Humanities desk
< April 7	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 9 >

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.

April 8

Spiritual lineage of civilizations

There's a weird idea that was once entertained by European historians. My memory of it is vague, but it is like this: there is an indefinable quality, a distinctive essence or spirit, that is transmitted from one great civilization to another as one falls and another rises, so that you can trace a continuous, genealogical "thread" of civilizations across the ages, from Egypt to Greece to Rome to Byzantium to the Holy Roman Empire to Spain to Britain (or France) to the United States, etc. Depending on where the historian was from, and according to his personal tastes, he would have a different idea about the exact details of this thread. I think the idea enjoyed popularity during the 1800's, and perhaps much earlier, and particularly in western Europe. I think it has a Wikipedia page, but I'm not sure. Does my description of the concept ring a bell with anyone? LANTZY ^TALK 02:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's exactly what you're you're talking about, but Hegel seems to have belabored a lot of metaphysics to arrive at the conclusion that Biedermeier Prussia was the height of human civilization... -- AnonMoos (talk)

Zeitgeist maybe? --Jayron32 05:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Carl Jung's idea of Collective unconscious. And Emile Durkheim's Collective consciousness. And Gottfried Leibnitz's Monads. All of these philosophical traditions have the same basic concept of core, or central "threads" as you call them running through societies... --Jayron32 05:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that theory has enjoyed much popularity. At least in the 19th century the reigning academical schools of thought in history in Western Europe was historicism and later positivism. None of which bears any resemblence to the theory the OP describes. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hegel, I reckon, and these kinds of ideas underlie a lot of what is said about "civilisation". Itsmejudith (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a continuation of the medieval idea of translatio imperii. I'm not sure whether nineteenth-century folk used some other term for the notion, but my guess is that the Latin term was still commonly used. Deor (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thanks. LANTZY ^TALK 12:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the most famous extension of the idea to America is George Berkeley's lines "Westward the course of empire takes its way; / The first four acts already past, / A fifth shall close the drama of the day; / Time’s noblest offspring is the last." Deor (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it started with the Atlantis myth, one version of which states that because they knew the end was nigh for that civilisation, the Elders of Atlantis sent one representative to each continent so that knowledge of Atlantis and its wisdom would remain after the civilisation's demise. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that idea existed before the publication in 1882 of Ignatius L. Donnelly 's Atlantis: the Antediluvian World. Deor (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no link between Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire as they are geographically remote.
Sleigh (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. There are a lot of links between Byzantium and the HRE, not the least of which is that both have claims to be descendants of the Ancient Roman Empire (and Byzantium really was, without any noticible interregnum). There were also numerous diplomatic marriages between the two empires, such as the marriage of the daughter of Byzantine emperor Leo_VI_the_Wise to the Holy Roman Emperor Louis the Blind, or of Theophanu a neice/removed cousin of John I Tzimiskes and married to Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor. Byzantium and Western Europe had other important relationships as well; it was at the Behest of Constantinople that several of the Crusades were called; one of them even sacked the city and established the Latin Empire of Constantinople. --Jayron32 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, at the time that the Holy Roman Empire was established, the southern half of Italy was a province of the Byzantine Empire called the Catepanate of Italy. Some historians have asserted that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was the spark that ignited The Renaissance, with scholars like Bessarion migrating to the west. Alansplodge (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinople is mentioned in the Icelandic sagas. —Tamfang (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War between France and Italy?

There has been a lot of talk here in Italy as to a possible war breaking out between France and Italy over the Tunisian immigrants issue. Is this a real possibility between two European Union members and NATO allies?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of "war" seems unrealistic - clearly there are tensions, but armed conflict over the issue seems extraordinarily unlikely - there are many other ways of resolving tensions. Given Berlusconi's appetites, maybe Mme Sarkozy could use her charms to win him over. Do you have any reliable sources suggesting it as a possibility? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with all of the foregoing, but just in case anyone in Italy IS considering attacking France, it would be wise to look at a precedent within living memory; the Italian invasion of France in 1940. With France on the brink of total military collapse and having already asked for an armistice with Germany, the Italians attacked with 32 divisions (about 250,000 men?) but were held back without too much effort by the depleted French defenders. Alansplodge (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last night I watched a debate on a RAI Uno current affairs programme involving several Italian politicians, and one of them mentioned war, but it was most likely a figure of speech as I don't think it would happen. I must say Sarkozy has a much stronger personality than Berlusconi.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is inconceivable that this could lead to war, but perhaps not inconceivable that it could lead to the effective exclusion of Italy from the Schengen area if it is seen to be violating an explicit or implicit agreement among its members. Anti-immigrant sentiment exists among many members of the Schengen, and they could probably sway the group to agree to the reimposition of border controls between Italy and the rest of the Schengen area. Marco polo (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if France and Italy did get angry enough at each other to go to war (which they wouldn't), the rest of Europe would stop them. The harm to the rest of the continent (and the rest of the world, really) caused by the interdependance of all our economies would be so severe that the rest of Europe and NATO would send peacekeeping troops to enforce peace. --Tango (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a figure of speech, as it's hard to imagine a such a scenario actually taking place. I only asked to see if it was indeed possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medici lions at the Château de Saint-Cloud ‎

I'm researching the history of the Medici lion(s) in the Parc de Saint-Cloud in Paris, such as information on year of installation and sculptor. Anyone with knowledge or sources? Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MacArthur's 'army air commander' in May 1942

Can anyone help me put a name andor a position title to a person mentioned in a source? The only information in the source is that he's "...the army air commander under General MacArthur..." and held this position around or after May 1942; the source mentions his response to an incident which ocurred during the Battle of the Coral Sea. Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 08:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The commander of the Army Air Force at the time was Henry H. Arnold, but maybe there was a subordinate in charge at the Coral Sea. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the person the source identifies is a step down the food chain: someone responsible for the USAAF in the South West Pacific theatre of World War II and reporting to MacArthur, like Herbert F. Leary was responsible for the USN in the region. -- saberwyn 10:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major General George Kenney took on the role from August 1942 - all we need to do is identify his predecessor. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MacArthur was in command of the South West Pacific Area. As that article says George Brett was the Deputy Coammander and Commander of Allied Air Forces there until August 4, 1942. I assume the incident was probably the bombing of a task force under the Australian John Gregory Crace. There's a mention of Brett's response to the incident in note 59 on the Battle of the Coral Sea article. --JGGardiner (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brett's the man I want, and yes, that was the incident. Thanks muchly :) -- saberwyn 02:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

Which factor will not cause a shift in the demand curve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.64.112 (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the product. UFO sightings will tend to increase demand for Tin foil hats. --Jayron32 11:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention alcohol and certain medicines. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but increased alcohol consumption also increases the supply of UFO sightings, thus complicating matters. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Demand (economics). You may also be interested to read User:Dweller/Dweller's Lungs Economics theory, which postulates some interesting demand-related issues. --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some factors that will increase demand for a given item:

1) The item becoming "fashionable". A celebrity using the item might have this effect, for example.

2) The item being improved.

3) The item being made less expensive.

4) Other things which use/require the item increasing in prevalence. For example, if computer sales go up, so will computer mouse sales.

5) The item now being mandated by law, such as health insurance in the US.

6) Other similar items being unavailable. For example, if a disease wiped out lemon crops, but left limes alone, lime demand would likely rise.

7) The item being found to be "good for you". For example, healthy foods.

8) A competing brand is no longer made.

9) Item becomes standardized. For example, people who were reluctant to buy cassette audio tape when 8-track tape was competing may have done so only after cassettes won the format war.

Many of these factors also have opposites, which cause demand to fall:

1) Item going out of fashion.

2) Item is made in a shoddier manner than before, like US cars in the 1970's.

3) Price goes up more than inflation.

4) Other things which use/require the item decline in prevalence.

5) The item is no longer mandated by law.

6) A glut of similar products. Many new varieties of citrus fruit can decrease demand for any one type, for example.

7) The item is found to be unhealthy. For example, items containing "trans fats". In this case, disclosure of previously hidden trans fat info on the labels can also decrease demand.

8) More competing brands. For example, entry of foreign cars into the market can reduce demand for domestic cars.

9) Item becomes non-standardized, as new formats enter the market.

In addition, demand can also fall if the product becomes obsolete. For example, demand for horse-drawn carriages. StuRat (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A demand curve is a summary of how demand for a given item responds to changes in its price; so your #3 (in both lists) is not an answer to the OQ. (They are changes in the supply curve.) —Tamfang (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Which factor" (rather than "What factors") suggests that your homework came with a list of possible answers; can we see those? —Tamfang (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't Judeo-Islamic ritual animal slaughter use stunning?

Comparison of Islamic and Jewish dietary laws mentions they can't, but lacks specifics as to why. I don't think the prohibition is in the Tanakh, Quran or hadith and suspect it comes from some much later rulings by rabbis and imams. It's a topical question given http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110408/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_ritual_slaughter_ban Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point, no, it's a notable omission. As far as Jewish slaughter goes, our article is at Shechita, and it doesn't deal with it either. AFAIK, it's because stunning is deemed to hurt, which immediately renders the animal not kosher. I'm on surer ground with your other question - and our article answers it well. I quote: "Though referenced in the Torah, (Deut. 12:21) none of the basic practices of shechita are described in this place, or anywhere else in Torah (Five books of Moses). Instead, they have been handed down in Judaism's traditional Oral Torah, and codified in halakha in various sources, most notably the Shulchan Aruch." So, if you believe in torah min hashamayim, it's from God. If you don't, well, some strands of Judaism that don't believe in torah min hashamayim have significantly relaxed or removed these laws altogether. --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shechita says: "Before slaughtering, the animal must be healthy, uninjured and viable. The animal cannot be stunned by electronarcosis, captive-bolt shot to the brain, or gas, as is common practice in modern animal slaughter, for this would inflict such injuries to the animal rendering the shechita invalid." Gandalf61 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is background information and doesn't directly address the "why", but Temple Grandin's website includes this page on "Recommended Ritual Slaughter Practices". It is replete with references. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyright of mathematical proofs

I know that Ideas can't be copyrighted, only expressions of it can. But I want to know how this principle is applied to math proofs.

If I take a math proof from a copyrighted paper and change the symbols used so that the text is different but the meaning remains the same and reprint it without permission, does it violate copyright? Or does it count as a diffrent 'expression' of the idea in the paper? Diwakark86 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea-expression divide is super problematic from a legal point of view and is quite hard to resolve in many cases. (If you re-write a Harry Potter novel so that the expression is entirely different but the basic plot and characters are identical, you will get sued for infringement, no doubt.)

In theory, equations should not be copyrightable at all. They are facts of nature and all that — pure ideas if there ever were any. But a very clever lawyer could come up with very compelling arguments about the "creativity" that exists in creating mathematical proofs and probably get some traction with that. I don't know if that has ever occurred.

It goes without saying that plagiarizing a math paper might have other consequences other than copyright issues. And I am assuming you are not asking for concrete legal advice on this... --Mr.98 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, you will sometimes hear the claim "mathematical theorems / findings cannot be patented", which is a bit of a mis-representation. Though you cannot patent a theorem per se, many individuals, companies, and universities patent the application of a theorem, which in some cases is tantamount to patenting the theorem (think e.g. of the theorems behind signal processing, which can generate serious profit.) Competing companies would be free to use the content of the theorem (e.g. in publishing related research), but restricted from using the result to make a cell phone, for instance (or whatever application is indicated in the patent). SemanticMantis (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, mathematical proofs of any note will have been published a journal of some sort; the journal holds reprint rights, and attribution goes to the author. The author holds copyright on unpublished proofs, obviously. You can generally change the symbology in ways that do not alter the meaning of the proof and use it in ways consistent with the policies of the journal. Contact the journal the proof was published in (or contact the author directly) to see what you are and are not allowed to do with the material. --Ludwigs2 17:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask the journal whether your use case requires permission or payment, they will probably tell you yes, since they have nothing to lose by telling you that. If you want to learn about your actual legal rights, you should consult a less biased source. -- BenRG (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning, Wikipedia would never tell you that you can use the text on it somewhere else, since they have "nothing to lose" by telling you that. 188.156.178.64 (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes, the modified work is a derivative of the original and therefore subject to copyright. If the proof is short enough and you explicitly attribute the source, you may be able to use it under fair use provisions, but otherwise it would be a copyright violation. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looie, unless you can quote legal code or precedent to support that, I think Mr.98's answer is better. -- BenRG (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Published proofs are routinely included in later published works by other authors, not with text copied verbatim, but with ideas appearing exactly as in the original work (referenced of course). This is often very helpful in preparing the reader for a generalization or strengthening of the original proof. I have never heard of this practice being restricted by the original author or publisher claiming copyright. This would be such an attack on ordinary academic practice that I doubt it would be tolerated by the mathematical community. Any author or publisher who tried this would get laughed out of town. Staecker (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

white house

Is white house a haunted house? --Ghoulbuster (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A white house is just a house painted white or limewashed or built from white stone, and most of them are not haunted. The White House is haunted only by the President of the United States as far as I know, but I haven't been there to check. There are other possible White Houses. Dbfirs 16:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of stories of White House ghosts -- we even have an article about one of them, Lincoln's Ghost. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this page which is relevant. Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, even with all the history that has occurred there, the White House is NOT a haunted house! There is actually a very good reason why this is the case... Because there is no such thing as a haunted house. Greg Bard (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Britannica BLP's

I've heard that about 15% of Wikipedia articles are BLP's. Does anyone know the percentage for Encyclopaedia Britannica? Thanks. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that Biographies of Living People, or some other BLP ? StuRat (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, biographies of living people, I'm wondering if EB's percentage is anything like ours. I know how many the Dictionary of American Biography had (i.e. none), though I'm not sure about its successor, the American National Biography encyclopedia. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The American National Biography, like the Dictionary of American Biography, only has entries on dead people. —Kevin Myers 04:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience it is the usual practice that National Biographies only include dead people, while encyclopedias also includes living people. Why it is so I am not sure, but it seems to have been the situation at least as early as the second half of the 1800s. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, dead people can't do anything that will make their articles obsolete, which would be a problem in a print encyclopedia. Read the 1911 EB's article on Georges Clemenceau, for example. (At one point, Wikipedia also had a copy of 1911 EB's article on the then-current sultan of Morocco, which talked about him as if he was still alive...) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, new information can come to light, especially in cases where there's a myth surrounding the person. For example, Christopher Columbus isn't portrayed as the hero he once was. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who was paying close attention to the details always knew that Columbus' career was not uniformly glorious -- to start with, he was an ignominious failure as a settlement-founder or governor on land... AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, I bet that most biographies written 100 years ago would have represented him in heroic terms, while recent bios would not. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to accept the budget

If there is no agreement by midnight between Obama and Congress on the 2011 budget, and "the government" does not get paid, who, in this instance, is included in "the government"? Specifically, does the military get paid, and do Obama and Congress members get paid? I would really appreciate a cite for any answer. Bielle (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only cite I have is the TV news, but apparently the soldiers don't get paid while the President and Congress do. (If it was the other way around, there would never be a shutdown, would there ?) Sounds a lot like when a company is facing bankruptcy, so slashes jobs and pay, except for executives who then get huge bonuses. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congress and the President still receive pay when there is a government shutdown. However, there is currently in Congress Bill S.388, generally called the "No Budget, No Pay" Bill, that would stop both Congress and the President from receiving pay during a government shutdown.

There are some who consider such a bill unconstitutional. Namely, Article Two of the United States Constitution, Clause Seven, states "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected..." This is commonly seen to serve two purposes; firstly, that the President can't give himself a raise, and secondly, that Congress can't reward/punish the president via his compensation. Therefore, to some, the cessation of the Presidents' pay via this bill would violate this clause.

The military, however, may not get paid (though soldiers' are expected to continue their duty). During a government shutdown, only "essential" personnel are paid - this is determined (I believe) under the guidance of the Office of Management and Budget. There is also a new Bill on this side, S.724: "Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011", which, if passed, would continue to pay military personnel despite a government shutdown.

Hope that helps to clear things up. ^Avic _ennasis @ 04:27, 5 Nisan 5771 / 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember military pay being delayed in 1981? Payday was the 15th and end of the month. They moved it to 1 October so it would come from the next years budget. They did it again the next year, then just moved payday to the first of the month. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was in 1987. Here is a New York Times article on it. I was serving in the USN at the time, and while it didn't affect anyone adversely and it saved the Pentagon $3 billion in that year's fiscal budget, that one time gimmick never sat right with me. It just didn't seemed like the responsible thing to do. -- 110.49.233.91 (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the responses. Bielle (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]