Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 25

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.

July 25

US entrance into the Korean war

Please explain the relationship between the US government and the South Korean government, and what role the South Korean government had in "inviting" the US to take military action. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Before the North Korean invasion, the U.S. government was not too sure that protecting South Korea was really a vital U.S. interest, but when the invasion actually happened, the combination of recent events viewed as Communist aggressions (the Czech coup, the Berlin blockade, the Soviets getting the atom bomb, the Communist victory in mainland China), together with the possible future threat to Japan of an all-Communist-ruled Korea, caused the U.S. to re-assess the situation very quickly and get behind the South. It had an immediate negative impact on the PRC, because before the North Korean invasion, the U.S. was not committed to directly using the U.S. military to protect Chiang Kai-shek's Taiwan from the Communists, but the onset of the Korean war abruptly changed that (see quote at First_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis#The_Conflict)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the military force involved in defending South Korea was under the auspices of the United Nations, and not the U.S. unilaterally. The Wikipedia article Korean War has lots of good information, sections titled "Factors in U.S. intervention" and following, which includes the involvement of the U.N. --Jayron32 02:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it appears the South Koreans appealed to the U.N., a resolution was passed, and the U.S. stance was that they were enforcing the resolution. I found this document informing. Ditch ∝ 02:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the USSR, which was a veto member of the UNSC, was boycotting the UN at the time, and therefore couldn't veto military action in Korea. The Chinese seat in the UN was still held by the Republic of China (popularly known today as 'Taiwan) so the PRC couldn't veto it either. V85 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The KIMH history of the war, with a more recent edition published in the US in translation, discusses the United States' ambiguous relationship with Korea in depth. From the KIMH view, the United States did not want to support South Korea after WWII. The South Korean elite were faced with internal divisions, with an incipient guerilla campaign in the country-side, and with a desire to acquire an offensive 10 division army including multiple tank divisions. The United States supplied equipment and training to produce a primarily defensive army. Further, the South Korean elite whittled away what little chance they had to develop this army (in general) through poor strategic, logistic and training strategies, and from the necessity of engaging in anti-guerilla warfare in the South. Correspondingly the North's position was inverted, the restrictions the Soviet Union placed upon North Korea were for North Korea's own benefit (the one tank division issue, given terrain). While North Korea made many mistakes in terms of their objectives prior to the war, they made fewer mistakes, of a much smaller significance; such that the central mistake (believing the Southern comrades' suggestions that war would spur a national uprising in the South), did not fundamentally affect the North's capacity to make effective decisions. American found themselves, as noted by AnonMoos, with a failing client state; when they hadn't realised they had a client state to begin with. (In part this was caused by internal conflicts within the US agencies involved, not territorial, but conflicts of incompetence and unpreparedness, all discussed in the KIMH account). The United States discovered they had to back a stake in order to avoid losing it; when they hadn't even realised they had been betting. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

KIMH ? StuRat (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Korea Institute of Military History; and others. (1998–2001?) The Korean War trans. Allan R. Millett Volumes 1–3 University of Nebraska Press ISBN 978-0803277946 (vol 1); 978-0803277953 (vol 2); 978-0803277960 (vol 3); three vol set ASIN B003BHOAO6. About three thousand pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Modern media ethics regarding the naming of perpatrators

I have noticed in the wake of the recent Colorado tragedy that many news outlets are making a concerted effort not to repeatedly use the gunman's given name in their reporting. They might use it once in the lead, if at all, and then in later mentions they refer to him non-specifically as "the gunman" or "the perpetrator", etc. I can think of many reasons why they are avoiding naming him, but I'd really like to see a good source that discusses the applicable journalistic ethics of when it is appropriate (or not) to name (or avoid naming) a perpetrator/suspect in such circumstances, especially when not involving a minor, which is a whole separate issue. Can any journalism student or media member or someone out there link me to texts where this is discussed? I'd really like to get a recommendation for a Media Ethics textbook that discusses this, but am interested in anything you can provide. Thanks Ditch ∝ 02:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a journalism student or media member, but I researched this after you asked this question and found this essay about media ethics and mass murders, which won an award in journalism. I haven't had time to read it all, just skimmed beginning, but it may be what you're looking for, and is anyways very interesting.

By the way, I found that essay on this opinion piece, which was just written and I also highly recommend. It's not an essay or textbook or major discussion, just an opinion piece, but it's related to media ethics in mass shootings and is written by an adjunct law professor. Hope it helps. --Activism1234 02:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, both sources are great for the info I'm looking for. (Didn't mean to imply with my question that I required some specific sources, just that I was perusing Google Books for media ethics texts, and was having a hard time narrowing my search down to the specific issue :) Ditch ∝ 03:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Also, on the side, I was watching CNN Anderson Cooper when the Aurora shootings happened, and he made a specific point and said on T.V. that he would do everything not to say the gunman's name, except for the first time, and simply referred to him as "the gunman" or "perpetrator." His reasoning was that too often we focus on the perpetrator, but what about the victims and their naems, they deserve to be remembered much more. --Activism1234 03:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, today on NPR's Tell me More radio show, host Michelle Martin insinuated her reasoning for not using his name in her report was to avoid raising his personal status in the public eye. The implication being that a desire for public notability is possibly a major motivation in these types of shootings. That's what initially got me interested in the subject. I also saw a relevant OP Ed in the NY Times where Roger Ebert discounts the claim that violence in movies is the cause of these types of things, saying rather that the killer "“cared deeply about seeing himself on the news.” , which is, of course, his opinion, but something I found interesting to consider. Ditch ∝ 03:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm what you're saying about NPR seems to be a different angle than Anderson Cooper. Cooper was talking more about remembering the victims, and he would periodically list some of their names throughout the show, than about public notability. But both are valid reasons.--Activism1234 03:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a very important point here that you are all missing. News outlets can't, or at least shouldn't, refer to Holmes as the gunman because that may prejudice his right to a fair trial. However obvious it may seem that he was the perpetrator, in the eyes of the law he is only alleged to have carried out the murders until he is found guilty in a court of law and convicted. That's why you will see things like "Holmes bought the weapons" but "the gunman shot so-and-so". If jurors are able to read statements like "Holmes shot X", Holmes' defence could argue that they were unduly influenced by the media. It's nothing to do with ethics, it's to do with careful application of the law. --Viennese Waltz 07:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't caught them at it lately but a pet peeve of mine is that reporters and police will sometimes use the word suspect both for the unknown person who definitely did the crime and for the known person who is suspected of it ... —Tamfang (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't they do that because the unknown person who is known to have caused some thing may not have actually done a crime at all e.g. if they're looking for an unknown person who killed someone, but they don't know if it was in fact self-defense and therefore not criminal at all? Everyone is really just suspected of a crime until they're found guilty in court (at least in common law systems). 101.172.42.150 (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

They may be "suspected of a crime", but they are innocent until proven guilty. In Australia at least, it is usual practice for the media to insert the word allegedly whenever a named person is linked to a crime, eg "Holmes allegedly shot X". Mitch Ames (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And they're tending to go overboard lately; it's often "the alleged crime", or even "an alleged man was seen running from the scene of the assault". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The other crazy thing is when some high profile person is the subject of an investigation, we'll see countless pictures of them, but the moment they're charged with a crime, they show the same pictures with the face blurred out. I don't get the point of that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

101.172.42.150, I see your point about the element of doubt that a crime was committed. It's still prejudicial when they say, "Here on the surveillance tape we see the suspect pointing a shotgun at the cashier. Police have arrested a suspect, Jane Doe." Whether or not the suspect – properly, that can only mean Jane – is indeed the one who held the gun is one of the things yet to be established in law (along with whether doing so was in fact a crime). —Tamfang (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The case of Herostratus, some 2368 years ago, and the attempt to prevent his name being remembered, seems similar (and coincidentally he committed his crime on July the 21st).  Card Zero  (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Apocryphal, but so often repeated it has earned its place in journalism history:

A good story about these common disclaimers of responsibility concerns Mark Twain and his first job as a reporter. Twain was told by his editor never to state anything he couldn’t verify by personal knowledge. After covering a gala social event, he hedged his bets by turning in the following story: “A woman giving the name of Mrs. James Jones, who is reported to be one of the society leaders of the city, is said to have given what purported to be a party yesterday to a number of alleged ladies. The hostess claims to be wife of a reputed attorney.” (From WordWizard, not a reliable source.) BrainyBabe (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not only about the suspect being given a fair trial. It's also about the risk of slander. In principle (probably not the case for Aurora) the person could sue if they are found innocent. Journalists might also be motivated by fairness (but I'm not sure about that). Tom Haythornthwaite 03:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

I'm surprised that no one pointed this [3] out yet. A8875 (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Which United States Presidents Wrote Autobiographies?

Besides Bill Clinton and George W. Bush? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford (this was the subject of a famous copyright lawsuit), and I'm sure many others. Those are a few recent ones I found. Shadowjams (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

An American Life is a Reagan autobiography that's not red ink :) 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I am most interested in autobiographies that talk about a U.S. President's Presidency as well, rather than just his pre-Presidency Life. Futurist110 (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Harry Truman wrote his memoirs after leaving office. IIRC he had hoped to guarantee his and his wife's financial futures by doing so, but lost money on the project. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant wrote some memoirs, but unfortunately they do not cover his Presidency at all. Futurist110 (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Calvin Coolidge wrote an autobiography which covers his presidency [4] Hut 8.5 11:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon wrote RN: the memoirs of Richard Nixon, which does cover his presidency among other things. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a published collections of letters by George H. W. Bush: All The Best, George Bush: My Life in Letters and Other Writings, instead of an autobiography. The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency 1963-1969 by Lyndon Baines Johnson. The Autobiography of Harry S Truman and The Eisenhower Diaries Hoover apparently had a three-volume autobiography, can't find the tttles. That covers every one from Coolidge to Obama, except FDR and Kennedy. Rmhermen (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You've missed Carter, who wrote Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President. It only covers his presidency, but presumably one of his other books covers the rest of his life. Hut 8.5 10:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt wrote several memoirs, including his presidency.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I know you may have thought this obvious, but for those to whom it may not have occurred, the reason FDR and JFK didn't write post-Whitehouse memoirs is that they died in office. FiggyBee (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I created a new Wikipedia article for this-- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_Presidential_autobiographies&pe=1& Feel free to contribute to it. Also, what about the U.S. Presidents before Coolidge? Futurist110 (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The best way to link a Wikipedia article is to just enclose the title in double square brackets: List of United States Presidential autobiographies. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Name of researcher?

I'm looking for a researcher, who I think is at a school in Oregon, who looks at the psychology of charitable giving - their work includes research around why people are more likely to give to an appeal that refers to an individual than to an appeal that features a group (i.e. one child vs 100 children). Any ideas? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.209.95 (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

http://philanthropy.com/article/article-content/62663/ Paul Slovic. Futurist110 (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

God bless you Sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.209.95 (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you (but I'm an atheist ;) ). If you need anything else, please let me know. :) Futurist110 (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Holocaust Jewish Death Toll for Northern Transylvania, Moldavia, and "rump Romania"

Does anyone have the Holocaust death totals for each of these three regions. I know that combined these three regions had a Holocaust Jewish death toll of about 287,000-300,000, or about half of the pre-war Jewish population. However, I know that the Jewish death toll in Northern Transylvania and Moldavia was much higher as a % of the total pre-war Jewish population due to the much more active efforts of the Nazis and Romanians to kill Jews there, in contrast to the more lax efforts to kill Jews in "rump Romania" (essentially all of the pre-WWI areas of Romania). Futurist110 (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

150,000 Romanian Jews living under Hungarian control in Northern Transylvania perished. SOURCE.

By Moldavia, I assume you mean Moldova. Here's a good section in a Wikipedia article that is useful for your question.

I'm not sure what rump Romania is, but I got all this info with a quick Google search. Try it out, you'll often get good results. --Activism1234 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I did try doing Google searches on this. They didn't really help that much. Let me try again in the future.

Also, "rump Romania" = Romania's territory in 1933 minus Northern Transylvania and Moldova. Futurist110 (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Number of Polish Jews on the German and Soviet Sides in 1939, Post-Invasion

Does anyone have the numbers of Polish Jews on the German and Soviet sides of Poland in 1939 after their invasion of Poland? I know that about 1/3 of the Polish Jews ended up on the German side and about 2/3 of them ended up on the Soviet side, but does anyone have exact numbers? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Historical_Core_Jewish_Population_.28using_current_borders.29 It says in this article that 38.8% of Polish Jews ended up on the Soviet side and 61.2% on the German side. Thus, based on a pre-war Polish Jewish population of 3,351,000 (source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/angap03.asp ), about 1,300,000 Polish Jews ended up on the Soviet side and about 2,050,000 Jews ended up on the German side in 1939 after the invasion of Poland. Futurist110 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

David Brumbach...

hi and i hope you are well. i was wondering why there is no web page about David Brumbach, the Lancaster, Pa. artist, on WikipediA..? There is a lot of web info on this artist and some of his works are in local, state, and national museums, as well as personal. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.49.65 (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed your email address. Believe me you don't want it here. The web page about David Brumbach isn't here because nobody's written it yet! Be bold. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Taxes in Belgium?

There's a thread at meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Draft_budget_2012-2013#Personnel_Budget about payroll taxes in Belgium, referencing a proposed WCA budget that is based on the notion that $96k euros in salary is appropriate for the head of their chapters organization, and that payroll taxes in Belgium are $86k. Now I only want to ask:

• Are Belgium's payroll taxes really that high?
• If so, is there's a systematic difference in the gross salary between Belgium and other countries with lower payroll taxes, so that $96k "before tax" there is actually the same as a much higher amount "before tax" in other countries?
• In general, do Belgium residents get a lot more salary and pay a lot more tax than those in other countries, and if so, why would anyone hire there? Wnt (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Arabs/Muslims in France

How many Arabs are there in France, and how many of them actively practice Islam? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We have articles on Arabs in France and Muslims in France. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The French, famously, do not like statistics on ethnicity and religion, since they believe that it breaks with the French Republican tradition, i.e. citizens are first and foremost French and all are equal. The second reason given is WWII, where French Jews could easily be rounded up and sent to concentration camps, due the data that had been collected by French authorities. Therefore, those articles give estimates, only. I think the second question will be difficult to answer, since you ask how many actively practice. What do you mean by that? Does it mean going to the mosque fives time a day to pray, or praying five times a day and attending mosque on Fridays? Does it mean self-identifying as 'Moslem', (whatever a respondent might put in that label)? V85 (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, depending on which specific branch of Islam will change what "actively practicing" means; some sects that consider themselves Muslims are considered apostate by other sects (for example, the Alevi consider themselves to be Muslims, but there are some Muslim sects that do not). Self-identification is the only way to know for sure, and if the French government doesn't keep those statistics, you're going to have to go on other estimates. --Jayron32 22:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How exactly did France get info on Jews when their law banning asking about race/ethnicity/religion was implemented in 1872, way before WWII and the Holocaust? Futurist110 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

New laws were passed under the Vichy regime that Jews had to register with the police, and then further laws limited what they could do in society: See Vichy regime#Statute on Jews. V85 (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

South African Defence Force Benefit

Good day,

I would like to enquire about the members of the SADF that can perhaps claim a benefit if they attended compulsory service? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.31.44.102 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See "Veterans registration underway". DefenceWeb. 2012-07-06. Retrieved 2012-07-26. The short answer is that all military veterans are being asked to register so that they may receive benefits if they are/become destitute. It is definitely not a handout to all who served, the process is simply to establish elegibility for assistance if needed. Roger (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Belgian Monarch visiting Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi

When was the last time that a Belgian monarch ever visited Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.135 (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this notice and this report, King Albert II made a state visit to Congo from 28 June to 1 July 2010 (even though it's not mentioned at our article on List of state visits made by King Albert II of Belgium). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dutch monarch Suriname Indonesia

When was the last time that a Dutch monarch ever visited Suriname and Indonesia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.135 (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The previous Dutch monarch (Queen Juliana) visited Suriname in 1978; The current monarch (Queen Beatrix) has never visited Suriname since her accession to the throne in 1980, but she did visit Indonesia (last) in 1995. - Lindert (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly 1975 for Suriname: [5]. Rmhermen (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In what (English speaking) places do people pronounce the /ej/ cluster as /je/?

I thought they only did that in Northern Ireland and probably Jamaica but the singer from the Black Crowes —who AFAIK is American— says something like /əgjen/ here: [6] --Immerhin (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Singers often sing in dialects which are not native to themselves. This can be easily confirmed by listening to a singer speak and sing. Also, a singer may have an artistic reason for pronouncing a word differently: to fit the meter or rhythm of the song, or because a certain vowel sound carries the note differently, and the singer wants to impart a specific artistic sound to a word when it is sung. Singers are known to invent words out of whole cloth just to fit a song (i.e. pompatus), I don't find it outside of the realm of possibility that Chris Robinson would choose to sing that word they way he does for intentional artistic reasons, and not because it is his "learned" or "native" dialect. --Jayron32 22:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Constant returns to scale, increasing returns to scale and decreasing return to scale

In economics (production and costs section)

• As economies of scale states economies that exist when inputs are increased by some percentage and output increases by greater percentage, causing unit costs to fall. Is economies of scale similar to Increasing return to scale ?

• As Diseconomies scale states that the condition when inputs are increased by some percentage and output increses by a smaller percentage, causing unit costs to rise. Is diseconomies of scale similar to Decreasing return to scale ?

I am not an economics student. The book, I am currently following did not cover this topic clearly. But I have faced this two concept that makes me confused after visiting this page on Increasing, Decreasing, and Constant Returns to Scale. Thanks in advance--180.234.248.130 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems like very confusing terminology, which I would avoid, but yes, that seems to be what it means: [7]. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are (essentially) the same thing, depending on the exact definitions you're using. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

TRIO (program)

What does "TRIO" stand for? I found the Wikipedia article by accident while looking around for its meaning. Every page I could find, including its home page, uses just the acronym. 2001:18E8:2:1020:14CA:926D:7D1C:85A5 (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

'TRIO' is not an acronym, so it does not really stand for anything. The 'GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS', found on the website you linked to, defines TRIO as A group of grant programs under the HEA, originally three programs; not an acronym (source). - Lindert (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This question came up a couple of months ago. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 May 1#TRIO (program). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(OP here) Thanks for the help; I couldn't find the glossary. I've added to the article a statement about it not being an acronym and cited the glossary. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Romans in YEMEN?!?!

Did the Romans really occupy Ireland and Yemen?

Did the Romans really ever occupy western Arabia, Yemen, or southeast Ireland, as this map claims? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The colors on that map seem to indicate the level of Roman occupation: Green is land that was funtionally part of the Empire for an extended period of time, Pink are areas that were occupied briefly but never long enough to be fully incorporated into the Empire, while Cyan are areas that were claimed and invaded, but never actually occupied, by Rome. Thus, Ireland and Yemen, which were both claimed by Rome, were never actually occupied by Rome. See Arabia Felix for a little bit about the Roman attempt to occupy Southern Arabia and Hibernia mentions various attempts by Rome to annex Ireland. Basically, the cyan colors means that Rome tried and failed to annex those territories. --Jayron32 23:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There's also some info at Romans in Arabia. Yemen was of strategic importance because of its location on the sea trade route between Egypt and India. The Romans occupied Aden temporarily and had other garrisoned outposts in the region. Periplus of the Erythraean Sea might be interesting to read as well. Pfly (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably even more important for its role in the incense trade -- incense was necessary for many pagan religious rituals, and was exported in massive quantities from and through Yemen ("Arabia Felix") to the Roman empire... AnonMoos (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, if I understand right, by the Roman era traders had learned how to use the monsoon winds to sail direct from Yemen to India and back, across the open Indian Ocean, making the ports in Yemen and the Gulf of Aden generally more important as the places from which, and to which, these open ocean voyages were undertaken. Eudoxus of Cyzicus is said to have pioneered the monsoon sea route. Pfly (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask t(w)eenagers to give the source/article from which they have excerpted the map that drives them to scream at the ref desk? μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If you had bothered to click the image, you'd know that it's used in Borders of the Roman Empire and Romans in Persia. I fail to see how the OP's age is relevant in any way. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is your point that the OP, who has asked for special treatment before, deserves it in this case? Thanks for the links, although, having clicked on the image myself, I did not need them. And for not screaming. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

But isn't it amusing to see today's young people having their minds blown by history? Don't you remember having similar experiences when you were a kid? I remember when I discovered the Byzantine Empire, and the crusades, for example...even as an adult it happens sometimes, like a couple of years ago when I found the Sino-Roman relations article (which seems relevant here). So he's not yelling, he's just excited, and we should encourage excitement about history! Adam Bishop (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So... instead of clicking the image and just looking... you bothered to write a complaint, and then follow up two hours later to see if anybody had responded? I think it says something when someone is too lazy to click the image, but is driven enough to complain and complain about it. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are talking to me, since I did say I clicked on the image. But assuming you are talking to me, are you seriously taking the time to complain that I took the time to make a complaint? Do you disagree that regular posters should have enough sense and courtesy to provide links to what they are talking about when they have obviously taken the time to scream in bold italic allcaps? μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why it matters what articles the map is used in, if any. Note that what the OP was 'scream at the ref desk' about was the map itself not its use in article. This would suggest either the image or the caption of the image in the description was the source of complaint. Perhaps the article text or caption in the article was a problem as well (presuming the image even appeared in an article), but since the OP didn't comment on it, I don't get why it was necessary to complain about it, rather then just politely ask the OP if the problem also occured in any articles since we had no way of knowing a priori if the OP even came across the image from articles. Nil Einne (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure if the Romans ever controlled Yemen, but I don't know why the concept appears to be so surprising, considering that the Romans controlled large parts of the Middle East. Futurist110 (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

See Aelius Gallus... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is disturbing that the file history (click on the map and scroll down to see it) shows the first version of the map (linked to a book) with all of Egypt and none of Yemen in the Roman sphere. In the meanwhile additions and deletions changed Roman influence in Lybia, Egypt or Yemen considerably and seemingly at will. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really. There were three edits in 5 minutes by one editor - subsequently reverted - which sought to exclude any reference to Roman influence in modern Iran, southern Egypt and Sudan, and the Arabian peninsula (including Yemen). But, the current version is very similar to the original version, which seems to have been based on a 1995 Italian document. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

---

By the way, we have Template:Territories with limited Roman Empire occupation & presence... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)