Humanities desk
< September 29	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	October 1 >

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.

September 30[edit]

Nikkei[edit]

Is the Japanese newspaper Nikkei a generally trustworthy news source?118.90.31.41 (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by its massive readership, long-history and the fact is sold international with translations...yes I would suggest it is a reliable news-source, or at least about as reliable as any other major international business news-source 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is one of the best sources in Japan (or Asia, for that matter). DOR (HK) (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selling sheep in ancient Israel[edit]

I remember hearing at one point that the inscription above Jesus on the cross was abbreviated into the Hebrew name of God. Googling confirmed this but I also heard that is was common practice when selling a sheep to hang an inscription of the father’s name from its neck. The purpose of this was too provide proof of good stock, etc. Google has not turned anything up so I am not sure if that was an exaggeration. I would like to know if it's true and, if possible, a link to an article or page covering this information. Thanks! Joshua42425 (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Jesus was killed by Romans under Roman legal procedures -- the native Jewish authorities in Judea (the Jerusalem high priest, Sanhedrin, etc.) were not allowed by the Romans to inflict the death penalty, and crucifixion as a penalty was forbidden under Jewish religious law. Second, INRI is not the "Hebrew name of God", and any proposal as to what the "Hebrew" version of that text may have been is only speculation ("Hebrew" could well have actually meant "Aramaic", anyway). AnonMoos (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense would also indicate that the practice of advertising the name of the (sheep's) father would have very little point; in Biblical times flocks of sheep were allowed to get on with their procreative business as they pleased, so it would normally have been impossible to determine the father of a given sheep. Plus sheep were not usually given names in Ancient Israel. So all in all this is exceptionally unlikely. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excepting, of course, the famous racing sheep. —Tamfang (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal principle[edit]

Is there a legal principle which was used to justify the acquisition of sovereignty of territorial gains (after a war)? This confuses me – if no such principle exists, plenty of islands nowadays could be described as 'occupied', at least in theory. I'm sure there must be some legal term (along the lines of Terra nullius) which was used by imperial powers and the like. Thanks, RedCoat10 (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Cession. That is the "giving" of one piece of your territory to another country as part of a treaty. As opposed to Annexation where you just take it.Fribbler (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happens though if the territory is conquered but not formally ceded through a treaty? Is there no historic legal concept which formalises the conquest? RedCoat10 (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uti Possidetis... AnonMoos (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's it, many thanks! RedCoat10 (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if one country occupies territory of another with no serious objections from the country with the territory, the claim can pass through prescription. Grsz ^talk 17:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the invading power just installs a puppet government which signs whatever is put in front of them, perhaps in gratitude for "liberation," perhaps from fear, perhaps to have a strong friend to defend them, perhaps from bribes, perhaps to get a greater (but incomplete) degree of freedom, at the cost of military bases or other benefits to the conquering power. Sometimes there is a plebescite. See the histories of Hawaii and Cuba. See aso Right of conquest, a principle of international law until the early 20th century; Client state ; Colonialism ; Imperialism ; Neocolonialism. Edison (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The things you learn on Wikipedia, and especially the RefDesks! I have just added "Category:International law" to Uti Possidetis; it was unfindable otherwise. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well as far as I know there are deeds which say 'by right of conquest' on them. Nothing much more is needed really. Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's a special Islamic legal term for property rights acquired by conquest -- عنوة or عنوةً `anwatan, literally "by force") which might be worthy of some discussion on Wikipedia (it only seems to be mentioned glancingly in Islamic law in Constantinople, and in older versions of the Azerbaijan_(Iran) article). AnonMoos (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous French saints in Ireland[edit]

Is there a list of famous French saints remembered for their work in Ireland? x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a category of French saints, and of Irish saints. Do they have to be saints, or just missionaries/churchmen/monks? Gwinva (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saints. I was just wondering if there were any obvious ones. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you might also look for Irish or Scottish saints remembered for their work in Europe, likely a larger group. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see Hiberno-Scottish mission for those ones. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk) [reply]

stone cave[edit]

does any one know the history of the stone cave at the intersection of manor st. and rt. 69 in waterbury ct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.24.241 (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that Waterbury, Connecticut rather than Waterbury Court, East Snodbury, Berkshire? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut as well as Talk:Waterbury, Connecticut. Better yet, try asking the Waterbury Library. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

States giving electoral votes to national popular winner[edit]

I read somewhere (on Wikipedia I think) that two states (they might have been NJ and MD) gave their electoral votes to the candidate who got the most popular votes nationwide. I assume this was only proposed because I couldn't find it again. Where might I have read this? Thanks, Reywas92 ^Talk 19:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the US, so I may have missed it, but I've never heard of that. I believe there are two states that give electoral votes according to proportional representation in their state (or some other way of splitting the votes) rather than giving all the votes to the candidate with a plurality, is that what you're thinking of? --Tango (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like what Reywas is talking about is correct, here's a story on it. (I have to admit this is rather surprising to me.) It looks like it only goes into effect if a majority of states (by electoral majority, enough to equal 270) agree to it. AlexiusHoratius 20:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Trying to get a majority of states to go do it is very different from unilaterally doing it yourself, though. --Tango (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, although I think, speaking very much in general, the EC is less popular in larger states (larger states are under-represented), thus (maybe) making it easier for this thing to attain the majority needed. However, I'm not sure how this will play out in really partisan states, (consider Utah having granted its votes to Clinton or Massachusetts voting for Bush, I doubt that would have been very popular with the locals). In any case, like you said, it will be interesting to see what happens. AlexiusHoratius 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link; I take back what I said about it maybe being passed in many of the larger states, it looks like ~~California~~, Florida, and Pennsylvania have all rejected it in some way or another. AlexiusHoratius 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it's pending in California - it was vetoed by the governor once, but it's been passed by the two houses again, so it's back before the governor. --Tango (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I must have just been looking at the top entry. AlexiusHoratius 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State vs. federal waters[edit]

I'm trying to understand the United States offshore drilling debate, and I was confused about mention of state bans on drilling versus federal bans. Do the states have control over economic exploitation in certain waters and the federal government in other waters (which are presumably what are described in territorial waters? I would have assumed that the states have no jurisdiction over ocean waters unless it's explicitly granted to them by the federal government. Has that been done already for some things, or do the states have inherent powers in that area? -- Beland (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is explained in Tidelands. In the United States, most states own the rights, and regulate, out to three miles from the shore (in Florida and Texas it is 10.5 miles), and beyond that, out to where international waters begin, the federal government can do what it wants. This was the result of acts passed in 1953. It's a pretty big deal in California where I live, for some of the most productive oil fields, and some of the least explored, are just beyond that three-mile boundary. Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not salt water and so far of only minor interest to drillers (ranked 18th in production among states[1]), but Michigan claims all bottomlands in its waters of the Great Lakes, which in some places, are more than 50 miles offshore. Both state and federal laws restrict oil exploration on the Great Lakes. Rmhermen (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obstacles for woman in todays society.[edit]

I would like to know what you woman and men think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.29.179 (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ref desk doesn't really do opinions. Someone can probably find you some relevant studies to read if you're interested. --Tango (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See glass ceiling, and search in google for books/articles with a focus on femminism (I can't spell that word) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It differs around the world. If you want an international view, don't forget issues like female genital mutilation. The rights of lesbians are to be considered. You might also want to consider rights to maternity leave, and childcare. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

division of labour might also be of interest. Steewi (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]