don't complain when you get vague answers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm asking a vague question because I don't want to limit the sorts of answers I get to it. I'm looking for various sorts of ideas here. Thanks? :) 114.75.61.81 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is not for random discussion. It's not a forum for opinions. --Onorem (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean opinions, either. I'm very sorry! I'm phrasing this very badly! I just want to know why humans (or all animals, really) pay special attention to the things they are unfamiliar with. Obviously there's survival instinct, but what other factors go into it? Why does it make an impression on our minds beyond that? What happens in our brain at that moment? All these things go into my question. Hope I'm making sense!114.75.61.81 (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to. :) There's a recent TV series, maybe on the History Channel, called "Brain Games", which talks a lot (and somewhat repetitively) about how our brains interpret what our senses pick up. Survival has a lot to do with it, i.e. noticing something that's out of the ordinary, like for example something running toward you. If you can find any of those shows on the internet, they could provide some insight. However, I think Blueboar's initial answer explains a lot of it. We pay attention to various crises, whether they affect us or not, because they are "exciting" in some way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because unusual things can be dangerous. That's the main one. We know the risks attached to usual things. On the flip side, they could be useful in new ways, and are therefore worth our attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Amanirenas

Hello,

are there pictures of Candace Amanirenas?

Thank you for your answers!

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Image search for "Amanirenas" finds some pictures, and also a statue of her. Looie496 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casteism in Bible

I always thought that castism is a purely Hindu, or almost purely Hindu phenomenon. But I heard a Guru referring to an incident in life of Lord Jesus where he wanted to drink water from a well but the lady drawing the pulley refused on the grounds that she is of caste lest Jesus be "polluted". Is there really such chapter in Bible ? 124.253.173.16 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is Samaritan woman at the well, from gospel of John. I do not know about the caste interpretation, but that article may lead you to more info. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is some more context about how Samaritans were seen in Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan#Samaritans_and_Jesus. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not an incidence of caste in the Hindu sense. Read Samaritan. Samaritans follow the same ancient religion as the Hebrews (and even to this day celebrate Passover in their own way), except that they never accepted the post-Babylonian exile notion that the Temple of Jerusalem was the only true temple. The Jews of Jesus's time basically regarded them as not "true believers". μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. :) The problem with both stories is having to explain the context. Nowadays it might make more sense to substitute "Palestinian" in place of "Samaritan". It's not really "caste-ism", just bigotry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination according to social class has occurred in many societies -- the Hindu caste system is merely the most extensively developed example. Looie496 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu caste system is not what is stereotyped in the west. Take the example of wikipedia, some like to create content themselves, some like to google translate from other wikis, some like to wikify, some like to correct grammatical mistakes. Every wikipedian has its own role. That is the real Hindu caste system where every person was assigned his unique role in society. Not subjugation as stereotyped in the west. Solomon7968 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The key difference is performing a role (such as a wikipedia role) voluntarily vs. being "assigned" (i.e. forced) into a role. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians arrive at the site with a clean slate, select their own roles, and can move between work areas without hindrance, at will. If they wish to gain admin or bureaucrat status (seen by some as a promotion) then their record of behaviour and contributions here is what matters, not their identity. I'm afraid I fail to understand the comparison. - Ka renjc 21:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When a Wikipedian who likes to wikify tries to correct grammatical mistakes, he is not regarded as ritually impure, banned from the grammatical-mistake-community, or ostracized. His sons and daughters are not forced to wikify, should they (voluntarily) join Wikipedia. That is quite unlike the condition of the Dalit: "Dalits were commonly segregated, and banned from full participation in Hindu social life. For example, they could not enter a temple nor a school, and were required to stay outside the village. Elaborate precautions were sometimes observed to prevent incidental contact between Dalits and other castes." --Bowlhover (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will you explain who are you quoting. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of caste in India is that it is not voluntary, and that it applies to people of the same Hindu religion. Samaritans, however, consider themselves Hebrews, but not Judeans > hence not Jews. This is an old and complex religious schism, and has nothing to do with caste or class per se. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just Hindu religions, in India, see Caste system in India#Caste systems among non-Hindus. Also, the 1950 Indian Constitution prohibits any discrimination based on caste and made the practice of "untouchability" illegal. Which isn't to say it's all stuff of the past, of course. Pfly (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US constition stated "Equal Rights" in 1776 then why it took another 100 (basically not even today) years to give the due rights of the blacks. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're still working on that. Legal structures are one thing, changing how individual people treat other individual people, especially when some of those individual people are in positions of power, and as such, have the ability to act on their bigotry, is another. --Jayron32 05:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "equal rights" was not written into the Constitution until the 14th Amendment, and we are indeed still working on it. Bigotry dies hard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See James 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for posting my 22:51, 22 May 2013 reply; in retrospect, I see that it is more about discrimination based on economic class than about discrimination based on ethnic background.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for a modern person to understand the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans in the time of Jesus, and our article doesn't do much to help. Josephus, in the Antiquities, relates an occasion that seems to have taken place in Jesus' childhood when the Samaritans apparently desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem. That would have been utterly shocking to Jews of the time. There's also a story he relates in The Jewish War about a murder of a Jewish pilgrim by a Samaritan and an unpleasant over-reaction by the Jews, who are only dissuaded from going to war against the Samaritans by their leaders warning them of the likely crushing of insurrection by the Roman rulers.

Having said that, I don't think this story is about antipathy at all. As this Christian Bible text explains, the Samaritan religion was sufficiently different that a Jew who, in Temple times, had to observe a madly complex section of halacha that dealt with ritual impurity would simply not have been religiously permitted to use their vessels and it's this that the Samaritan woman is referring to.

Finally, it's definitely not a "caste" matter - a Samaritan could become a Jew by converting. --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The antipathy between Jews and Samaritans likely goes all the way back to the divided monarchy. The Israelite nation was divided into two kingdoms from about the 10th century BC - Judah in the south, Israel in the north. Judah was ruled by the descendants of David from Jerusalem, Israel by various dynasties from various capitals, one of which was Samaria, until it was conquered, and its people dispersed, by the Assyrians in the 8th century, leaving Judah as the last Israelite kingdom standing. The word Jew derives from Judah. The Bible was written in Judah with an ideology that said the only acceptable place to sacrifice to God was the temple in Jerusalem, and all the kings of Israel are condemned for having their own holy places, so Samaria as the capital of Israel, its people and their religious practices would have been seen as unacceptable by Jewish believers for a long time before Jesus. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknack009 -- Samaritan/Jewish antagonism presumably drew on traditions of conflict between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, but it wasn't a simple continuation. Rather, after the downfall of the northern kingdom ca. 721 B.C., there were significant deportations of the population there, and resettlement of people from other areas, so that many in the remaining southern kingdom came to regard the inhabitants of the area of the former northern kingdom as a mixing of heterogeneous elements with very little valid claim to consider themselves Israelites. Most of the northerners, on the other hand, considered themselves legitimately Israelite, were often not willing to accept religious leadership from Jerusalem, and were less influenced by the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah, which were considered vital by southern religious rigorists. By the Persian period, the Samaritans had a temple of their own on mount Gerizim, opposed the Jewish return from exile, obstructed Jewish efforts to rebuild Jerusalem and the Jewish temple there, and opposed the further Jewish religious reforms under Ezra (Ezra is a hate figure in Samaritan tradition). When the Jews regained some power under the Maccabeans, they returned the favor, and destroyed the Samaritan temple (which they regarded as a blasphemous parody of the Jerusalem temple built and run by pretenders who had no legitimate right to call themselves Israelites at all). In the middle half of the 1st century A.D., many of the traditional causes of antagonism still operated, and the destruction of the Samaritan temple roughly 150-200 years before was still remembered... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prize vs Copley Medal academic domination politics

Copley Medal being awarded since 1731 was a far established award than Nobel Prize. Then why did Nobel Prize became the standard of Academic distinction outpacing Copley Medal starting only since 1900. Any light on the topic is appreciated. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, the cash value of a Nobel Prize is far higher -- currently about 1.2 million US dollars versus 5000 British pounds for the Copley Medal. Looie496 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you get more buck for his bang. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I wonder if the Nobel choice is more accurate about who is the best in the field. Obviously, any recipient would prefer a Nobel prize, but what about a person not related to a field who just want to know who is the best one? Would any of these national prizes do more justice than the Nobel prize? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Noble prize is given to a number of people every year in different fields of science, and also in literature and in peace. I think this makes it more well known, since the people interested spans a wider field. It's not just for people interested in science, it is also for people interested in literature and in international politics, and they all draw attention to eachother. Cecil Huber (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr. Berg" from Norway

I'm working with some 1980s photos of Lee H. Hamilton meeting foreign dignitaries. One of the envelopes is labeled "Mr. Berg, Norway". Unfortunately, I can't describe what he looks like in the picture, since Hamilton is shown shaking hands with several men whom I don't recognize. Can anyone suggest a Norwegian named Berg from this period who might be going to the USA for high-level meetings? Nobody named Berg was either the Minister of Foreign Affairs nor the Prime Minister during this period. 2001:18E8:2:1020:A4AB:9743:B2F9:993F (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not the ambassador to the US either. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone in Berg (surname) seem possible? Couple of sports stars...184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly no:Alf Roar Berg or no:Johan Berg? Both were heads of the Norwegian Intelligence Service, and Hamilton chaired the Intelligence Committee. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A pity they don't have images; I've looked around for images of Johan but can't find any; this is Alf, but I can't find him in any pictures. I guess I'll just leave the description as "Mr Berg"; these photos are to be going online, so perhaps I'll come back some day and be able to point to a URL when I ask again for recognition help. 2001:18E8:2:1020:A4AB:9743:B2F9:993F (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Eivinn Berg? Norwegian Ambassador to NATO (84-88) and the EU (88-96), and before that (effectively) the deputy foreign minister (81-84). Andrew Gray (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]