Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 27

= February 27 =

Odyssey
Why was Odysseus the King of Ithaca, (even before he left for Troy?) although his father Laertes was still alive? His son Telemachus never became king, even when some thought Odysseus was probably dead, and I gather that Odysseus, after he returned and killed the Suitors, planned to remain king.thanksRich (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Our articles claim that Laertes was "King of the Cephallenians", of which Ithaca was only one part. Rmhermen (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As for his son not becoming king, they seemed to have a system rather similar to the modern one, where a missing person had to be missing for a fixed length of time before they were legally declared dead. However, unlike now, a woman with a dead husband was forced to either remarry or lose her land, as a woman alone was not allowed to hold land.  Thus the suitors, who were after her, and the land. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * They seemed to have? How do you know that? Is that your "deduction"? -Richard L. Peterson199.33.32.40 (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Women not being able to hold land was a standard feature of patrilineal societies, at the time. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Richard is saying that this is a myth, with several lessons more important than the filing of a missing persons report. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you know anything about "the time" to say that women were not able to hold land? Are you aware that "the time" was probably the very late Mycenean bronze age or the Greek Dark Ages, from which we have no written records?  The text of the Odyssey strongly indicates you are wrong.  Books 1 and 2 are focused on Telemachus trying to get his mothers' suitors to leave the house, and Odysseus refuses to "send your mother away, and bid her marry the man of her own and of her father's choice".  There is certainly no mention of Penelope being required by law to remarry, and if she was in danger of losing her estate (actually Telemachus' estate), Telemachus would certainly not vow to massacre the suitors in the name of preventing the suitors from wrecking the estate!  --140.180.255.158 (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not having written records doesn't mean we don't know anything about how their society was organized. For one, we have the oral tradition of the Iliad and Odyssey, which both describe a patrilineal society.  There is also surviving art and architecture from that era. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the Odyssey describes a society where Penelope wasn't required to remarry. If she was, Telemachus would not be chasing her suitors out of their estate.  --140.180.255.158 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Once Odysseus had returned, there was no longer a need to remarry. Of course, even if he had been declared dead, sons are often still reluctant to see their mothers remarry. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your efforts to figure this out, but I don't think your answer resolves the difficulty. However, your suggestion is certainly one of the issues that might be involved. But I would prefer that you not be so cocksure about your answer. It was a long time ago. Thanks.P.s: Rmherman's point about Laertes being King of Cephallenians could also be relevant.--Rich Peterson76.218.104.120 (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure it is. Rulers giving portion(s) of their kingdom to their son(s) to rule, while they still lived, was not unheard of.  (I'm not sure if the title "king" should properly apply to both, though.  That might be a translation error.) StuRat (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Laertes was still alive when Odysseus returned though.76.218.104.120 (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

has israel ever considered buying land for somewhere else for palestinians?
it is just my understanding but it seems israel has a lot of modern, even high-tech infrastructure and a pretty strong economy. apparently it gets illegal immigrants just coming to work and so forth.

meanwhile, it is asserted that there is almost a two-class system and life is very hard for palestinians there. (just reporting some common assertion).

these two things which would lead me to suggest that israel would be in a position to purchase land somewhere else (cheap and far away) and just give it to any palestinians who want to go there. has it ever considered doing this?

(Yes, I realize that the same argument could be made that surely arab countries such as saudi arabia would be interested in purchasing an israel-sized chunk of the nevada desert and pay for israel to move there - which it would have no interest in doing. But other than the fact that you can't just move city infrastructure, skyscrapers, and the like, it's not my question at present - rather about whether Israel has thought of doing this.)  Thanks.

Also let's not get into any debates. We know that some people say israel has a right to live in security. we also know other people say israel is an illegal occupier, an illegal country. my question really isn't about any of these things. de facto, israel has money and my question is whether it has ever considered spending any of this on some land somewhere else. thanks. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Like Madagascar, for instance? alteripse (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well they do buy land but Palestinians don't like it because of the consequences - they then stick one of their settlements into the middle of a Palestinian area and eventually try and drive the rest out. Does Palestinian land laws answer your question? Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your "Madagascar Plan" article is first of all extremely charged politically, and secondly, wouldn't have been voluntary. I don't mean "dump the palestinians on boats somewhere."  I mean, buy some land the size of israel somewhere else (nevada desert, etc) for any of them who *wants* it, and just pay for a relocation for any of them who wants it.  91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that Madagascar plan was quite an appropriate response to the question. What makes you think the Palestinians would do such a thing willingly after reading the article I listed there? How would Israelis feel do you think about buying such land and then tossing a coin and if they lose the Israelis can go and live in the middle of the Nevada desert instead and leave the Palestinians alone? Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's shear speculation. There is neither a Madagascar Plan for the Palestinians, nor a Nevada plan for the Jewish Israelis. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Moving millions of Palestinians far away seems to be like creating a new state of Israel somewhere else, with the same problems. Had the Jewish people established their state in another territory, there would certainly be some conflicts with people who felt entitle to their place of land, whether the local government got paid or not. Anyway, there were indeed plans to integrate the Palestinians into Jordan and Egypt, known as the Three-state solution. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The short answer to your question is "yes." Buying land from Arabs was a common way that Jews expanded into Palestine before 1948, with some of the prominent land-buying organizations being the Jewish Agency for Palestine and Jewish National Fund.  The problem nowadays is twofold.  First, pretty much all of the Arabs who remain are the descendants of people who, when offered the chance to sell their land, said, "no, this is our home, we'd rather not sell."  Second, after the 1948 war, Israel claimed that the people who fled the war zone had given up their land voluntarily -- a clever move in the short term, maybe, but one that poisoned the whole idea of voluntary land sales ever since.  --M @ r ē ino 20:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

See Dar al Islam and Dome of the Rock--the rest is fantasizing. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

91.120.48.242 -- The answer to your literal question is "no", but Israel has repeatedly (over many decades) expressed willingness to pay financial compensation as part of an overall comprehensive and final peace agreement. AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Explorers
Why are some explorers described as 'British', some Scottish, Irish or Welsh? Aren't they all British, apart from Southern Irish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.94.158 (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please give an example of where you have seen this. --Viennese Waltz 12:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a thorny issue that has been argued over for centuries and will probably not be resolved unless the constituent parts of the Union eventually decide to go their separate ways. The answer is yes they are all British, and yes, they are Scottish, Irish or Welsh. It seems to be less acceptable for English people to assert their Englishness. Irish people from the area now in the Republic could correctly be described as British (ie, citizens of the United Kingdom) from 1801 to 1922, but doing so may well cause offence in some circumstances. Our article Terminology of the British Isles bravely attempts to untangle the problem. Alansplodge (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You might do better on the language desk. Not sure whether this is relevant, but in the UK the word "British" tends to have more positive connotations than the word "English" (e.g. British Army, British Empire, British beef, but English breakfast, English rose, English country garden).--Shantavira|feed me 14:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How do the "English" examples there have anything but positive connotations? Or did you mean the other way round (though I would still question that)? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Depends on the time that you are speaking about, as "Great Britain" as a nation didn't exist until the early 1700s. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Mungo Park (explorer) is described as "British" in the infobox and "Scottish" in the lead sentence of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ernest Shackleton gets to be Anglo-Irish (saves any embarrassment about the British/Irish thing) and Robert Falcon Scott's nationality isn't stated at all in the body of the text (shhh.... we don't want to mention that he's English). Alansplodge (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh no, Scott's one of the good guys. He may have failed to achieve the technical goal of the expedition, but he redeemed himself magnificently by dying in the attempt, and that means he succeeded beyond his wildest expectations.  See, if Scott and his team had got home safely after failing to beat Amundsen to the Pole, he'd have been a cause of national disgrace, hardly mentioned in the best circles, and Amundsen would have got all the attention he rightfully deserves.  But now, because they all froze to death, Scott's a glorious martyr.  We talk of "Scott of the Antarctic", but who's ever heard of "Amundsen of the Antarctic"?  He actually died just as grisly and icy a death in the Arctic, but that tale is little told.  It clearly is very important for British gentlemen not to win.  Tim Henman had the right idea.  Andy Murray was doing OK, but he's gone and screwed things up now.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed - the art of Heroic Failure. I was actually making a rather debatable point about the current situation in the UK, where being proud to be Scottish or Welsh is admirable, but being proud to be English suggests that you're a right-wing xenophobe. Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's because Scottish and Welsh nationalists insist on describing people from those parts of Britain by their "local nationality", for want of a better term. Likewise English nationalists then insist on describing people born in England as English. They all go round changing British to English, Scottish or whatever on any article they can find. It leads to some utter silliness (someone who happened to be born in, say, Glasgow, but lived almost all their life in London, will be claimed as Scottish. And vice versa.) There was a repeated attempt to call the Duke of Wellington an "Irish" military commander, because he was born in Ireland. There are genuine problems, of course. It would sem absurd to call Robert Burns, say, "British", since his whole persona is identified with Scottishness. It's one of those things that result from the very nature of conflicting ideological attitudes on Wikpedia, but equally it would be very difficult to resolve with rigid rules. Paul B (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Does the distinction between Nationality and Ethnicity play a role? As I understand it British is a nationality while English, Scottish, etc are ethnicities. Roger (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that really works. There are a few racist groups who like to treat them as ethnicities, but I don't think that really works. Certainly, people can be Scottish, Welsh, or English without their parents having been so, in my experience. Else, do you assume that all the nationalist parties (including the Welsh and Scots) are proposing racial homelands or something? One of the big short-circuits to considering them as ethnicities is that there is so much movement and intermarrying between the four nations (and Eire), most people I know who have only British ancestors as far back as they know have a mix from across these islands in there. It would be easier to consider 'British' an ethnicity (and the general ethnicity questions on government forms very nearly do, by having "White British" as an option, along with "White Irish", "Black British", and so on: they certainly do not include "English" or "Scottish"), separate from 'British' as a nationality.


 * Really, it's just the sort of mess you get when you declare that your Kingdom is a country made up of four countries, each of which is a nation. 86.129.248.199 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And wasn't it Winston Churchill, a Briton last time I checked, who described Russia as "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma"? He ought to clean up his own national backyard first, before picking on the poor little defenceless Russias of the world.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Japan and North Korea relations
When I was a child I lived in Akita Prefecture, and I remember being told by my parents to not trust anyone and to not talk to strangers and to look out for those who speak 'weird'. They referred to the kidnapping of Japaneses by North Korea. My question is, I have two sons who are young adults. Is the risk still present or not? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I doubt any person alone would be able to defend himself against a group of determined Korean soldiers, no matter what. However, I suppose Japan is better prepared nowadays to detect a rouge submarine invading their waters than back then when some Japanese were kidnapped. There were no kidnappings reported for almost 30 years, at least. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't defend myself against a group of soldiers. Kotjap (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, those rascally rouge submarines! As for Kotjap's concern, is there any way we can know that his parents themselves weren't actually Korean spies?  Or whether either of his sons, or even Kotjap himself isn't actually a Korean who stole his identity long ago? μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. Just follow the instructions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you both talking about? I can't understand. Kotjap (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Kotjap, They are alluding to the fact that your question is rather odd and if you actually attempt to answer it scientifically there are a multitude of questions to be answered to the point of absurdity (not negatively loaded). a few I have are: have you noticed what you are explaining in your town recently?, do you read the newspaper in your town? how would people on the ref desk know whats going on in your neighborhood better than you?165.212.189.187 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I understand, no of course I know what goes on in my town but I would like to know if at international level the kidnappings of Japanese citizens by North Korea has ended or not. Kotjap (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would you think that some guys on the Internet know more about the situation in your neighbourhood than you do? Also, I have never heard of "the kidnappings of Japanese citizens by North Korea" here in the UK. Why do you think we would have heard of it? --TammyMoet (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've heard of it. I think the way it played out is the reason many have not.  At the time of the kidnappings, nobody quite knew where the people went, so it wasn't any more interesting than the million of disappearances around the world each year.  Years later, when it came out that the North Koreans had kidnapped those people, the kidnappings themselves were old news. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens, already linked above, is the best you'll get, I suppose. There is no way of knowing what the North Koreans are up to in the future. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If Kotjap wants to know whether or not he's been replaced by a Korean or a British Canadian he should write us a good long spontaneous paragraph in Japanese about something he couldn't have copied from the internet or elsewhere. We have various users here who will be able to determine whether he expresses himself like a full native of his reported age or not.  It will be negative evidence, but it should still be reassuring at some level. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything, as you don't have to prove anything about your nationality. Kotjap (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In case it wasn't clear I meant "reassuring--to Kotjap--at some level". Not me or us or anyone else. μηδείς (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Medeis, some fuel for your fire: suspicious use of the word no in 21:08 response...,!68.36.148.100 (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You have to admit, it's a bit surprising you were warned about 'kidnapping of Japaneses by North Korea' when you were a child, which would have been before 1977 when the bulk of the known kidnapping of Japanese citizens had begun (although abductions of South Koreans was happening then) let alone were publicly acknowledged. Apparently it was before the policy had even been really developed . More so that the victims were generally in their 20s which fits with the purpose of the kidnappings (there is one known 13 year old). Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay Tammy and others, come on. This guy is here asking for international references that are extremely hard to track down.  Of course America has the freest press in the world (to a fault) and government places next to no restrictions on research and discussion (again to a fault).  The reference desk is just that: a volunteer reference desk of the world's largest repository of knowledge, mostly in English, which is the language of international politics and research collaboration in the sciences as well the humanities.  I think his question is perfectly appropriate, and I think we can furnish him with far higher quality international references on abduction and disappearances than any local rumors he might have heard of.  91.120.48.242 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well actually.... As per my previous comment, the OPs parents were apparently aware of North Korean abductions of Japanese before most other people. There weren't great sources before (well maybe the NUS/journal source, I didn't look at it that well) but seems to confirm even circumstancial evidence and isolated reports didn't really begin to show up until the 1980s and 1990s and it was around 1996 when these began to be taken seriously. In fact the previous evidence suggests the OPs parents warned them about them them before many of the kidnappings even happened! This is further confirmed here  if you don't accept the other sources including the article. Unless by child they meant a ~15 year old, as per the NUS/journal source I linked in my earlier reply and some of the other sources, the OPs parents warned them before the major policy on abductions of Japanese citizens had even been introduced!! All this suggests they may very well have access to far better sources then us. At the very least, they should check with their parents if they're still alive, and anyone who was close to them. P.S. It's also worth remembering risk is a relative thing. Even if we go by more generous sources like, even at the height of the kidnappings, generally speaking the OPs childrens likely had more to worry about being murdered  then being kidnapped by the North Koreans. Nil Einne (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it turns out User:Kotjap was a sockpuppet. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Indian and Pakistani Muslims 90-100% places in UK
Are Batley and Savile Town in UK the only places that have dominant Indian and Pakistani Muslim population?--Donmust90 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90


 * Read more carefully: Batley has no 90%+ Indian and Pakistani Muslims population. It has like 30%, composed by Indian and Pakistani Muslims. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The person may have misread the 9 as a 3. It's common for people who may have unilateral neglect. Not saying that the OP has it, but such a mistake may be perfectly innocent, not intending to cause harm or distress. 140.254.121.34 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * British_Pakistanis and British_Indian may be useful to the OP. 140.254.121.34 (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)