Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 29

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.

November 29

Ancient Roman Consul - L. Volumnius Flamma Violens

I understand he was a Roman politician and a consul at the same time as Appius Claudius Caecus at the end of the third century B.C. Is there any additional information on him in other references books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.131.71 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Livy's Ab Urbe condita, in 296 Claudius and Volumnius defeated a combined Etruscan and Samnite army which had invaded Campania, in a battle near the river Volturnus (for more details, see Livy's History, Book X, 20 here. A stub at the French Wikipedia (Lucius Volumnius Flamma Violens) says he was a Roman politician, a new man, the first member of his family to become a consul, in 307 and 296 BC. However, in Studies in the Romanization of Italy, Mario Torelli says "...the famous P [sic] Volumnius Flamma Violens, cos. 307 and 296 BC, could be among the (plebeian) descendants of P. Volumnius Amintinus Gallus, cos. 461." In a book review in The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 62 (1972), pp. 187-188, John Briscoe says "The first plebeian consul known to have presided was L. Volumnius Flamma Violens in 296 [sic]." A note to an edition of Livy says: "Lucius Volumnius Flamma Violens, Verginia’s husband, ascended the cursus honorum as a plebeian to be elected consul twice, once in 307 BCE and again in 296, the very year in which the patrician matronae insult his wife by forbidding her access to the ceremony honoring the female virtue pudicitia.Xn4 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started a new stub, Lucius Volumnius Flamma Violens. Xn4 04:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cologne Cathedral: identify quote

I have come acros the following quote concerning the Cathedral in Cologne in a nineteenth-century manuscript and would like to know its source. It may even be from a guide-book. “Among all who live art for its own sake, a general conviction seems to be growing up that the most eloquent defence of their doctrines has been set forth on the banks of the Rhine. Universal consent appears to point to the fact that there stands the noblest and mightiest of all monuments of mediæval thought and skill. The Cathedral of Cologne, wasted by time and the elements, despoiled by French soldiery, despised by classic connoisseurs, and neglected by its own proper guardians, has come to be considered the most beautiful of poems which man’s hand has ever written in stone.”LShecut2nd (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your quotation can be found in the Civil Engineer and Architect's Journal, Scientific and Railway Gazette, vol. 10, February 1847, p. 33. Read it here, and find it in a nearby library here. Wareh (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the campaign to complete Cologne Cathedral was undertaken in 1842, and work was in full swing at the time of the quote. --Wetman (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A quote

Not entirely sure whether this should go here or not, but it seemed like the best place:

This following quote was said at the begining and the end of NBC's show 'Life'. It sounded like a piece of philosophy, and considering that the main character 'practices' Zen, I thought it might be from there. Are there any Zen masters on Wikipedia who recognize something like this?:

We are none of us alone Even as we exhale it is inhaled by others The light that shines upon me shines upon my neighbor as well In this way everything is connected to everything else In this way I am connected to my friend Even as I am connected to my enemy In this way there is no difference between me and my friend In this way there is no difference between me and my enemy We are none of us alone

--24.58.159.152 (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "We are none of us alone" is established in a Christian context; Google Books shows multiple usages in the 19th c., as early as 1856.[1] I found it interesting how rife the internet is with speculation and admiration over this. Wareh (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentiment is very close to John Donne's "No man is an island : No man is an island. entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.[2] SaundersW (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman control in Egypt

How far south did Roman government in Egypt extend? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't say what period you're interested in. Our article History of Roman Egypt goes up to the Arab conquest of the 640s and has a list of references, some of which should help you. Xn4 05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For most of the time between the reign of Claudius and the Arab conquest, the limit of direct Roman/Byzantine control was the First Cataract of the Nile, just upstream from (south of) Aswan (known to the Romans as Syene). Marco polo (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

War and Peace sequel?

Online I have found a few articles from the Moscow Times that speak of a sequel to Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" titled "Pierre and Natasha" and the authors of the sequel were appearantly kept secret. Was this sequel ever published in English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.223.87 (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that I can find. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ECONOMICS

What are the effects of globalization on indian industry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.244.4 (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Haven't we had this before? 203.221.127.239 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In July, we had a similar question about Indian farming - see What is the negative and positive effects of globalization on Indian farming sector? Xn4 04:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

beginning research of a life long goal

I am in need of information concerning getting started a non-profit for animals in central Indiana. Names of books that break it down, sites that hook you up. Any and all. I know not much at all. But I am buying property and reaching out for any and all advice. This is my first time on this site and I found it very remarkable. Thank You Nichole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.170.39 (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect no one has tackled this question because it is both enormous in scope and likely quite specific to your local area. Aside from cost, zoning will be a concern, as may be licensing, registration, availability of health professionals, local support, "competition" (being other similar private enterprises or government-finded operations) and the like. I would suggest spending some time with those who run shelters in the general, if not immediate, area, and finding out from them directly what is involved and how you might go about doing the most effective job with your funds. If you are a member of the Gates' family, however, you can likely get permission to do almost anything you want, short of housing 11 horses in a one-bedroom apartment in a city. In other words, the size of your budget will be a very significant part of what choices you have and how easy getting the appropriate permissions will be. If you are doing it all by yourself, and on limited funds, you may need to start small and build. I know of one bird sanctuary that started with an injured hawk that couldn't be kept in a local shelter. An employee took it home, and nursed it back to health. Now, some 20 years later, she is the local expert in "repairs" for raptors, has both flying and "nursing" cages housing about a hundred birds at any one time, and is a registered, charitable organization. Dreams can come true, though some take longer than others. Bielle 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RAFUR

In an obituary of Jack Meyer, I found this line : "He served in the RAFUR during the second world war" - RAFUR is in all capital letters. There is nothing in wikipedia or in the early pages in google about a place called RAFUR. What is it, or if it is a typo, what can it be ? Tintin 16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just realised that it is probably not a place but the RAF, though no idea what the UR is. Tintin 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick google shows it appearing on one of the current RAF application forms here. In that document it's shown as RAFUR(UAS), with the UAS referring to the University Air Squadron, the full RAFUR may then mean RAF University Regiment, since renamed the RAFVR(UAS) under Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Do amend the article. --Wetman (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Kaifeng Jews and Law of Return

The Kaifeng Jews article states the following: The current situation of Kaifeng Jewish descendants is complex. Within the framework of contemporary rabbinical Judaism, only matrilineal transmission of Jewishness is recognized (a Jew is a convert or someone whose mother is a Jew), while Chinese Jews recognized only patrilineal descent. They are not, therefore, recognized as Jews by other Jewish communities and are also ineligible for automatic Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.

But the Law of Return article states that Israel follows Nuremberg Law standards. Could someone clarify? --Gary123 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

From my reading of the relevant articles, it seems that is indeed how the process would work. Law of Return says that the 1970 ammendment "provides citizenship for anyone covered under the Nuremberg Laws." Reading Nuremberg Laws, we find that the Nazi definition of a Jew was anyone with three or four Jewish grandparents, which is not the halakic definition of a Jew. After several generations of patrilineal descent, those considering themselves Jews would not be Jews according to Halakha, nor could they claim three or four grandparents who would have been considered Jews according to Halakha. While they would still have other options for attaining Israeli citizenship, they would not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Law of Return. It seems the question of Who is a Jew? has been the matter of much debate and that many around the world who consider themselves Jews would not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Law of Return. 152.16.59.190 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Are modern Islamic Revolutionaries Republican?

Do modern radical Islamic revolutionaries support republicanism? Nasser,Qudaffi and Khomeni all created Republican states but the Taliban and Osama have never reffered to themselves as republican. I believe Osama has referred to himself as Caliph and the Taliban as Emirate. Does anyone know the type of state Al Quda wishes to create, what technical political term they use? They seem to be the first revolutionary movement since 1848 to not at least call themselves Republic in name. --Jacobin1949 (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the political agenda of the revolutionary. Modern radical Islamic revolutionaries who are in favour of the republican form of government are more likely to support republicanism, while those who prefer a monarchy are usually monarchists. I don't think this is bound to a specific religion; it probably also holds if you replace "Islamic" by "Hindu" or "Christian". As to Bin Laden, I think he may indeed wish to see the return of the Caliphate, but I haven't heard he puts himself in the role of Caliph; do you have a source for that?  --Lambiam 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a lot of talk of establishing a theocracy, under which shari'a law is practised. There is disagreement over whether there would be different Islamic states along the lines of current nation-states, or whether a pan-Islamic state should be established. I'm not sure whether a theocratic Islamic state could in practice coexist with a republic or not (but see Politics of Sudan and Politics of Egypt). Steewi (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Many people in Iran think of America as a Christian theocracy. Wrad (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that they are not. The term replublican stems from the Latin 'res publica', meaning, roughly, 'public affairs' - but, the most radical of the Islamists, (Nasser, Qadaffi and Khomeini shouldn't be included in such a description), consider governance to be a purely theological issue, and that popular representation would do nothing but dillute the 'already perfect' constitution of the Qu'ran. Ninebucks 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

High gas prices.

The reference desk is not a soapbox or a chatroom. Discussion over, try usenet. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done a lot of thinking and reading up on this subject. It seems like the higher costs for energy are the result of growing demand from India and China. This makes the extreme jump in gas prices a systemic problem outside the purview of the industrial "first" world and the U.S.A. I do have a feasible solution to these higher gas prices, however, it might be dismissed as overly cold or inhumane, but I guess we have to ask ourselves what lower gas prices are worth to us in the "first world."

The growing demand for oil from China and India can be reversed if the industrialized nations, primarily the U.S.A. (who seems willing to do most of the world's "dirty work" these days) were to launch "total war" upon these two nations and thus annihilate their populations and economies. In my research doing so would not substantially affect the Western economies, as India and China do not as of yet produce anything of quality necessary to U.S. trade. In order to further lower gas prices, the U.S. could take advantage of the confusion resulting from this global conflict and occupy Venezuala, a major oil producing nation within our own hemisphere.

I know that the "human cost" of all this might be a bit too "high" for some in the first world, but I think its time to start facing realistic solutions for dealing with the new energy crisis. Any suggestions or comments are appreciated. Thank you all for your time. Belicia (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gasoline consumption in China and India is increasing significantly, as a proportion of their earlier use. The principal consumer of gasoline, and the principal driver of high prices, is the US car driver. The US consumes about 45% of all the gasoline produced in the world - with 5% of the population. That is the case despite increases in China and India. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As Geologyguy pointed out, the U.S. consumes nearly half the gasoline produced while barely accounting for 5% of the world population. If the U.S. were to be destroyed, 45% of the gasoline usage would go away while only getting rid of a mere 5% of the population. Obviously, you didn't truly think this through. -- kainaw™ 19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how much fuel and other resources in China is dedicated to the manufacture of products exported to the U.S.? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting question, but whatever the exact number, it must be very small compared to consumption for fuel, just as in the US. Normal refining processes generate only 1.2 gallons of plastics and petrochemical feedstocks from the original 42-gallon barrel, so less than 3% of oil consumption in general goes to make plastics etc. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am having some difficulty with a "realistic solution" to cut down the cost of driving my car being to "annihilate" the "populations and economies" of India and China. That's baby, bathwater, bathroom, house, neighbourhood, country and world, all gone in one throw. Kainaw has an interesting perspective, though I live a little too close to the US border to be entirely happy with the proposal. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bielle (talk • contribs) 20:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a sense the question is meant as some kind of satire. At least I hope so. Anyway, if you're concerned about high gas prices, war is the worst possible thing to happen. The Yom Kippur War, Iran-Iraq War and Iraq War all led to increases in the price of oil. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the proportion of energy use by India and China as a percentage of worldwide demand has grown enormously over the past 5 years and is expected to continue growing as a proportion of worldwide demand. This is irrespective of American demand as a proportion of worldwide demand. Secondly, energy consumption from the U.S.and A. has declined as a proportion of worldwide demand over the last year. And thirdly, what I am talking about is a total war, to destroy completely the demand of India and China, not some regional conflict as the Yom Kippur War, et al. Therein lies the beauty of my proposal. Don't think it is too extreme for the American government to adopt in the future if gas prices get too high. Belicia (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want anyone to take your argument seriously, you need to produce references. Where did you find a valid reference that claims the U.S. usage of oil is decreasing? Where did you find a reference that claims China and India produce nothing of value for the U.S.? Where did you find a reference that claims waging a total war on two large countries will not increase the cost of oil as every previous war (or ever threat of war) has done? You claim to have worked on this argument but all you've provided are claims that are the opposite of every valid reference source I have ever seen. -- kainaw™ 02:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand China produces huge amounts of cheap goods for American supermarkets.^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

united we stand

it is said that divisions on the left in germany helped the nazis into power. Is this true, would the communists and socialists have stopped hitler together and how would they have done this? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.190.180 (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to suppose that the SPD and the KPD would have been any more succesful in uniting to fight the Nazis than dividing to fight each other. Divisions on the left are not high among the reasons for the ascent of Nazism. The retrospective view among sections of the left that the only way of grappling with the Nazis, a movement which fed on violence, was more violence is, quite frankly, laughable in its absurdity. A united left is far more likely to have drawn the conservative elements in German society, a vital element in Hitler's elevation to the Chancellorship in 1933, much more quickly into alliance with the Nazis. Elsewhere in Europe Popular Fronts, alliances of the left, did very little to arrest the development of Fascism. The rise of Arturo Ui was less resistable than Brecht and his allies allow. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Likelihood of recession or depression

Considering the parallels with 1929, what are the chances that the current credit crisis could lead to a global recession or depression? 192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What on earth does this situation have to do with 1929? Belicia (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the poster is referring to the Wall Street Crash of 1929. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.139.85 (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

See Causes of the Great Depression. The US economy was weakening in early 1929, and there had been a financial bubble (perhaps comparable to the mortgage bubble of recent years) which had left banks overextended and vulnerable to an economic downturn. All of these conditions existed early in 1929, before the stock market peaked in September. For more than a month, stocks moved in a volatile but generally downward direction before the actual October crash. Obviously, there has not (yet) been a true crash on the New York or world stock markets. I am guessing that the questioner is referring to similarities between present conditions and those before the crash in 1929. Whether present conditions presage a crash or a serious recession, though, I have no idea. Marco polo (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman sultans & evil in history

Have just read the following passage from Dawkins' "The God Delusion" about Hitler and Stalin: "...Hitler´s ideas and intentions were not self-evidently more evil than those of Caligula - or some of the Ottoman sultans, whose staggering feats of nastiness are described in Noel Barber´s "Lords of the Golden Horn". Hitler had 20th Century weapons, and 20th Century technology at his disposal. Nevertheless, Hitler and Stalin were, by any standards, spectacularly evil men." My questions are: Is the Ottoman dynasty that historically famous for producing rulers with "feats of nastiness" or evil, and were they generally devout Muslims? What are considered the darkest periods of evil reigning in history? Thank you very much in advance for any info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I cannot conceive of any more malevolent period in history than that of the 'ideologically driven' mid-twentieth century. As far as your question about the sultans is concerned, they were as variable as any other human beings; some more devout than others; some more murderous than others. I have not read Barber's book, though I have never thought of the sultans as being any more, or less, nasty than any other set of powerful people. As far as Dawkin's contention is concerned that would seem to me to be quite wrong; the difference between Caligula and Hitler is not one of degree, but of intent; not one of mood, but of conception and design. In every conceivable sense it would seem to me that Hitler's ideas and intentions are self-evidently more evil than those of Caligula because they are born and sustained over time; not conceived in anger or sudden passion, but in cold calculation. Perhaps the worst kind of evil is not grand and tragic in the style of Caligula; it's numbing and mediocre in the style of Hitler. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For the Ottomans specifically, take a look at Armenian Genocide. That took place under Ottoman rule and was pretty awful. I don't really like putting evil on a scale. Once you get to a certain point, it's just plain bad. Wrad (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorsing what Clio said: Caligula is to madness as Hitler is to evil. As for the time course of evil in the world, it is hard to see much advancement in the early 21st century compared to the 20th century, although the scale of warfare and of the slaughter of civilians has not thusfar equalled that of the 20th century. That said, the century is yet young, and more countries governed by short-sighted ideologues have nuclear weapons than in the last century. Edison (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Stalin and Hitler are (in my humble opinion) merely a couple of examples of the 20th Century's version of your typical tyrant. History is replete with examples of leaders who have done similar things to their own and to other populations. Josephus (for what he is worth) mentioned the Old Testament account of Joshua's genocide war against the Canaanites in which every single man, woman and child was put to death by the Hebrews. During the Middle Ages it was not infrequent that a tyrant ruler would go about systematically killing off entire segments of his population - a good example would be Ivan the Terrible of Russia, who established the notorious Oprichniks (which Tolkien based his "Dark Riders" on), who systematically waged war against the aristocracy of Russia. I could go on and on with this, but I'll save the bandwidth. Years ago when I first saw the movie "Schindler's List" I was struck by how similar Amon Göth, the SS Commandant of the Płaszów work camp, was to a more-or-less typical Medieval German Robber Baron. The Nazis were, again in my opinion, a throwback to an earlier, more savage, time in history, but perhaps not. Throughout the 20th Century there has been, at one place or another on the globe, ongoing genocide. It continues today in places like the Sudan and Somalia. So, in summation, evil tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler or the Turkish Ottomans are by no means a rare exception. Saukkomies 12:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Law

Are there any laws in western democratic countries (UK, US etc) that could be broken by someone who also followed Islamic (Sharia?) Law?. Could a person from an Islamic country fall fowl of our laws doing things that would be legal in their country.

I do appreciate that there isn't a strict "Islamic Law", so pick whatever country. Caffm8 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For almost any pair of countries there are things that illegal in one but not in the other. Think of the official tolerance with respect to "soft drug" use in the Netherlands, or the sodomy laws in the United States. Specifically for Islam, polygyny comes to mind – although that is also outlawed today in many predominantly Islamic countries.  --Lambiam 23:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some aspects of Shari'a law which are probably considered illegal in the UK/US systems of law. For example, the method of punishment in Shari'a law (by some interpretations, for example in Sudan, Afghanistan under the Taliban) allows for death by stoning as a punishment, as well as the administration of punishment by a criminal's family or a victim's family. As Lambiam mentioned, polygyny is another area. Most "western" laws are also contained within Shari'a; that is, Shari'a is generally a stricter code. Steewi (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But is a person following Shari required to punish by stoning? Obviously the government of such a country would be violating laws.

Other areas relating to treatment of woman are the only issues I have a thought of. If a male required by law to prevent women leaving the house etc, this would violate laws in a country with protected rights. Caffm8 (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Islamic law actually requires a Muslim to obey the laws of the country they live in or visit, as long as this does not constitute rebellion against Allah. Sahih al-Bukhari 2796: It is related from Ibn 'Umar that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Hearing and obeying is a duty as long one is not commanded to rebellion (against Allah). When one is commanded to rebellion, then there is no hearing and obeying."[3]  --Lambiam 16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)